Joel Koltner wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
While the hand feeling could easily be attributed to the battery discharge
warmth, the feeling around the ears is more difficult to ascribe to the
batteries.

Umm... many cell phones get noticeably warm over time due to internal power
dissipation. (In fact, the amount of heat generated by the battery is
negligible compared to the heat generator by, e.g., the RF power amplifiers,
the digital circuitry, etc.)

How many studies have been done looking for beneficial health outcomes from
the use of cell phones? Like wine and alcohol in moderation are now
considered to be!



The Li-Ion battery in my DV9000 HP 17" laptop are away from
processor/hard-drive/video-card (high circuity heat sources), the
battery GETS HOT all on its' own ... my cell phone is also Li-Ion so I
do think most of the heat generated is from the battery--testing to
prove all this one way or another is simply beyond my time allotments
and means to do so ... I will accept that "cell phone heat" is
explainable to battery/components/circuitry and simply is transfered, or
the "sense of heat is transfered", to body components in close proximity
.... it certainly is the MAJOR component of this "perceived heat."

Regards,
JS

"Joel Koltner" wrote in
:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
While the hand feeling could easily be attributed to the battery
discharge warmth, the feeling around the ears is more difficult to
ascribe to the batteries.

Umm... many cell phones get noticeably warm over time due to internal
power dissipation. (In fact, the amount of heat generated by the
battery is negligible compared to the heat generator by, e.g., the RF
power amplifiers, the digital circuitry, etc.)

Strange, I could have said just that!. Oh wait, I did. Look, it is easy
for a person's hand to get warm and attribute it to battery warmth. I
trust you are not ascribing the same for an area that the phone isn't
touching? That is easy to check for, as the hand would be heated by
conduction, and the area around the ear that isn't being touched would be
radiative heat. Other wise there would be a significant thermal gradient.



How many studies have been done looking for beneficial health outcomes
from the use of cell phones?

Probably none. The reason why is that the studies are looking for effect
in general, not positive or negative ones. To look for a specific
positive or negative from the start is more in line with creation
science.

Like wine and alcohol in moderation are
now considered to be!

It is easy to find out the effects of alcohol. Lots of studies. And they
found out a lot of things they didn't expect, such as keeping the blood
vessels clean, and other more obvious things such as stress
relief/relaxation in moderation.

I'm certain that if some positive result is found, we'll hear about it.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote in news:g8fadf$1iqk$1
@f04n12.cac.psu.edu:

David G. Nagel wrote:
Dave Holford wrote:


But the bannanas and granite countertop in the kitchen might be a
problem.

Dave
Dave;

Don't forget the radioactive potasium in your heart.


Yeah, and trees make CO2 so they are responsible for global warming. ;^)



- 73 de Mike N3LI -



No Mike that's caused by cow belches

John W3JXP

Michael Coslo wrote:

Yeah, and trees make CO2 so they are responsible for global warming. ;^)

They do? All this time I was certain that trees produced oxygen.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

Yeah, and trees make CO2 so they are responsible for global warming. ;^)

They do? All this time I was certain that trees produced oxygen.

Dave K8MN

During the daylight hours, trees and other plants do make oxygen. At
night, in the dark, they do consume some of the oxygen--however, there
is a net gain; i.e. they do "make oxygen."

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:31:02 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

How many studies have been done looking for beneficial health outcomes
from the use of cell phones?

Probably none. The reason why is that the studies are looking for effect
in general, not positive or negative ones. To look for a specific
positive or negative from the start is more in line with creation
science.

Hi Mike,

Did you read the material you offered yesterday? Science reveals all
results observed without going into a study mining for expectations as
you rightly offer here.

I'm certain that if some positive result is found, we'll hear about it.

The very first study, on the very first page with the very first
paragraph offers:
"Overall,the TDMA field-exposed animals exhibited
trends toward a reduced incidence of spontaneous
CNS tumors (P 0. 16, two-tailed) and ENU-induced
CNS tumors (P 0.16, two-tailed)."

The very last study, on the very last page with the second paragraph
offers:
"For an effectively transmitted power of 0.25 W,
the maximum averaged SAR values in both cubic
and arbitrary-shaped volumes are, respectively, about
1.72 and 2.55 W kg-1 for 1g and
0.98 and 1.73 W kg-1 for 10 g of tissue."

These choices are offered as they represent what a reasonable, but
only slightly interested reader would peruse while ignoring the bulk
of the document. As no one has shown any interest in the bulk, and
even less in the first page (much less the last); I introduce it here
to everyone's embarrassment. Don't worry, the feeling will pass with
alacrity.

Interpretation is the name of the "game" here in this forum and I am
sure Brett would find plenty to worry about when the first study says
that exposure REDUCES tumors in the Central Nervous System. The Bible
must inform us this is an error and only Satan could have published
the first study.

The last study gives us more exposure data (the discussion of which
inevitably scatters in the rhetorical wind of debate). I can only
wonder if the reader can draw a conclusion from this quoted sentence
that can be expressed in temperature rise. There's enough data to do
this, only intelligence remains to perform.

Your link, like the data of the original post, offers enough data to
warrant informed discussion. The original post's data reveals a
howler of invention. That cast aside, it allowed a cascade of
spiritualism to dominate. Let me kick off the next side-thread of
belly-button contemplation and ask: "Why don't we see this data
discussed?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Interpretation is the name of the "game" here in this forum and I am
sure Brett would find plenty to worry about when the first study says
that exposure REDUCES tumors in the Central Nervous System. The Bible
must inform us this is an error and only Satan could have published
the first study.
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Since you seem more than willing to act as an expert and inform the
masses that a 300mw, omni-directional, source of cooking band freqs held
millimeters from the skull does absolutely no damage what-so-ever, at
just what power intensities should we begin to worry and expect damage?
One-watt, ten-watts, one-hundred-watts, one-kilowatt, multi-kilowatts?

Perhaps your point is that human flesh is unaffected by microwave energy
which cooks our food and any power level can be tolerated by the body?
You will excuse me if I hold out for much more "in depth" studies done
by institutions/colleges/consumer-watchdogs, etc. which have absolutely
"no horse in the race!" Decades of living with "safe radiation levels"
established for atomic elements sources which were "re-evaluated" to
downward levels many times has made me a bit more cautious than yourself ...

Perhaps these are the "evolved cell phones?" Produced from throwing
handfuls of metal, glass, plastic, etc. into a mud hole, allowing these
elements "to evolve" and then digging out the cell phones? Well, of
course I would expect different than yourself! I purchased a
manufacturers cell phone! ;-)

Regards,
JS

The Belly Button Gaze becomes fixated and the side thread begins:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:30:42 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I purchased a manufacturers cell phone!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
The Belly Button Gaze becomes fixated and the side thread begins:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:30:42 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I purchased a manufacturers cell phone!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Or, the idiot fires up and "reinforces" his "experts' argument" with
personal attacks on personalities rather than offer concrete "proofs",
logic/logical-arguments to the validity of his arguments ... yawn ...
you have already been there, done that ...

You have everything in your "shoe-box." Just make sure you maintain
control by keeping everything limited to the points which will "prove"
your "shoe-box assumptions/theories/logic."

To me, you only appear as a "witchdoctor expert", and only a technician
grade one at that ...

Regards,
JS

Dave Heil wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Yeah, and trees make CO2 so they are responsible for global warming. ;^)

They do? All this time I was certain that trees produced oxygen.

The most common greenhouse gas is water vapor. Trees
take liquid water out of the ground and turn it into
water vapor.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com