Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL ...

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I did "stretch" the facts on one point, blood has about 1/3 the
salt content of sea water (not meaning the content of "sodium chloride"
specifically!--or, any other element ...)--however, the point was not
being made on heating blood until it "burned"--but just to do
"noticeable damage" ... I am sure you will grant me that "writers'
license." grin

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I did "stretch" the facts on one point, blood has about 1/3 the
salt content of sea water (not meaning the content of "sodium chloride"
specifically!--or, any other element ...)--however, the point was not
being made on heating blood until it "burned"--but just to do
"noticeable damage" ... I am sure you will grant me that "writers'
license." grin

Regards,
JS

That's the trouble with you people. You insinuate by "asking a question" or
making up a meaningless phrase like "noticeable damage" or "common sense
laws" in such a way that it panics the ignorant or non thinking people into
running over a cliff or voting, then you sit back and feign ignorance. Just
beware you don't get caught in your own stampede. I submit that power tools
should be rendered safe before exposing them to people with "artistic
license" or who feel themselves "not responsible" for their actions because
they are crazy.

We know that the human body can be harmed by just sitting in the sun too
long. How much RF at what frequency has or has not caused damage to those
who have been or are exposed, has been addressed only by FCC setting an
arbitrary specification without supporting data other than that supplied by
military microwave studies with respect to high powered radar. Nor do the
studies support that there is noticable damage by observing the military
safety standard or by the FCC standard that sets limits much lower, and even
lower still for those who aren't knowlegable on the subject.. So then it is
anything but an objective issue. I too have been exposed, but limited my
exposure based on time averaging, so I have encountered field-densities
thousands of times greater than a cell phone for a several minutes and
hundreds of times, for as much as an hour with no discernible effect in the
long or short term, but have encountered unknown intense fields with short
term issues, such as headache in the evening after exposure, but gone in the
morning. I have certainly encountered the same thing more often from over
exposure to "a day at the beach".

Case in point: As a nonsmoker, I have problems reworking PC boards because
my employer has no plausible deniability that any respiratory ailment I
might succumb to in later years wouldn't arguably be caused by a
self-inflicted lifestyle condition rather than an employment hazard.

In the face of other more serious health risks such as sunstroke, falling
off a tower or electrocution, RF exposure is a common sense issue for hams
and those in the business, and a non-issue for those who will never enter
restricted areas. In fact, there are far more daily hazardous things that
we encounter, as to obliterate any test data. Your Petri dish and sal****er
experiments have less credibility than the anecdotal.

It's like the illegal alien issue. Due to the lack of proper judgment and
widespread hysteria, more housekeepers and migrant workers will suffer than
gangbangers who find prison to be a climate-controlled mailing address with
a few inconveniences, but "three hots and a cot". Deportation gives
opportunity for those with plenty of drug money to do it again. All the
hysteria does is help to polarize nationalism (and foreign nationalism).

With the population of foreign nationalist gringo haters in this country
outnumbering those in Mexico, why do we need fences at all? Perhaps for a
start, we might plant more businesses in Mexico rather than having
everything shipped all the way from China.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:31:53 GMT, "JB" wrote:

then you sit back and feign ignorance.

Oh to be sure it wasn't feigned. In fact, he entirely missed the
boat. After all, upon a succinct observation comparing two exposure
problems:
If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.
Brett couldn't distinguish one as a source of heating from the other
as a source of ionization where his own off-topic and ill-understood
introduction of the problems of ionizing radiation were the primary
issues.

There's really no point in sustaining his illiteracy, and chastising
would be a sin of mocking the afflicted.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I did "stretch" the facts on one point, blood has about 1/3 the
salt content of sea water (not meaning the content of "sodium chloride"
specifically!--or, any other element ...)--however, the point was not
being made on heating blood until it "burned"--but just to do
"noticeable damage" ... I am sure you will grant me that "writers'
license." grin

Regards,
JS

Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem. So far,
NOBODY has shown that to be the case. Not even in the 2.4 Ghz
ISM Band where BlueTooth operates, with significantly LESS
Power Density. There are enough of these devices around that
should all this "Wild Speculation", actually have Observable Effects,
the researchers into this area wouldn't be needing to do Statistical
Analysis, to Magically try and prove some nebulous Causal Effect.

Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem. So far,
NOBODY has shown that to be the case. Not even in the 2.4 Ghz
ISM Band where BlueTooth operates, with significantly LESS
Power Density. There are enough of these devices around that
should all this "Wild Speculation", actually have Observable Effects,
the researchers into this area wouldn't be needing to do Statistical
Analysis, to Magically try and prove some nebulous Causal Effect.
====================================
It might be useful to know that the RF power radiated by any cellphone
is dependent on the distance between the device and the nearest base
station.
In a built-up area or along the highway with nearby base stations the
power can be very low ,whereas at remote locations it can be as high as
2 Watts (at least here in Europe).
Living away countryside ,when using my cellphone at home the battery
drains rather quickly compared when using the device in town.
When holding the cellphone near my HF transceiver I clearly hear the
digi-noise.
For this reason I avoid using the cellphone while at home or at other
locations away from a base station.
My home is approx 8 km (5miles) from the nearest base station.


Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH in northern Scotland UK

JB wrote:

...
That's the trouble with you people. You insinuate by "asking a question" or
making up a meaningless phrase like "noticeable damage" or "common sense
laws" in such a way that it panics the ignorant or non thinking people into
running over a cliff or voting, then you sit back and feign ignorance. Just
beware you don't get caught in your own stampede. I submit that power tools
should be rendered safe before exposing them to people with "artistic
license" or who feel themselves "not responsible" for their actions because
they are crazy.
...

Yes, I have heard that argument before, with tobacco ... Nicola Tesla
once said chewing gum was more damaging than alcohol ... This URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

This drug was once thought "safe" and marketed/sold in over 50
countries. It was thought so safe, it was given to pregnant women,
causing innumerable birth defects in children (children born without
hands/arms/feet/legs/etc.

Your argument against caution is simply ignorance such we have seen in
the past ... some of us learned. Even when the BEST AUTHORITIES say is
is "OK", use caution!

We know that the human body can be harmed by just sitting in the sun too
long. How much RF at what frequency has or has not caused damage to those
who have been or are exposed, has been addressed only by FCC setting an
arbitrary specification without supporting data other than that supplied by
military microwave studies with respect to high powered radar. Nor do the
studies support that there is noticable damage by observing the military
safety standard or by the FCC standard that sets limits much lower, and even
lower still for those who aren't knowlegable on the subject.. So then it is
anything but an objective issue. I too have been exposed, but limited my
exposure based on time averaging, so I have encountered field-densities
thousands of times greater than a cell phone for a several minutes and
hundreds of times, for as much as an hour with no discernible effect in the
long or short term, but have encountered unknown intense fields with short
term issues, such as headache in the evening after exposure, but gone in the
morning. I have certainly encountered the same thing more often from over
exposure to "a day at the beach".

OK, so do an experiment yourself to test the amount of damage!

1) Cut an opening in the door of your microwave.

2) Insert your hand.

3) Turn on the microwave for 5 seconds.

4) Repeat 1 - 3 until "noticeable damage" occurs.

5) Come up with a time you think it is "OK" to microwave your hand;
quite possibly, you may wish to consider a time MUCH LOWER (as a "test
standard", note that zero seconds will ALWAYS be safer) than the time to
do "noticeable damage."

(Disclaimer, the above is only meant as a warning to demonstrate the
ignorance of the previous posters logic -- i.e., IT SHOULD NEVER BE
ATTEMPTED FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME!) Or, don't do this yourself, EVER!


Case in point: As a nonsmoker, I have problems reworking PC boards because
my employer has no plausible deniability that any respiratory ailment I
might succumb to in later years wouldn't arguably be caused by a
self-inflicted lifestyle condition rather than an employment hazard.

ABSOLUTELY! OTHER things cause cancer/illness, a search of the internet
will provide you with countless and proven substances/tasks/jobs/etc.
which you should provide. If you think there is a real danger with ANY
job you take--QUIT--IMMEDIATELY! But then, you can't protect some from
themselves, those will die for their occupation/job. :-(


In the face of other more serious health risks such as sunstroke, falling
off a tower or electrocution, RF exposure is a common sense issue for hams
and those in the business, and a non-issue for those who will never enter
restricted areas. In fact, there are far more daily hazardous things that
we encounter, as to obliterate any test data. Your Petri dish and sal****er
experiments have less credibility than the anecdotal.

Hey, some will make a trade off and face such serious consequences to
their health and safety in exchange for money -- I only hope their
compensation is justified, at least to them. Again, some people cannot
be saved from themselves ... and then, once they have made such a BAD
decision, they only wish to blame others.

If you are too stupid to protect yourself, am I required to do so? (I
mean I will, but then, I will not let you work at places injurious to
you! I mean, for God sakes man, you will raise insurance premiums
through the roof!)


It's like the illegal alien issue. Due to the lack of proper judgment and
widespread hysteria, more housekeepers and migrant workers will suffer than
gangbangers who find prison to be a climate-controlled mailing address with
a few inconveniences, but "three hots and a cot". Deportation gives
opportunity for those with plenty of drug money to do it again. All the
hysteria does is help to polarize nationalism (and foreign nationalism).

Well, I guess, declines in the American living standards, importation of
3rd world conditions here, lack of medical care for millions, untold
people without home ownership, etc., is nice! -- if you like that sort
of thing ... personally, I would seek other/more-positive solutions.


With the population of foreign nationalist gringo haters in this country
outnumbering those in Mexico, why do we need fences at all? Perhaps for a
start, we might plant more businesses in Mexico rather than having
everything shipped all the way from China.



Well, we could just give them everything, then hate them for having it
and work for slave wages getting it back and just keeping fed, I guess;
again, some people have different ideas.

Personally brother, I would move away from such conditions -- but that
is just me ...

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:31:53 GMT, "JB" wrote:

then you sit back and feign ignorance.

Oh to be sure it wasn't feigned. In fact, he entirely missed the
boat. After all, upon a succinct observation comparing two exposure
problems:
If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.
Brett couldn't distinguish one as a source of heating from the other
as a source of ionization where his own off-topic and ill-understood
introduction of the problems of ionizing radiation were the primary
issues.

There's really no point in sustaining his illiteracy, and chastising
would be a sin of mocking the afflicted.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Ionizing radiation?

Sorry, I missed the point where that ever came into question ...
however, yes, chuck a neon tube in a microwave, the gases WILL ionize,
but then the bulb will probably explode, LOL!

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:31:53 GMT, "JB" wrote:

then you sit back and feign ignorance.

Oh to be sure it wasn't feigned. In fact, he entirely missed the
boat. After all, upon a succinct observation comparing two exposure
problems:
If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.
Brett couldn't distinguish one as a source of heating from the other
as a source of ionization where his own off-topic and ill-understood
introduction of the problems of ionizing radiation were the primary
issues.

There's really no point in sustaining his illiteracy, and chastising
would be a sin of mocking the afflicted.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

But then, perhaps you have a problem with some of data in this URL?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven

Regards,
JS

You wrote:

...
Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
...

Let's say just those figures are correct ...

My Motorola Razar V3 phone is approx. 6mm thick (when opened), and where
the antenna is buried in the phone. This means the antenna can be no
more than 6mm from my head if the phone lies against my head. Now, we
assume the phone is emitting 300mw. This would be equivalent to 1.2w of
power emanating from that same antenna at a distance of 12mm from my
head. And, the latter would be equivalent to 4.8w emanating from the
same antenna at a distance of 24mm from my head. And, the last would be
equivalent to 19.2w emanating from the same antenna at a distance of
48mm from my head ... your higher figure, of two watts, is simply
frightening ...

The lunacy is exposed ... correct any error you see in the above ...

Regards,
JS