Re: _Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette -- A Historical and Scientific Perspective_, by Robert C. KaneMike Vandeman <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:01:28 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Z.) wrote:
> .Mike Vandeman <email@example.com> writes:
> .> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 02:12:16 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Z.) wrote:
> .> That's subjective. Give us a NUMBER.
> .The text below *gives* you some numbers. Why don't you read the
> .friggin post before replying?
> You are just repeatedly displaying your ignorance. 1/10 watt is meaningless
> unless you say how much each cc of brain tissue absorbs.
Hey moron, I gave you the number if 100% of that 1/10 watt is absorbed.
It is *still* too low to cause a significant increase in temperture.
> .> A cell phone
> .> .transmits at around 1/2 watt the same in all directions around its
> .> .antenna's axis. So you have under 1/4 watt available to heat you
> .> .head, and most of that radiation passes through, so you are going
> .> .to have under 1/10 of a watt absorbed by the brain and skull (possibly
> .> .significantly under that value.) Meanwhile, it takes 4.2 joules to
> .> .raise the temperature of water 1 degree Celsius. <snip>
> .> You obviously don't know ANYTHING about the subject of health impacts of EMF!
> .> The STANDARD is 1-10 mw/cm^2, and is insufficient to protect one from harm.
> .> Biological harm has been demonstrated down to 1 micro-watt/cm^2. 1/10 watt is
> .> 10-100 times the standard. Do your homework first. Come back when you know
> .> something about the subject.
> .Sigh. 1/10 of a watt is the total *power* absorbed. Even if you take
> .half the output of the cell phone (about 0.25 watts), and divide by
> .the area covered by one side of a head (about 100 cm^2), you get 2.5
> .mw/cm^2, which is in the range you just claimed is safe according to
> .the standards.
> Now you are lying again. I didn't say it was "safe". You FABRICATED
> that. In fact, I said that even values BELOW the standard are not
> safe. Do you have that much trouble listening?
You said it was the "standard", and standards for that are set to be
safe to the best of our knowledge.
> .Instead of pontificating about "doing your homework", I'd suggest you
> .take a remedial course in high school physics. Even at that level,
> .people generally know that you have to divide the power in watts by
> .an area to get the numbers you were using.
> And you just proved my point: the radiation from a cell phone is
> above the standard -- a standard that is too high by 2-3 orders of
> magnitude to protect us. If you knew anything about the subject we
> are discussing, you would know that. You keep repeating the only
> thing you know about, which is radiation IN A VACUUM (i.e., in a
I gave you the results for radiation inside a conductor, and you
ignored that. The ideat that the standard is "too high" by "2-3
orders of magnitude" is simply an unsubstantiated conjecture of
BTW, in case you don't know, you are surrounded by electromagnetic
radiation from natural sources: at room temperature, a blackbody emits
about 45 mW for every square cm of surface area. (Actually, I rounded
to 300 K.) The frequency where the spectrum reaches its maximum,
however, is well above the range used by cell phones (but MV had
previously decided to discount frequency as a factor for some
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB