This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
11-24-2006, 09:03 PM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
"kwatq" <myob@nospam.us> wrote in message
news
an.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
news
an.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
11-25-2006, 07:52 AM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:03:13 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>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.
I think your responses have been right on the money, but I would like
to point out a tidbit of evidence that a EM researcher mentioned when
there was the power line uproar.
One of the scientists said that there was no evidence the fields
caused cancer, but he finished with the cyrptic comment that
<paraphrasing from memory>
the fields do interfere with the ability of the cell wall barrier
to distinquish between good and bad molecules.
</paraphrasing>
He said the cell walls have a mechanism which allows good
molecules in and rejects bad ones, and high external fields
may interfere with this.
So "maybe" it is a factor in helping something else cause cancer.
Like almost everything else in modern techno-civilization, things
are proven safe in lab conditions, but seldom take into account
real world conditions. So we end end getting "nickled and dimed"
to death.
zentara
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>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.
I think your responses have been right on the money, but I would like
to point out a tidbit of evidence that a EM researcher mentioned when
there was the power line uproar.
One of the scientists said that there was no evidence the fields
caused cancer, but he finished with the cyrptic comment that
<paraphrasing from memory>
the fields do interfere with the ability of the cell wall barrier
to distinquish between good and bad molecules.
</paraphrasing>
He said the cell walls have a mechanism which allows good
molecules in and rejects bad ones, and high external fields
may interfere with this.
So "maybe" it is a factor in helping something else cause cancer.
Like almost everything else in modern techno-civilization, things
are proven safe in lab conditions, but seldom take into account
real world conditions. So we end end getting "nickled and dimed"
to death.
zentara
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
11-25-2006, 07:52 AM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:03:13 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>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.
I think your responses have been right on the money, but I would like
to point out a tidbit of evidence that a EM researcher mentioned when
there was the power line uproar.
One of the scientists said that there was no evidence the fields
caused cancer, but he finished with the cyrptic comment that
<paraphrasing from memory>
the fields do interfere with the ability of the cell wall barrier
to distinquish between good and bad molecules.
</paraphrasing>
He said the cell walls have a mechanism which allows good
molecules in and rejects bad ones, and high external fields
may interfere with this.
So "maybe" it is a factor in helping something else cause cancer.
Like almost everything else in modern techno-civilization, things
are proven safe in lab conditions, but seldom take into account
real world conditions. So we end end getting "nickled and dimed"
to death.
zentara
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>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.
I think your responses have been right on the money, but I would like
to point out a tidbit of evidence that a EM researcher mentioned when
there was the power line uproar.
One of the scientists said that there was no evidence the fields
caused cancer, but he finished with the cyrptic comment that
<paraphrasing from memory>
the fields do interfere with the ability of the cell wall barrier
to distinquish between good and bad molecules.
</paraphrasing>
He said the cell walls have a mechanism which allows good
molecules in and rejects bad ones, and high external fields
may interfere with this.
So "maybe" it is a factor in helping something else cause cancer.
Like almost everything else in modern techno-civilization, things
are proven safe in lab conditions, but seldom take into account
real world conditions. So we end end getting "nickled and dimed"
to death.
zentara
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
11-25-2006, 07:52 AM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:03:13 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>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.
I think your responses have been right on the money, but I would like
to point out a tidbit of evidence that a EM researcher mentioned when
there was the power line uproar.
One of the scientists said that there was no evidence the fields
caused cancer, but he finished with the cyrptic comment that
<paraphrasing from memory>
the fields do interfere with the ability of the cell wall barrier
to distinquish between good and bad molecules.
</paraphrasing>
He said the cell walls have a mechanism which allows good
molecules in and rejects bad ones, and high external fields
may interfere with this.
So "maybe" it is a factor in helping something else cause cancer.
Like almost everything else in modern techno-civilization, things
are proven safe in lab conditions, but seldom take into account
real world conditions. So we end end getting "nickled and dimed"
to death.
zentara
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>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.
I think your responses have been right on the money, but I would like
to point out a tidbit of evidence that a EM researcher mentioned when
there was the power line uproar.
One of the scientists said that there was no evidence the fields
caused cancer, but he finished with the cyrptic comment that
<paraphrasing from memory>
the fields do interfere with the ability of the cell wall barrier
to distinquish between good and bad molecules.
</paraphrasing>
He said the cell walls have a mechanism which allows good
molecules in and rejects bad ones, and high external fields
may interfere with this.
So "maybe" it is a factor in helping something else cause cancer.
Like almost everything else in modern techno-civilization, things
are proven safe in lab conditions, but seldom take into account
real world conditions. So we end end getting "nickled and dimed"
to death.
zentara
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
11-25-2006, 10:34 AM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
On 24 Nov 2006 13:58:24 -0800, "froarulv" <froarulv@online.no> wrote:
>I'm a heavy cell user, about 20 stone, but I can't see the relevance to
>developing brain abnormalities.
>-Frank-
If I was to take an educated guess, as to what symptoms to watch for,
I would look for
1. hearing nerve (or balance ) problems, the inner ear is very sensitive
2. arthritic necks
3. constipation
4. muscle twitching or loss of tone, like a drooping eyelid
Of course, that is just wild guessing, and I'm also opened
minded.
It may turn out that cell-phone warming is good for you, and
microwave generating neck rings will be prescribed for everyone.
:-)
Of course, all these symptoms can be caused by other factors, so
it can never be proven. Just like cigarette smoking, personal genetic
factors are probably important, and it will be argued forever.
In the mean time, we are guinea pigs.
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
>I'm a heavy cell user, about 20 stone, but I can't see the relevance to
>developing brain abnormalities.
>-Frank-
If I was to take an educated guess, as to what symptoms to watch for,
I would look for
1. hearing nerve (or balance ) problems, the inner ear is very sensitive
2. arthritic necks
3. constipation
4. muscle twitching or loss of tone, like a drooping eyelid
Of course, that is just wild guessing, and I'm also opened
minded.
It may turn out that cell-phone warming is good for you, and
microwave generating neck rings will be prescribed for everyone.
:-)
Of course, all these symptoms can be caused by other factors, so
it can never be proven. Just like cigarette smoking, personal genetic
factors are probably important, and it will be argued forever.
In the mean time, we are guinea pigs.
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
11-25-2006, 10:34 AM
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
On 24 Nov 2006 13:58:24 -0800, "froarulv" <froarulv@online.no> wrote:
>I'm a heavy cell user, about 20 stone, but I can't see the relevance to
>developing brain abnormalities.
>-Frank-
If I was to take an educated guess, as to what symptoms to watch for,
I would look for
1. hearing nerve (or balance ) problems, the inner ear is very sensitive
2. arthritic necks
3. constipation
4. muscle twitching or loss of tone, like a drooping eyelid
Of course, that is just wild guessing, and I'm also opened
minded.
It may turn out that cell-phone warming is good for you, and
microwave generating neck rings will be prescribed for everyone.
:-)
Of course, all these symptoms can be caused by other factors, so
it can never be proven. Just like cigarette smoking, personal genetic
factors are probably important, and it will be argued forever.
In the mean time, we are guinea pigs.
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
>I'm a heavy cell user, about 20 stone, but I can't see the relevance to
>developing brain abnormalities.
>-Frank-
If I was to take an educated guess, as to what symptoms to watch for,
I would look for
1. hearing nerve (or balance ) problems, the inner ear is very sensitive
2. arthritic necks
3. constipation
4. muscle twitching or loss of tone, like a drooping eyelid
Of course, that is just wild guessing, and I'm also opened
minded.
It may turn out that cell-phone warming is good for you, and
microwave generating neck rings will be prescribed for everyone.
:-)
Of course, all these symptoms can be caused by other factors, so
it can never be proven. Just like cigarette smoking, personal genetic
factors are probably important, and it will be argued forever.
In the mean time, we are guinea pigs.
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
11-25-2006, 10:34 AM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
On 24 Nov 2006 13:58:24 -0800, "froarulv" <froarulv@online.no> wrote:
>I'm a heavy cell user, about 20 stone, but I can't see the relevance to
>developing brain abnormalities.
>-Frank-
If I was to take an educated guess, as to what symptoms to watch for,
I would look for
1. hearing nerve (or balance ) problems, the inner ear is very sensitive
2. arthritic necks
3. constipation
4. muscle twitching or loss of tone, like a drooping eyelid
Of course, that is just wild guessing, and I'm also opened
minded.
It may turn out that cell-phone warming is good for you, and
microwave generating neck rings will be prescribed for everyone.
:-)
Of course, all these symptoms can be caused by other factors, so
it can never be proven. Just like cigarette smoking, personal genetic
factors are probably important, and it will be argued forever.
In the mean time, we are guinea pigs.
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
>I'm a heavy cell user, about 20 stone, but I can't see the relevance to
>developing brain abnormalities.
>-Frank-
If I was to take an educated guess, as to what symptoms to watch for,
I would look for
1. hearing nerve (or balance ) problems, the inner ear is very sensitive
2. arthritic necks
3. constipation
4. muscle twitching or loss of tone, like a drooping eyelid
Of course, that is just wild guessing, and I'm also opened
minded.
It may turn out that cell-phone warming is good for you, and
microwave generating neck rings will be prescribed for everyone.
:-)
Of course, all these symptoms can be caused by other factors, so
it can never be proven. Just like cigarette smoking, personal genetic
factors are probably important, and it will be argued forever.
In the mean time, we are guinea pigs.
--
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html
11-25-2006, 02:01 PM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
From the Collected Witterings of kwatq, volume 23:
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.
There's a connection between excessive use of mobile phones and brain
damage, all right, but it's not causal.
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.
There's a connection between excessive use of mobile phones and brain
damage, all right, but it's not causal.
11-25-2006, 02:01 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
From the Collected Witterings of kwatq, volume 23:
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.
There's a connection between excessive use of mobile phones and brain
damage, all right, but it's not causal.
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.
There's a connection between excessive use of mobile phones and brain
damage, all right, but it's not causal.
11-25-2006, 02:01 PM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
From the Collected Witterings of kwatq, volume 23:
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.
There's a connection between excessive use of mobile phones and brain
damage, all right, but it's not causal.
> Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> heating.
There's a connection between excessive use of mobile phones and brain
damage, all right, but it's not causal.
11-25-2006, 04:17 PM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
David Chapman wrote:
>
> From the Collected Witterings of kwatq, volume 23:
>
> > Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> > heating.
>
> There's a connection between excessive use of mobile phones and brain
> damage, all right, but it's not causal.
....with results being suffered by nearby non-users..
JT
11-25-2006, 04:17 PM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
David Chapman wrote:
>
> From the Collected Witterings of kwatq, volume 23:
>
> > Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> > heating.
>
> There's a connection between excessive use of mobile phones and brain
> damage, all right, but it's not causal.
....with results being suffered by nearby non-users..
JT
11-25-2006, 04:17 PM
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
David Chapman wrote:
>
> From the Collected Witterings of kwatq, volume 23:
>
> > Cell phones have been shown to cause brain damage, and it ain't from
> > heating.
>
> There's a connection between excessive use of mobile phones and brain
> damage, all right, but it's not causal.
....with results being suffered by nearby non-users..
JT
11-25-2006, 05:32 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: -[I]- This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
Michael Pardee wrote:
> [...] My father was a radar tech in WWII (he had a
> Marine with a .45 assigned to him to "protect the country's secrets").
That sounds interesting. Depending on where his work being undertaken,
at any particular point during the war, this marine could not only have
been assigned to preserve your father's life against those who might
wish to kill him, but could also display undertones that there was no
way that your parent would be taken alive by the enemy, either. In a
"I'll save one round for you" sort of way.
(Don't know which group in the eclectically cross-posted distribution is
your nominal 'home port', but AFP is mine, so I've set Followup-To to
there accordingly (and added AFP-local subject tagging) in case you want
to reply.)
> [...] My father was a radar tech in WWII (he had a
> Marine with a .45 assigned to him to "protect the country's secrets").
That sounds interesting. Depending on where his work being undertaken,
at any particular point during the war, this marine could not only have
been assigned to preserve your father's life against those who might
wish to kill him, but could also display undertones that there was no
way that your parent would be taken alive by the enemy, either. In a
"I'll save one round for you" sort of way.
(Don't know which group in the eclectically cross-posted distribution is
your nominal 'home port', but AFP is mine, so I've set Followup-To to
there accordingly (and added AFP-local subject tagging) in case you want
to reply.)
11-25-2006, 05:32 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: -[I]- This_shall_shiver_your_timbers
Michael Pardee wrote:
> [...] My father was a radar tech in WWII (he had a
> Marine with a .45 assigned to him to "protect the country's secrets").
That sounds interesting. Depending on where his work being undertaken,
at any particular point during the war, this marine could not only have
been assigned to preserve your father's life against those who might
wish to kill him, but could also display undertones that there was no
way that your parent would be taken alive by the enemy, either. In a
"I'll save one round for you" sort of way.
(Don't know which group in the eclectically cross-posted distribution is
your nominal 'home port', but AFP is mine, so I've set Followup-To to
there accordingly (and added AFP-local subject tagging) in case you want
to reply.)
> [...] My father was a radar tech in WWII (he had a
> Marine with a .45 assigned to him to "protect the country's secrets").
That sounds interesting. Depending on where his work being undertaken,
at any particular point during the war, this marine could not only have
been assigned to preserve your father's life against those who might
wish to kill him, but could also display undertones that there was no
way that your parent would be taken alive by the enemy, either. In a
"I'll save one round for you" sort of way.
(Don't know which group in the eclectically cross-posted distribution is
your nominal 'home port', but AFP is mine, so I've set Followup-To to
there accordingly (and added AFP-local subject tagging) in case you want
to reply.)