JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. All I'm saying, is that you
need to objectively assess risks. If you can't do that you ought to be
institutionalized for the safety of yourself and others.

The statistics of wireless devices causing harm are so off the radar there
are none! And this is the smoking gun - if there were, they would have
come forward by now from the 2 way and uwave industry with complaints, but I
haven't heard of anyone in the business who HAS been harmed in my 30 years
of experience. And that is 15 years under the old standards of RF
exposure - NONE.

I invite anyone from the industry who reasonably thinks they have been
harmed to respond. Particularly from the retired folks. I'm not talking
about RF burns, as they are minor and pain has a way of causing you to limit
that exposure.

You can eliminate the potential of risk entirely by throwing away all RF
devices.

But don't stop there because of all the risks that you failed to account
for, such as rolling out of bed in the morning or burning yourself making
breakfast or tripping on the front steps or getting in a wreck on the way to
work.

THAT is a major risk statistically, whereas the statistics of RF harm are
unknown because no is so stupid, to cut their arm off or cut a hole in the
uwave oven door AS YOU SUGGESTED just to get a chance to GET harmful
exposure, which sort of proves my point about the general public having to
try real hard in order to to be exposed to harmfull levels of energy.

Getting back to the cell phones and Blackberry's - and I thought that's what
we were talking about - DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT! They really don't amount to
squat! Honest!

BTW I put a mouse in a Litton uwave oven in 1983 for 10 seconds and removed
him because I didn't want to push the little guys luck or see him suffer.
NO noticeable or discernable damage or harm was done and he went on to sire
several healthy normal litters.



Just to clarify, you seem to imply, a 1.2288KW, equivalent, source of
freqs in the "cooking bands" and at a distance of
384mm/38.4cm/~15-inches from your head is "nothing to sweat." (and
given, the sources antenna is omni-directional)

Surely you can see how some men would withhold agreement ... at least
until a time in the future ...

Regards,
JS

M0WYM wrote:
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
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem.

No problem:

http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm



M0WYM:

LOL!

Warm regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

...
Just to clarify, you seem to imply, a 1.2288KW, equivalent, source of
freqs in the "cooking bands" and at a distance of ...
Regards,
JS

In the above, can we abbreviate "cooking bands" to just "CB?" wink

At first, I failed to catch the level of my own humor! LOL!

Regards,
JS

HarryHydro wrote:
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

HarryHydro:

Anyway, none of my previous posts have been directly made to you;
however, I am sure you can "intuit" my fears/worries/considerations and
cautions involving the subject(s) you have introduced here ...

In closing, "Keep On Cookin', Men!" (should be considered equiv. to
"Keep On Truckin', Men!") WINK

Regards,
JS

JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. ...

I will be honest with you, I have been "dishonest by omission"--I know
the general public is completely unaware of the REAL dangers (well, I am
being kind, they are simply too ignorant to be concerned) ... I know
there are few "experts" who are aware (and "those threats" are being
extinguished with money/lawyers/"orchestrated-studies") ... and those
few who do know are in the medical profession, a couple of them vocal on
the subject ... most say/believe "the government will protect
us"--others say ignorance is bliss (well, I do) ...

Back in the 1980's a "deal was brokered" with the FCC (Hmmm, isn't that
when cell phones "came out?") ... cell phones fall though a "legal
loophole"--they are considered a "low powered device" and unable to do
the damage one needs to fear from a microwave oven--they are exempt,
there really is no Maximum Permissible Levels established which
manufacturers/engineers/industry can EFFECTIVELY be held to ... they
suffer virtually no regulation ... perhaps SAR, but then that is like 4w
per KG? You probably can cook an egg with that! (albeit slowly) LOL!

However, from this URL:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...56/oet56e4.pdf

You will find within, "Table 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible
Exposure (MPE)" and "(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled
Exposure" ...

.... you may draw your own conclusions about a 300mw source of cooking
frequency within 6mm of your cranium (I have been thinking about that,
the antenna is probably embedded in the middle of that case and ~3mm
from my head :-( ) ... personally, I caution my wife from standing too
close, let alone placing her forehead against the microwave door when in
operation! (she does that yanno'!)

Funny, I just always assumed the people here (well, other than the
idiots) would already be taking precautions (headsets--short
exposures/calls.)

I only hope to be here when they hand out the "Darwin Awards" to those
deserving--post mortem-ously for them, most likely ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
...

Hate to leave that "hanging", like that ...

I found this:

"How can I obtain the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value for my
wireless phone?

The FCC requires that wireless phones sold in the United States
demonstrate compliance with human exposure limits adopted by the FCC in
1996. The relative amount of RF energy absorbed in the head of a
wireless telephone-user is given by the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR),
as explained above. The FCC requires wireless phones to comply with a
safety limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg) in terms of SAR.

Information on SAR for a specific phone model can be obtained for many
recently manufactured phones using the FCC identification (ID) number
for that model. The FCC ID number is usually printed somewhere on the
case of the phone. Sometimes it may be necessary to remove the battery
pack to find the number. Once you have the ID number, go to the
following Web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid. On this page, you will see
instructions for entering the FCC ID number. Type the FCC ID number
exactly as requested (the Grantee Code is the first three characters,
the Equipment Product Code is the rest of the FCC ID number). Then click
on "Start Search." The "Grant of Equipment Authorization" for your
telephone should appear. Read through the grant for the section on "SAR
Compliance," "Certification of Compliance with FCC Rules for RF
Exposure" or similar language. This section should contain the value(s)
for typical or maximum SAR for your phone.

Phones and other products authorized since June 2, 2000, should have the
maximum SAR levels noted directly on the "Grant of Equipment
Authorization." For phones and products authorized between about
mid-1998 and June 2000, detailed information on SAR levels is typically
found in the exhibits associated with the grant. Once a grant is
accessed, the exhibits can be viewed by clicking on "View Exhibit."
Grants authorized prior to 1998 are not part of the electronic database
but, rather, have been documented in the form of paper records.

The FCC database does not list phones by model number. However,
consumers may find SAR information from other sources as well. Some
wireless phone manufacturers make SAR information available on their own
Web sites. In addition, some non-government Web sites provide SARs for
specific models of wireless phones. However, the FCC has not reviewed
these sites and makes no guarantees of their accuracy. Finally, phones
certified by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association
(CTIA) are required to provide SAR information to consumers in the
instructional materials that come with the phones. "

He

http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#4

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. ...

I will be honest with you, I have been "dishonest by omission"--I know
the general public is completely unaware of the REAL dangers (well, I am
being kind, they are simply too ignorant to be concerned) ... I know
there are few "experts" who are aware (and "those threats" are being
extinguished with money/lawyers/"orchestrated-studies") ... and those
few who do know are in the medical profession, a couple of them vocal on
the subject ... most say/believe "the government will protect
us"--others say ignorance is bliss (well, I do) ...

Back in the 1980's a "deal was brokered" with the FCC (Hmmm, isn't that
when cell phones "came out?") ... cell phones fall though a "legal
loophole"--they are considered a "low powered device" and unable to do
the damage one needs to fear from a microwave oven--they are exempt,
there really is no Maximum Permissible Levels established which
manufacturers/engineers/industry can EFFECTIVELY be held to ... they
suffer virtually no regulation ... perhaps SAR, but then that is like 4w
per KG? You probably can cook an egg with that! (albeit slowly) LOL!

However, from this URL:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...56/oet56e4.pdf


You will find within, "Table 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible
Exposure (MPE)" and "(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled
Exposure" ...

... you may draw your own conclusions about a 300mw source of cooking
frequency within 6mm of your cranium (I have been thinking about that,
the antenna is probably embedded in the middle of that case and ~3mm
from my head :-( ) ... personally, I caution my wife from standing too
close, let alone placing her forehead against the microwave door when in
operation! (she does that yanno'!)

Funny, I just always assumed the people here (well, other than the
idiots) would already be taking precautions (headsets--short
exposures/calls.)

Well I certainly do, although I might be still an idiot.

I don't find a thing wrong with your logic. Fact is, no one would ever
just allow the same RF source to be applied to their temples. They would
say we're crazy to suggest such a thing. And much less to attach such a
thing to their children.

Who here would tape a wire to their child's head with up to a watt of
power running through it at those freq's ? Child protective services
would probably declare you unfit, take the kids away from you, and you'd
probably have to register as something or another so you could be
tracked down if needed.

And yet, millions of parents do essentially the same thing, buying
their children cell phones - and doing it "to keep them safe".


I only hope to be here when they hand out the "Darwin Awards" to those
deserving--post mortem-ously for them, most likely ...


Well, I still don't think they are likely to cause cancer. The
frequency seems a bit low, and it's not as likely to cause cellular
(hehe) problems as the ionizing type radiation.

I would suspect that the effects might be more likely to be involved
with heating, or perhaps a disruption of normal brain activity.

Empirically, I have noticed that a lot of cell phone users behind the
wheel bear a scary resemblance to extremely drunken drivers. Driving
though red lights, sitting in a daze at green lights. Weaving off the
road, erratic driving in general.

I think it is quite possible that excessive cell phone usage
(hours/day) will make a person stupid.


-73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
And yet, millions of parents do essentially the same thing, buying
their children cell phones - and doing it "to keep them safe".

I have a simple way of dealing with that. We gave our teenage son a
pay-as-you-go phone and monitor carefully how much money he gets.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
I think it is quite possible that excessive cell phone usage
(hours/day) will make a person stupid.


-73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael:

My original, first post, only advised caution ... and suggested a
"prudent man rule." I hardly seen it as such a statement that would
require this amount of effort to "backup", but then ...

By the way, I do not consider you an "idiot" ... I actually hope my
fears are unfounded and pumping this cooking frequencies into ones skull
will actually provide a here-to-fore unknown benefit(s) ... Do you
think I could really take any pleasure in people being harmed? We
simply need to look out for our own best interests; unfortunately, no
one will do that for us, and the ones being paid to do so are NOT doing
their job(s.)

The tendrils of greed and corruption run deep and chant the mantra "Oh,
he/she/they are just paranoid", it works too well ...

Regards,
JS

Just to clarify, you seem to imply, a 1.2288KW, equivalent, source of
freqs in the "cooking bands" and at a distance of
384mm/38.4cm/~15-inches from your head is "nothing to sweat." (and
given, the sources antenna is omni-directional)

Surely you can see how some men would withhold agreement ... at least
until a time in the future ...

Regards,
JS

Just to clarify, I never said that, you did.