More on mobile phones & other wireless devices



On 19 Apr 2007 14:56:04 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 19 Apr 2007 12:10:29 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 18 Apr 2007 14:34:52 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 Apr 2007 22:10:20 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Check out Dr. George Carlo's site www.safewireless.org/ You
>>>>>>>> can read his report to the CEO of AT&T and view a clip from
>>>>>>>> "Cell-Phone Wars", a recent doc on mobile phones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You can find a bio of this dude at
>>>>>>><http://www.tapsns.com/gallery.php?mode=profile&galleryid=3202>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It isn't clear what expertise he has regarding the interaction
>>>>>>>of electromagnetic radiation with matter, particularly when the
>>>>>>>frequency is too low
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cell phone frequency is "low"? What planet are you from? If cell
>>>>>> phone radiation didn't interact with matter, they wouldn't work!
>>>>>> DUH!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to cause ionization and when the power level
>>>>>>>is so low that heating is negligible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My guess is that Vanderman is beating the bushes and if you do
>>>>>>>that long enough, you can find someone who will say anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>>1) What frequency and power levels do cell phone use today??
>>>>
>>>> "Cell Phone - A wireless telephone that sends and receives messages
>>>> using radiofrequency energy in the 800-900 megahertz portion of the
>>>> radiofrequency (RF) spectrum."
>>>>
>>>> What's "low" about that? It's a microwave frequency, like a
>>>> microwave oven: "[a microwave oven] operates at a frequency of
>>>> either 915 or 2450 millioncycles per second":
>>>>
>>>> "Microwaves - A subset of radio waves that have frequencies ranging
>>>> from around 300 million waves per second (300 MHz) to three billion
>>>> waves per second (3 GHz)."
>>>>
>>>> So it "cooks" your brain slowly, which is why it has been shown to
>>>> cause tumors on the auditory nerve..
>>>
>>>You have no idea what you are talking about do you?
>>>
>>>
>>>I wail make this as simple as I can for you.
>>>
>>>300MHz to 3GHz is in the RF spectrum (longer wavelengths) and in
>>>entire spectrum is relitily low frequency
>>>see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency
>>>
>>>Much higher frequencies (lower wave lengths) that are all around you
>>>all the time, like visible light for example
>>>see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
>>>
>>>What 'cooks' food in a microwave oven is a particular frequency (wave
>>>length) that 'excites' water/fat at 2.45 GHz.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven

>>
>> "[a microwave oven] operates at a frequency of either 915 or
>> 2450 millioncycles per second"
>>
>> In other words, 915 Mhz is also capable of cooking you, and cell phone
>> frequencies are very close to that. Of course, nothing in this message
>> proves that they are safe, which they are NOT. DUH!

>
>Cell phone AVOID the 915 MHz freq also. The closest cell freq is 14 Mhz
>away.


That is pretty close! You can't guarantee that cell phones aren't
harmful.

>I believe I am having a discussion with an idiot.
>
>'Close' is not good enough, very specific frequencies are needed to
>'excite' water (i.e. your brain)


The brain is more than water! DUH!

>The very lower power emitted from cell phone is 125 mWatts has not be
>shown to be unsafe to humans.


You are LYING. It has been shown to cause tumors.

>Low power Microwave ovens , type that is used in a home, areare 1000
>Watts, or about 8000 times more powerful.


So what? The cell phone is usually placed right next to the temple,
where it can do the MAXIMUM damage. Russian roulette comes to mind.

>Please do not try to link Microwave ovens and cell phones.
>
>I do not feel constant cell phone use is safe myself, especially for the
>young. Any type of microwave energy (800, 900 MHz 2.4 Ghz) at the
>lowest engeries (125mW) at 2 - 3 cm from your brain cant be healthy. I
>dont own one.
>
>But.... Cell phones DO NOT COOK YOUR BRAIN. May cause cancer.


I don't think you know what you are talking about. There is no
evidence of cancer. But there IS evidence of tumors. Do your homework,
before opening your mouth.

>>>You will notice that frequencies that cell phone use AVOIDS that
>>>particular frequency that microwave ovens do
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies
>>>
>>>That is done for 2 reasons:
>>> 1) Cell phone companies are tring to avoid 'cooking' thier
>>> customers 2) Microwave ovens would interfere with cell operation
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>2) What is ionizing radiation and how is it created?
>>>>>
>>>>>3) Please relate items 1) and 2) above
>>>>
>>>> What for? A microwave oven can kill you, regardless of whether it
>>>> uses ionizing radiation or not. What you're saying, in other words,
>>>> is that it's okay to cook your brain, as long as it's done slowly.
>>>>
>>>>>Please stick to subjects you have a glimmer of knowledge about.
>>>>>
>>>>>DUH back at you
>>>>>
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that
>>>>>> you are fond of!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>
>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>>>> are fond of!
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>> are fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:35:50 -0700, cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2007 12:10:29 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 18 Apr 2007 14:34:52 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 Apr 2007 22:10:20 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Check out Dr. George Carlo's site www.safewireless.org/ You can
>>>>>>>> read his report to the CEO of AT&T and view a clip from
>>>>>>>> "Cell-Phone Wars", a recent doc on mobile phones.
>>>>>>> You can find a bio of this dude at
>>>>>>> <http://www.tapsns.com/gallery.php?mode=profile&galleryid=3202>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It isn't clear what expertise he has regarding the interaction
>>>>>>> of electromagnetic radiation with matter, particularly when the
>>>>>>> frequency is too low
>>>>>> Cell phone frequency is "low"? What planet are you from? If cell
>>>>>> phone radiation didn't interact with matter, they wouldn't work!
>>>>>> DUH!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to cause ionization and when the power level
>>>>>>> is so low that heating is negligible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My guess is that Vanderman is beating the bushes and if you do
>>>>>>> that long enough, you can find someone who will say anything.
>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) What frequency and power levels do cell phone use today??
>>>> "Cell Phone - A wireless telephone that sends and receives messages
>>>> using radiofrequency energy in the 800-900 megahertz portion of the
>>>> radiofrequency (RF) spectrum."
>>>>
>>>> What's "low" about that? It's a microwave frequency, like a microwave
>>>> oven: "[a microwave oven] operates at a frequency of either 915 or
>>>> 2450 millioncycles per second":
>>>>
>>>> "Microwaves - A subset of radio waves that have frequencies ranging
>>>> from around 300 million waves per second (300 MHz) to three billion
>>>> waves per second (3 GHz)."
>>>>
>>>> So it "cooks" your brain slowly, which is why it has been shown to
>>>> cause tumors on the auditory nerve..
>>> You have no idea what you are talking about do you?
>>>
>>>
>>> I wail make this as simple as I can for you.
>>>
>>> 300MHz to 3GHz is in the RF spectrum (longer wavelengths) and in entire
>>> spectrum is relitily low frequency
>>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency
>>>
>>> Much higher frequencies (lower wave lengths) that are all around you all
>>> the time, like visible light for example
>>> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
>>>
>>> What 'cooks' food in a microwave oven is a particular frequency (wave
>>> length) that 'excites' water/fat at 2.45 GHz.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven

>>
>> "[a microwave oven] operates at a frequency of either 915 or
>> 2450 millioncycles per second"
>>
>> In other words, 915 Mhz is also capable of cooking you, and cell phone
>> frequencies are very close to that. Of course, nothing in this message
>> proves that they are safe, which they are NOT. DUH!
>>

>
>As Chris pointed out, microwave
>radiation excites a particular rotation
>mode in the water molecule.


You have no idea if it also has other effects. Similar radiation has
been shown to break down the blood-brain barrier, which can allow
toxis substances into the brain.

All this
>does is increase the temperature.


That's obviously not good! ESPECIALLY in the brain.

This
>is totally different than what is
>expected to cause cancer, which are
>mutations caused my DNA scission or
>other damage to genetic material - what
>someone else termed "ionizing
>radiation". Do your own research, Mike.


Have you been following this thread??? No one is suggesting that cell
phone use causes cancer. I said that there is evidence that it causes
tumors on the auditory nerve. Learn to listen.

>>> You will notice that frequencies that cell phone use AVOIDS that
>>> particular frequency that microwave ovens do
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies
>>>
>>> That is done for 2 reasons:
>>> 1) Cell phone companies are tring to avoid 'cooking' thier customers
>>> 2) Microwave ovens would interfere with cell operation
>>>
>>>>> 2) What is ionizing radiation and how is it created?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Please relate items 1) and 2) above
>>>> What for? A microwave oven can kill you, regardless of whether it uses
>>>> ionizing radiation or not. What you're saying, in other words, is that
>>>> it's okay to cook your brain, as long as it's done slowly.
>>>>
>>>>> Please stick to subjects you have a glimmer of knowledge about.
>>>>>
>>>>> DUH back at you
>>>>>
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>>>>>> are fond of!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
>>>>>>
>>>> ===
>>>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>>>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>>>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>>>
>>>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you
>>>> are fond of!
>>>>
>>>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:25:10 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 19 Apr 2007 12:10:29 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >What 'cooks' food in a microwave oven is a particular frequency (wave
>> >length) that 'excites' water/fat at 2.45 GHz.
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven

>>
>> "[a microwave oven] operates at a frequency of either 915 or
>> 2450 millioncycles per second"
>>
>> In other words, 915 Mhz is also capable of cooking you, and cell phone
>> frequencies are very close to that. Of course, nothing in this message
>> proves that they are safe, which they are NOT. DUH!

>
>Instead of being reduced to silly statements like "duh", I suggest
>Vanderman pick up a graduate-level text on electricity and magnetism,
>plus a few books on quantum mechanics so that he can understand what
>is going on. The width in frequency of these transitions can be quite
>narrow (and depends on the lifetime of excited states - the longer the
>lifetime, the narrower the width).
>
>I'm not going to go into the details - it would take far too long to
>explain, and there is no point in my writing a physics textbook for
>Vanderman's edification.


In case you didn't notice, we aren't talking about physics, and it's
pretty irrelevant. When medical research shows that cell phone use
causes tumors on the auditory nerve, no amount of hand-waving and
name-dropping can explain that away. Please explain why you think it's
IMPOSSIBLE for cell phones to do damage.

>> >>
>> >>>2) What is ionizing radiation and how is it created?
>> >>>
>> >>>3) Please relate items 1) and 2) above
>> >>
>> >> What for? A microwave oven can kill you, regardless of whether it uses
>> >> ionizing radiation or not. What you're saying, in other words, is that
>> >> it's okay to cook your brain, as long as it's done slowly.

>
>Because a single photon at a sufficiently high frequency is enough to
>ionize something, whereas to cook you, you need enough energy to
>raise your body temperature to the point where you willl actually
>be cooked.
>
>The furnace/wall heater in your house can be used to cook you too,
>provided that you raise ambient temperature sufficiently (which
>would require a small room and good insulation).

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:27:24 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:59:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 17 Apr 2007 22:10:20 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> Cell phone frequency is "low"? What planet are you from? If cell phone
>> >> radiation didn't interact with matter, they wouldn't work! DUH!
>> >
>> >Vandeman, you would look like less of a liar if you would at least
>> >reply to full sentences: I stated that it is "too low to cause ionization",
>> >and that is a fact. It is simply dishonest to try to put words in
>> >people's mouths.

>>
>> BS. I quoted you verbatim.

>
>You quoted only one half of a short clause, pretending "low" did not
>mean "too low to cause ionization",


Irrelevant.

the latter being what was actually
>said.

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:00:18 GMT, You <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What's "low" about that? It's a microwave frequency, like a microwave
>> oven: "[a microwave oven] operates at a frequency of either 915 or
>> 2450 millioncycles per second":

>
>Bzzzt Wrong Answer, from a PHd yet..... Must be Phd in "Basket Weaving"
>because this Idiot Obviously doesn't have ANY Knowledge of
>ElectroMagnetic Emmissions. 900 Mhz is a UHF Frequency. UHF is DEFINED
>as Frequencies between 300Mhz and 3000Mhz. Microwaves START at 3000Mhz
>and go up in frequency from there.


I didn't name them "microwave ovens", but that's what they are called,
whether you like it or not. Of course, this is all irrelevant to the
danger of radiation from cell phones.

..... Before you open your PieHole,
>again, Mikey.... Do the World a favor, and get your Definitions
>Correct....

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>>
>>> BS. I quoted you verbatim.

>>
>>You quoted only one half of a short clause, pretending "low" did not
>>mean "too low to cause ionization",

>
> Irrelevant.
>


Yeah, facts are always irrelevant to you.
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:25:10 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 19 Apr 2007 12:10:29 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >What 'cooks' food in a microwave oven is a particular frequency (wave
> >> >length) that 'excites' water/fat at 2.45 GHz.
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven
> >>
> >> "[a microwave oven] operates at a frequency of either 915 or
> >> 2450 millioncycles per second"
> >>
> >> In other words, 915 Mhz is also capable of cooking you, and cell phone
> >> frequencies are very close to that. Of course, nothing in this message
> >> proves that they are safe, which they are NOT. DUH!

> >
> >Instead of being reduced to silly statements like "duh", I suggest
> >Vanderman pick up a graduate-level text on electricity and magnetism,
> >plus a few books on quantum mechanics so that he can understand what
> >is going on. The width in frequency of these transitions can be quite
> >narrow (and depends on the lifetime of excited states - the longer the
> >lifetime, the narrower the width).
> >
> >I'm not going to go into the details - it would take far too long to
> >explain, and there is no point in my writing a physics textbook for
> >Vanderman's edification.

>
> In case you didn't notice, we aren't talking about physics, and it's
> pretty irrelevant.


No, it is highly relevant. You claimed that one could be "cooked"
by a cell phone (i.e., heated) and ignored the fact that the absoption
or radiation is highly frequency dependent when hf equals the
excitation energy. Simply saying the frequency is "close" in some
unqualified sense is not good enough.

> When medical research shows that cell phone use
> causes tumors on the auditory nerve, no amount of hand-waving and
> name-dropping can explain that away. Please explain why you think it's
> IMPOSSIBLE for cell phones to do damage.


The "research" shows at best a very low risk of tumors for unknown
reasons (and is not very convincing). There is no direct physical
evidence that electromagnetic radiation is responsible. The normal
cause of radiation-induced tumors (ionization) requires frequencies
many orders of magnitudes higher than those used in a cell phone.

Can you show that being subjected to continual loud noise does not
cause such tumors? You do know that some individuals tend to use
cell phones in very noisy environments, don't you?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:27:24 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> BS. I quoted you verbatim.

> >
> >You quoted only one half of a short clause, pretending "low" did not
> >mean "too low to cause ionization",

>
> Irrelevant.
>


LOL. Highly relevant - you were caught lying.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:25:10 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 19 Apr 2007 12:10:29 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >What 'cooks' food in a microwave oven is a particular frequency (wave
>> >> >length) that 'excites' water/fat at 2.45 GHz.
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven
>> >>
>> >> "[a microwave oven] operates at a frequency of either 915 or
>> >> 2450 millioncycles per second"
>> >>
>> >> In other words, 915 Mhz is also capable of cooking you, and cell phone
>> >> frequencies are very close to that. Of course, nothing in this message
>> >> proves that they are safe, which they are NOT. DUH!
>> >
>> >Instead of being reduced to silly statements like "duh", I suggest
>> >Vanderman pick up a graduate-level text on electricity and magnetism,
>> >plus a few books on quantum mechanics so that he can understand what
>> >is going on. The width in frequency of these transitions can be quite
>> >narrow (and depends on the lifetime of excited states - the longer the
>> >lifetime, the narrower the width).
>> >
>> >I'm not going to go into the details - it would take far too long to
>> >explain, and there is no point in my writing a physics textbook for
>> >Vanderman's edification.

>>
>> In case you didn't notice, we aren't talking about physics, and it's
>> pretty irrelevant.

>
>No, it is highly relevant. You claimed that one could be "cooked"
>by a cell phone (i.e., heated) and ignored the fact that the absoption
>or radiation is highly frequency dependent when hf equals the
>excitation energy. Simply saying the frequency is "close" in some
>unqualified sense is not good enough.


As far as I can see, you have nothing specific to say. That implies
that you don't know anything about the subject.

>> When medical research shows that cell phone use
>> causes tumors on the auditory nerve, no amount of hand-waving and
>> name-dropping can explain that away. Please explain why you think it's
>> IMPOSSIBLE for cell phones to do damage.

>
>The "research" shows at best a very low risk of tumors for unknown
>reasons (and is not very convincing).


Nonsense. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the tumors are
always on the side where the phone is held.

There is no direct physical
>evidence that electromagnetic radiation is responsible. The normal
>cause of radiation-induced tumors (ionization) requires frequencies
>many orders of magnitudes higher than those used in a cell phone.
>
>Can you show that being subjected to continual loud noise does not
>cause such tumors? You do know that some individuals tend to use
>cell phones in very noisy environments, don't you?


Nonsense. You can't carry on a conversation in a noisy environment,
and noise doesn't JUST enter the ear where the phone is held. DUH! You
don't have a leg to stand on. Explain why they found tuumors related
to cell phone use. Science trumps your ignorant speculation.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:21:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:27:24 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> BS. I quoted you verbatim.
>> >
>> >You quoted only one half of a short clause, pretending "low" did not
>> >mean "too low to cause ionization",

>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>

>
>LOL. Highly relevant - you were caught lying.


Now you ARE lying. Quote my alleged "lie". (Hint: you CAN'T; there
wasn't one.)
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:25:10 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 19 Apr 2007 12:10:29 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >What 'cooks' food in a microwave oven is a particular frequency (wave
>> >> >length) that 'excites' water/fat at 2.45 GHz.
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven
>> >>
>> >> "[a microwave oven] operates at a frequency of either 915 or
>> >> 2450 millioncycles per second"
>> >>
>> >> In other words, 915 Mhz is also capable of cooking you, and cell phone
>> >> frequencies are very close to that. Of course, nothing in this message
>> >> proves that they are safe, which they are NOT. DUH!
>> >
>> >Instead of being reduced to silly statements like "duh", I suggest
>> >Vanderman pick up a graduate-level text on electricity and magnetism,
>> >plus a few books on quantum mechanics so that he can understand what
>> >is going on. The width in frequency of these transitions can be quite
>> >narrow (and depends on the lifetime of excited states - the longer the
>> >lifetime, the narrower the width).
>> >
>> >I'm not going to go into the details - it would take far too long to
>> >explain, and there is no point in my writing a physics textbook for
>> >Vanderman's edification.

>>
>> In case you didn't notice, we aren't talking about physics, and it's
>> pretty irrelevant.

>
>No, it is highly relevant. You claimed that one could be "cooked"
>by a cell phone (i.e., heated) and ignored the fact that the absoption
>or radiation is highly frequency dependent when hf equals the
>excitation energy. Simply saying the frequency is "close" in some
>unqualified sense is not good enough.
>
>> When medical research shows that cell phone use
>> causes tumors on the auditory nerve, no amount of hand-waving and
>> name-dropping can explain that away. Please explain why you think it's
>> IMPOSSIBLE for cell phones to do damage.

>
>The "research" shows at best a very low risk of tumors for unknown
>reasons (and is not very convincing). There is no direct physical
>evidence that electromagnetic radiation is responsible. The normal
>cause of radiation-induced tumors (ionization) requires frequencies
>many orders of magnitudes higher than those used in a cell phone.
>
>Can you show that being subjected to continual loud noise does not
>cause such tumors? You do know that some individuals tend to use
>cell phones in very noisy environments, don't you?


How about something more relevant?:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/cell-phone-antennas-health-faq/:

Copyright: (c) 1996-2003 John E. Moulder & The Medical College of
Wisconsin
Author: John E. Moulder <[email protected]>

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Mobile Phone Base Station
Antennas and Human Health

"There might be some reasons to be concerned about human health
effects
from the hand-held mobile phones themselves (although it is not known
that any risks to human health actually exist). These concerns exist
because the antennas of hand-held phones deliver much of their RF
energy to very small volumes of the user's body."
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:21:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:27:24 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> BS. I quoted you verbatim.
> >> >
> >> >You quoted only one half of a short clause, pretending "low" did not
> >> >mean "too low to cause ionization",
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.
> >>

> >
> >LOL. Highly relevant - you were caught lying.

>
> Now you ARE lying. Quote my alleged "lie". (Hint: you CAN'T; there
> wasn't one.)


Vandeman, you lied by turning the phrase "too low to cause ionization"
into an unqualified "low". That sort of behavior is at best sloppy
at at worst completely dishonest. Given that it was pointed out to
you and that you didn't simply admit a mistake, the most likely
explanation is that you lied through your teeth.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >The "research" shows at best a very low risk of tumors for unknown
> >reasons (and is not very convincing). There is no direct physical
> >evidence that electromagnetic radiation is responsible. The normal
> >cause of radiation-induced tumors (ionization) requires frequencies
> >many orders of magnitudes higher than those used in a cell phone.
> >
> >Can you show that being subjected to continual loud noise does not
> >cause such tumors? You do know that some individuals tend to use
> >cell phones in very noisy environments, don't you?

>
> How about something more relevant?:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/cell-phone-antennas-health-faq/:
>
> Copyright: (c) 1996-2003 John E. Moulder & The Medical College of
> Wisconsin
> Author: John E. Moulder <[email protected]>
>
> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Mobile Phone Base Station
> Antennas and Human Health


What a joke! You snipped the first part:

:: From: [email protected] (John Moulder)
:: Newsgroups: sci.med.physics, sci.physics.electromag
:: Subject: Cell Phone Antennas & Health FAQs
:: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:02:40 -0500
:: Message-ID: <[email protected]>
:: Reply-To: [email protected] (John Moulder)
:: Summary: A series of Q&As on wireless communication (including cell
:: phone) base station antennas and human health.
:: Keywords: cellular, phone, mobile, PCS, health, antennas, EMF, cancer, FCC, tower, mast, RF
:: User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8
::
:: Archive-name: medicine/cell-phone-antennas-health-faq
:: NPosting-Frequency: monthly
:: Last-modified: 7 June 2003
:: Version: 4.9.3

This is the usenet posting of some character who apparently thinks
these musings are of any possible interest to a group called
"sci.physics.electromag". In spite of that, you own citation
claims you are (to be polite) exaggerating:

> (although it is not known that any risks to human health actually
> exist).


Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
known that any risks to human health actually exist".


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Apr 19, 11:58 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:


>
> > (although it is not known that any risks to human health actually
> > exist).

>
> Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
> known that any risks to human health actually exist".
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You smoked 'im, Bill! Tom
 
On 19 Apr 2007 23:49:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:21:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:27:24 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BS. I quoted you verbatim.
>> >> >
>> >> >You quoted only one half of a short clause, pretending "low" did not
>> >> >mean "too low to cause ionization",
>> >>
>> >> Irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >
>> >LOL. Highly relevant - you were caught lying.

>>
>> Now you ARE lying. Quote my alleged "lie". (Hint: you CAN'T; there
>> wasn't one.)

>
>Vandeman, you lied by turning the phrase "too low to cause ionization"
>into an unqualified "low". That sort of behavior is at best sloppy
>at at worst completely dishonest. Given that it was pointed out to
>you and that you didn't simply admit a mistake, the most likely
>explanation is that you lied through your teeth.


Pure BS. All I did was split the line so I could respond to your use
of the word "low" for something that isn't very low.

I know you'd much prefer to talk about anything but the fact that cell
phones are harmful and have been proven to cause tumors.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 20 Apr 2007 00:57:36 -0700, tom <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Apr 19, 11:58 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

>
>>
>> > (although it is not known that any risks to human health actually
>> > exist).

>>
>> Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
>> known that any risks to human health actually exist".
>>
>> --
>> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
>You smoked 'im, Bill! Tom


In your dreams.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 19 Apr 2007 23:49:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:21:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >> >LOL. Highly relevant - you were caught lying.
> >>
> >> Now you ARE lying. Quote my alleged "lie". (Hint: you CAN'T; there
> >> wasn't one.)

> >
> >Vandeman, you lied by turning the phrase "too low to cause ionization"
> >into an unqualified "low". That sort of behavior is at best sloppy
> >at at worst completely dishonest. Given that it was pointed out to
> >you and that you didn't simply admit a mistake, the most likely
> >explanation is that you lied through your teeth.

>
> Pure BS. All I did was split the line so I could respond to your use
> of the word "low" for something that isn't very low.


Pure truth on my part: the frequencies used for cell phones are very
low compared to those of visible light, much less the even higher
frequencies needed for ionization. You were intellectually dishonest
(i.e., you lied) by pretending I had said something quite different.

> I know you'd much prefer to talk about anything but the fact that cell
> phones are harmful and have been proven to cause tumors.


Actually, I'd prefer to talk about physics, a subject you apparently
know nothing about. :) And the URL you cited to back up your claim
stated that any harmful effects had not been proven!

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 19 Apr 2007 23:58:24 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> How about something more relevant?:
> >>
> >> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/cell-phone-antennas-health-faq/:
> >>
> >> Copyright: (c) 1996-2003 John E. Moulder & The Medical College of
> >> Wisconsin
> >> Author: John E. Moulder <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Mobile Phone Base Station
> >> Antennas and Human Health

> >
> >What a joke! You snipped the first part:
> >
> >:: From: [email protected] (John Moulder)
> >:: Newsgroups: sci.med.physics, sci.physics.electromag
> >:: Subject: Cell Phone Antennas & Health FAQs
> >:: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:02:40 -0500
> >:: Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> >:: Reply-To: [email protected] (John Moulder)
> >:: Summary: A series of Q&As on wireless communication (including cell
> >:: phone) base station antennas and human health.
> >:: Keywords: cellular, phone, mobile, PCS, health, antennas, EMF, cancer, FCC, tower, mast, RF
> >:: User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8
> >::
> >:: Archive-name: medicine/cell-phone-antennas-health-faq
> >:: NPosting-Frequency: monthly
> >:: Last-modified: 7 June 2003
> >:: Version: 4.9.3
> >
> >This is the usenet posting of some character who apparently thinks
> >these musings are of any possible interest to a group called
> >"sci.physics.electromag". In spite of that, you own citation
> >claims you are (to be polite) exaggerating:
> >
> >> (although it is not known that any risks to human health actually
> >> exist).

> >
> >Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
> >known that any risks to human health actually exist".

>
> Maybe because that was 3 YEARS before this, idiot:


Then why the f___ did you provide that particular URL. You made a
claim.

>
> >http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-rxcell01feb01,0,7105692.story
> >
> >Cell phone risks cited in studies
> >
> >Three groups find danger of tumors
> >
> >By Nancy McVicar
> >South Florida Sun-Sentinel Health Writer
> >Posted February 1 2006


LOL. You are reduced to believing the musings of someone who works at
a newspaper?

> >Two of the studies found a correlation between the tumor's location
> >and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone.
> >One also suggests the greatest risk is in people who began using the
> >phones before age 20, but researchers said the study group was small
> >and more research should be done.


I.e., there was nothing conclusive due to tiny sample sizes, and even
less to indicate that the cause of any effect, if real, is electromagnetic
radiation and not something else.

Before making any claims regarding cell phone use, you can first
explain what was done to control for the following:

1. Are these tumors associated with sound intensity
given that some people turn the volume up way too far
with a variety of elctronic devices, particularly when
they use earphones.

2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
one is right handed or left handed in the general population?

3. Do the same people use iPods, MP3 players, or other devices
that produce loud music, and which ear to they put the earplug
in?

If you can't answer those questions, all you have is a correlation
for unknown reasons, some of which may be only incidentally correlated
with cell phone use.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On 20 Apr 2007 16:17:49 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 19 Apr 2007 23:58:24 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> How about something more relevant?:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/cell-phone-antennas-health-faq/:
>> >>
>> >> Copyright: (c) 1996-2003 John E. Moulder & The Medical College of
>> >> Wisconsin
>> >> Author: John E. Moulder <[email protected]>
>> >>
>> >> Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Mobile Phone Base Station
>> >> Antennas and Human Health
>> >
>> >What a joke! You snipped the first part:
>> >
>> >:: From: [email protected] (John Moulder)
>> >:: Newsgroups: sci.med.physics, sci.physics.electromag
>> >:: Subject: Cell Phone Antennas & Health FAQs
>> >:: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:02:40 -0500
>> >:: Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>> >:: Reply-To: [email protected] (John Moulder)
>> >:: Summary: A series of Q&As on wireless communication (including cell
>> >:: phone) base station antennas and human health.
>> >:: Keywords: cellular, phone, mobile, PCS, health, antennas, EMF, cancer, FCC, tower, mast, RF
>> >:: User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8
>> >::
>> >:: Archive-name: medicine/cell-phone-antennas-health-faq
>> >:: NPosting-Frequency: monthly
>> >:: Last-modified: 7 June 2003
>> >:: Version: 4.9.3
>> >
>> >This is the usenet posting of some character who apparently thinks
>> >these musings are of any possible interest to a group called
>> >"sci.physics.electromag". In spite of that, you own citation
>> >claims you are (to be polite) exaggerating:
>> >
>> >> (although it is not known that any risks to human health actually
>> >> exist).
>> >
>> >Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
>> >known that any risks to human health actually exist".

>>
>> Maybe because that was 3 YEARS before this, idiot:

>
>Then why the f___ did you provide that particular URL. You made a
>claim.


Probably for the same reason that you deliberately deleted the text I
sent. What are you aftraid of, that you have to remove information?

>> >http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-rxcell01feb01,0,7105692.story
>> >
>> >Cell phone risks cited in studies
>> >
>> >Three groups find danger of tumors
>> >
>> >By Nancy McVicar
>> >South Florida Sun-Sentinel Health Writer
>> >Posted February 1 2006

>
>LOL. You are reduced to believing the musings of someone who works at
>a newspaper?


"Musings". Tell the truth (I know, you can't). She was reporting the
results of research studies. Obviously, you don't want information you
don't like, whatever the source.

>> >Two of the studies found a correlation between the tumor's location
>> >and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone.
>> >One also suggests the greatest risk is in people who began using the
>> >phones before age 20, but researchers said the study group was small
>> >and more research should be done.

>
>I.e., there was nothing conclusive due to tiny sample sizes, and even
>less to indicate that the cause of any effect, if real, is electromagnetic
>radiation and not something else.


That's not what they said. It's purely routine to ask for more
research.

>Before making any claims regarding cell phone use, you can first
>explain what was done to control for the following:
>
> 1. Are these tumors associated with sound intensity
> given that some people turn the volume up way too far
> with a variety of elctronic devices, particularly when
> they use earphones.


That's ludicrous.. Loud sound doesn't cause TUMORS. Otherwise, rock
musicians would be full of them, and we would have heard of it before
now. You are grasping at straws.

> 2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
> one is right handed or left handed in the general population?


Irrelevant. They are correlated with WHERE THE CELL PHONE WAS HELD.

> 3. Do the same people use iPods, MP3 players, or other devices
> that produce loud music, and which ear to they put the earplug
> in?


Ludicrous. Loud sound doesn't cause TUMORS. Otherwise, rock musicians
would be full of them, and we would have heard of it before now. You
are grasping at straws.

>If you can't answer those questions, all you have is a correlation
>for unknown reasons, some of which may be only incidentally correlated
>with cell phone use.


You are grasping at straws, and obviously know NOTHING of this
subject. You aren't even aware of the research that has been done. You
are just another egomaniacal electronics nerd.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 20 Apr 2007 16:04:28 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 19 Apr 2007 23:49:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:21:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >LOL. Highly relevant - you were caught lying.
>> >>
>> >> Now you ARE lying. Quote my alleged "lie". (Hint: you CAN'T; there
>> >> wasn't one.)
>> >
>> >Vandeman, you lied by turning the phrase "too low to cause ionization"
>> >into an unqualified "low". That sort of behavior is at best sloppy
>> >at at worst completely dishonest. Given that it was pointed out to
>> >you and that you didn't simply admit a mistake, the most likely
>> >explanation is that you lied through your teeth.

>>
>> Pure BS. All I did was split the line so I could respond to your use
>> of the word "low" for something that isn't very low.

>
>Pure truth on my part: the frequencies used for cell phones are very
>low compared to those of visible light, much less the even higher
>frequencies needed for ionization. You were intellectually dishonest
>(i.e., you lied) by pretending I had said something quite different.
>
>> I know you'd much prefer to talk about anything but the fact that cell
>> phones are harmful and have been proven to cause tumors.

>
>Actually, I'd prefer to talk about physics, a subject you apparently
>know nothing about.


There you go, LYING again. I know enough to know that you are
bluffing. You know NOTHING about health impacts. You just like to show
off your nerdiness.

:) And the URL you cited to back up your claim
>stated that any harmful effects had not been proven!


Scientists are cautious, and ALWAYS say that. Research on effects that
take decades to occur is inherently difficult, due to the short
lifespan of the researchers. That's why many of them use fruit flies
instead of human subjects.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 

Similar threads