Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

"zentara" <zentara@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:ih5em25t9hovu0evor0kljn6f84revo5jl@4ax.com...
>
> I would worry about cell phones. They now admit that cell phone
> radiation will cause a heating of a portion of the brain. A recent
> news clip I saw, said that it may cause some involuntary muscle
> spasms , like you suddenly getting twitch in your arm.
>

Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order of
magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain; walking in the
sunshine is much more significant. Imagine - we expose ourselves to the
radiation of a thermonuclear reaction so intense it heats our skin and will
severely burn it after only a few hours of exposure, yet we live.

You are right about the heating effects of RF, though. The two big concerns
are the eyes and testicles. Both are the "right" size to absorb RF in the
microwave range and both are sensitive to heat. Heating of the testicles can
cause temporary or permanent sterility while heating of the eye can cause
cataracts. The eye is especially susceptible because there is no circulation
to cool the interior of the eye. Heating cooks proteins in the lens to
produce cataracts, and that is the primary focus of the FCC rules for
exposure.

Sterility is more theoretical. My father was a radar tech in WWII (he had a
Marine with a .45 assigned to him to "protect the country's secrets"). He
told me about the many times he warmed himself in front of the radar dishes
and that he was told he would be sterile. That was before my four brothers
and I were born.

I realize this is an international forum and other countries have different
regulations, but here in the US the FCC is very aggressive about exposure
limits. The FCC gets major funding through fines and will jump on any
possibility of excessive exposure. The relevant document for exposure limits
is available on the web at http://www.rfsafety.com/oet65.pdf For cell
phones, look at pages 45 - 48.

Mike

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

zentara skrev:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 06:41:05 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
> >"Janice" <Janice.Newmanxyz@xyz.com> wrote in message
> >news:ek3ng6$rqo$1@news.datemas.de...
> >>
> >> Children (or adults) should never sleep next to a domestic power meter
> >> through the wall or not. It causes brain cancer.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This subject has been more heavily studied than just about any other in the
> >last quarter century; partly because it is easy to study, partly because the
> >implications are so profound, and partly because so much money is involved.
> >The conclusion is perfectly clear now - no form of electricity or of EM
> >fields below the visible spectrum is associated with the development of any
> >form of cancer.
>
> I would worry about cell phones. They now admit that cell phone
> radiation will cause a heating of a portion of the brain. A recent
> news clip I saw, said that it may cause some involuntary muscle
> spasms , like you suddenly getting twitch in your arm.
>
> Google for "cell phone egg cooking".
>
> If it's cooking your cells, there has got to be a risk. It will
> be interesting to see in 30 years or so, the statistics for
> brain abnormalities for heavy cell users.
>
I'm a heavy cell user, about 20 stone, but I can't see the relevance to
developing brain abnormalities.

-Frank-

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

zentara skrev:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 06:41:05 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
> >"Janice" <Janice.Newmanxyz@xyz.com> wrote in message
> >news:ek3ng6$rqo$1@news.datemas.de...
> >>
> >> Children (or adults) should never sleep next to a domestic power meter
> >> through the wall or not. It causes brain cancer.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This subject has been more heavily studied than just about any other in the
> >last quarter century; partly because it is easy to study, partly because the
> >implications are so profound, and partly because so much money is involved.
> >The conclusion is perfectly clear now - no form of electricity or of EM
> >fields below the visible spectrum is associated with the development of any
> >form of cancer.
>
> I would worry about cell phones. They now admit that cell phone
> radiation will cause a heating of a portion of the brain. A recent
> news clip I saw, said that it may cause some involuntary muscle
> spasms , like you suddenly getting twitch in your arm.
>
> Google for "cell phone egg cooking".
>
> If it's cooking your cells, there has got to be a risk. It will
> be interesting to see in 30 years or so, the statistics for
> brain abnormalities for heavy cell users.
>
I'm a heavy cell user, about 20 stone, but I can't see the relevance to
developing brain abnormalities.

-Frank-

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

zentara skrev:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 06:41:05 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
> >"Janice" <Janice.Newmanxyz@xyz.com> wrote in message
> >news:ek3ng6$rqo$1@news.datemas.de...
> >>
> >> Children (or adults) should never sleep next to a domestic power meter
> >> through the wall or not. It causes brain cancer.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This subject has been more heavily studied than just about any other in the
> >last quarter century; partly because it is easy to study, partly because the
> >implications are so profound, and partly because so much money is involved.
> >The conclusion is perfectly clear now - no form of electricity or of EM
> >fields below the visible spectrum is associated with the development of any
> >form of cancer.
>
> I would worry about cell phones. They now admit that cell phone
> radiation will cause a heating of a portion of the brain. A recent
> news clip I saw, said that it may cause some involuntary muscle
> spasms , like you suddenly getting twitch in your arm.
>
> Google for "cell phone egg cooking".
>
> If it's cooking your cells, there has got to be a risk. It will
> be interesting to see in 30 years or so, the statistics for
> brain abnormalities for heavy cell users.
>
I'm a heavy cell user, about 20 stone, but I can't see the relevance to
developing brain abnormalities.

-Frank-

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:


>>
>
> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order of
> magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain; walking in the
> sunshine is much more significant.

Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the molecular
damage.

Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
heating.

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:


>>
>
> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order of
> magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain; walking in the
> sunshine is much more significant.

Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the molecular
damage.

Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
heating.

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:


>>
>
> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order of
> magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain; walking in the
> sunshine is much more significant.

Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the molecular
damage.

Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
heating.

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

kwatq <myob@nospam.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order
>> of magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain;
>> walking in the sunshine is much more significant.
>
> Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the
> molecular damage.
>
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.

Because I like to play devil's advocate, why not check out the /reverse/
causality -- whether it's those with the most brain damage who spends the
most time on the phone? That seems plausible to me.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

kwatq <myob@nospam.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order
>> of magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain;
>> walking in the sunshine is much more significant.
>
> Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the
> molecular damage.
>
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.

Because I like to play devil's advocate, why not check out the /reverse/
causality -- whether it's those with the most brain damage who spends the
most time on the phone? That seems plausible to me.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

kwatq <myob@nospam.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order
>> of magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain;
>> walking in the sunshine is much more significant.
>
> Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the
> molecular damage.
>
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.

Because I like to play devil's advocate, why not check out the /reverse/
causality -- whether it's those with the most brain damage who spends the
most time on the phone? That seems plausible to me.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

kwatq <myob@nospam.us> wrote in
news:pan.2006.11.24.23.25.29.74174@nospam.us:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order
>> of magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain;
>> walking in the sunshine is much more significant.
>
> Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the
> molecular damage.
>
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.
>


Cell phones cause brain damge in this precise manner:
1) Place phone on cranium (on or off, doesn't matter)
2) Strike phone with hammer repeatedly until phone fragments enter brain
3) Voila, instant brain damage!

Now if you're basing your conclusions on your overhearing of teenagers
talking on *their* cell phones, rest easy. Teenagers are already brain-
damaged, so what you observe is quite normal.

However, their brains will repair themselves by the time they're 27, at
which point they will come to you and say, "Hey dad, you're actually
pretty cool".

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

kwatq <myob@nospam.us> wrote in
news:pan.2006.11.24.23.25.29.74174@nospam.us:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order
>> of magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain;
>> walking in the sunshine is much more significant.
>
> Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the
> molecular damage.
>
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.
>


Cell phones cause brain damge in this precise manner:
1) Place phone on cranium (on or off, doesn't matter)
2) Strike phone with hammer repeatedly until phone fragments enter brain
3) Voila, instant brain damage!

Now if you're basing your conclusions on your overhearing of teenagers
talking on *their* cell phones, rest easy. Teenagers are already brain-
damaged, so what you observe is quite normal.

However, their brains will repair themselves by the time they're 27, at
which point they will come to you and say, "Hey dad, you're actually
pretty cool".

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

kwatq <myob@nospam.us> wrote in
news:pan.2006.11.24.23.25.29.74174@nospam.us:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order
>> of magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain;
>> walking in the sunshine is much more significant.
>
> Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the
> molecular damage.
>
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.
>


Cell phones cause brain damge in this precise manner:
1) Place phone on cranium (on or off, doesn't matter)
2) Strike phone with hammer repeatedly until phone fragments enter brain
3) Voila, instant brain damage!

Now if you're basing your conclusions on your overhearing of teenagers
talking on *their* cell phones, rest easy. Teenagers are already brain-
damaged, so what you observe is quite normal.

However, their brains will repair themselves by the time they're 27, at
which point they will come to you and say, "Hey dad, you're actually
pretty cool".

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

"kwatq" <myob@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.24.23.25.29.74174@nospam.us...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order of
>> magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain; walking in
>> the
>> sunshine is much more significant.
>
> Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the molecular
> damage.
>
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.

No, it is definitively established that non-ionizing radiation does not and
can not cause cancer. There is one very good reason why that is so: cancer
is a DNA disorder and radiation cannot affect DNA until the wavelength
approaches 4 times the DNA strand length or less. It's a matter of energy
transfer - I canna change the laws of physics. No energy transfer means no
effect. Cell phones operate mostly in the 2 GHz (15 cm) band, so unless you
have DNA that is more than an inch long - cells as big as basketballs,
perhaps - you have nothing to fear from cell phone radiation.

The people charged with protecting the public have examined the evidence and
testimony in open session, with opportunity for public input before the
rules were made. Each person may decide on their own whether to trust them
or to trust random paranoids. Having dealt with a few US federal agencies in
my time I have to laugh at the concept of a government "whitewash" - it is a
ludicrous concept that any agency could get every single one of the
thousands of people involved to go along with any such deception. How they
would cause the governments of dozens of other industrialized countries to
agree to the "whitewash" boggles the mind.

Mike

Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
 

"kwatq" <myob@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.24.23.25.29.74174@nospam.us...
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:12:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> Don't worry about it. Cell phone power levels are more than an order of
>> magnitude too low to cause significant heating of the brain; walking in
>> the
>> sunshine is much more significant.
>
> Heating effect is a gov't whitewash. Far more inmportant is the molecular
> damage.
>
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.

No, it is definitively established that non-ionizing radiation does not and
can not cause cancer. There is one very good reason why that is so: cancer
is a DNA disorder and radiation cannot affect DNA until the wavelength
approaches 4 times the DNA strand length or less. It's a matter of energy
transfer - I canna change the laws of physics. No energy transfer means no
effect. Cell phones operate mostly in the 2 GHz (15 cm) band, so unless you
have DNA that is more than an inch long - cells as big as basketballs,
perhaps - you have nothing to fear from cell phone radiation.

The people charged with protecting the public have examined the evidence and
testimony in open session, with opportunity for public input before the
rules were made. Each person may decide on their own whether to trust them
or to trust random paranoids. Having dealt with a few US federal agencies in
my time I have to laugh at the concept of a government "whitewash" - it is a
ludicrous concept that any agency could get every single one of the
thousands of people involved to go along with any such deception. How they
would cause the governments of dozens of other industrialized countries to
agree to the "whitewash" boggles the mind.

Mike