John Smith wrote:

...
Now, anyone want to explain the "yellow journalism" in that to me?

Regards,
JS

Here are complete disassembly instructions for my phone, the one in
question. The antenna IS NOT where the "kid" (well, he was much younger
than me grin) at "the cell phone place" told me it was ... indeed, it
is UNDER MY HAND while I hold the phone! (actually, between head and
hand!--nice for efficiency, huh?--probably drives it towards that 300mw
all-the-more-quicker!) (so much for "placing the antenna logically!")

Now I am thinking the area of highest exposure, on my head, is my
cheek/nose/upper-gum-area ... and, this makes the area of the phone
containing the antenna further from my head; and the equivalent
distance to a 1+KW source is much further, feet away instead of inches
.... but, I would be hesitant to remain in my garage with I in one corner
and an "omni-directional, Cooking Band(CB), frequency generator" of 1+KW
in the other corner! -- But then, that is just me ... (and the phone is
a MUCH closer danger than that ...)

That all changes little in my mind. Although I really do not sweat HF
RF, much, I would still be hesitant to expose myself to levels of it of
those intensities in question FOR the length of time(s), and that
frequently, as is in question, however, if the need arouse, I'd probably
do it ... at VHF/SHF I WOULD NOT! And, especially to those freqs in the
CB Bands (Cooking Bands grin)

It would take "extreme motivation" for me to ignore the "prudent man
rule"; but, even that is possible ...

I am sorry if this has been a source of "yellow journalism", to me, they
seem honest mistakes/bad-data, but I admit, the mistakes do not help ...
my original point seemed "so harmless", "be prudent/cautious" :-(

Tell you what, consider all this just "One Mans' Opinion", gather your
data and then you decide ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

...
Regards,
JS

Oh yeah, the disassembly instructions:

http://uselessinfo.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dismantlev3.htm

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:53:27 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

but then, you already knew that!

No, I anticipate with 3 more follow-ons by you to the same posting,
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I am correcting an error from previous postings, I suspect this
to-be/might-be the "yellow journalism" you complain of ... I was in
error on the antennas' placement within the phone ...

I now consider the "clear and present danger" of the cell phone, to my
brain (frontal lobe(s) now), to be an equiv. to a 1.2288KW source at a
distance of 448cm/~176-inches/~14-ft. from my frontal lobes ... a
"distance error" of magnitudes!

But, IMHO, a still a REAL, CLEAR AND PRESENT, danger ... glad you made
me improve the accuracy of the data I was offering ... THANKS!

I did not compute the dangers to my eyes, from an equiv. source ... the
eyes are thought first to go, right? LOL!

However, the placement of the antenna has introduced a new high exposure
areas, my nose/cheek/lips/upper-gum/hand ... and the placement means the
phones antenna is completely engulfed in a "shield" of my body ...
undoubtedly lowering that antennas' efficiency and forcing it towards
max. power all the more quicker ...

If there are inaccuracies here, in this post, you will have to point
them out to me so I can see them ... and this is only one phone ...
where is the antenna in "all the others?"

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:13:01 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

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,

Hi Mike,

Child protective services probably would do that even if you NEVER put
ANY rf through the wire. They would react to the obvious issue of
abusive behavior. They haven't got a clue what RF would do, and they
wouldn't distinguish between 1W or 1µW as being good, bad, or
indifferent; and it would be the height of absurdity to expect them to
rummage through their car trunk for exposure meters to figure that out
when they are faced with a wacko and nothing more needs to be sorted
out.

Perhaps I would be better served by my argument that a lot of people
are selectively stupid. They pick and choose what they find dangerous.
They hurtle towards each other on the highways often at relative speeds
of 160 miles per hour, while carrying tanks of liquid so flammable as to
be almost explosive. Yet not a thought is given to the gasoline in their
tank, except perhaps to the cost.


Again, this sort of logic (sic) merely perpetuates the nonsense Brett
Gump loves to forward through these threads.

Perhaps a simplification of my argument is in order again.

People are very selective about what they fear. Sometimes they embrace a
technology that is no less dangerous than another action that they would
never do.




and you'd
probably have to register as something or another so you could be
tracked down if needed.
Using an ankle cuff with an RF link. Now, apparently, what is
dangerous to the head is entirely benign to the foot - tell this to a
diabetic. Care to assume the liability for this suggestion? Does the
hint of cuffs pinching your wrists come to mind?

Strictly speaking there is a difference in the tissue between the
exposed areas. Is there a difference? I don't know. That's another test.


This is the absurdity of Brett's Yellow Journalism research and how
the topic has drifted from the technical to the superstitious. Mike,
do you care to respond to my technical comment of 3 days ago, or is
this deviant speculation really that more relevant to anything?

Sorry Richard, I didn't see that post. I might google it up when I get a
chance.

But I detect an interesting drift to your reply. How much of your
disagreement with me is due to my speculation on how people are
remarkably inconsistent in their acceptance of risk, and how much is the
disagreement because for once, I am in agreement with Mr. Smith?

This is in no way an argument for elimination of cell phones. It is an
argument that we should not have them hanging off the side of our heads
for hours. Even my XYL will chat with a friend for an hour plus on her
cell. Makes me cringe. My own personal rule is no more than a minute,
and I stick to it.


My arguments for exposing one's offspring are specifically designed to
be ridiculous upon reception. No one in their right mind would ever
expose their children like that, nor their husbands, wives, etc. But to
the brain tissue, an exact analog could be delivered. Yet why would we
not do it? The answer is because we shouldn't.


My point has been proven. I'm a little surprised that it was you who
provided the proof.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:49:09 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

My point has been proven. I'm a little surprised that it was you who
provided the proof.

Hi Mike,

Make that two posts you need to re-read.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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

Look if you really want the RF evaluation done, I need to charge you for it.
I could show you where you are wrong in your calculation, verify what is
correct and you can do what you want with it. It will cost you even more if
I have to actually measure the power bandwidth and density of the actual
unit.

You spoke earlier about widespread corruption and no trust beyond your fear.
I can understand suspicion, but your fear is largely based on the unknown.
It might help you to consider that manufacturers are largely motivated by
greed, so it would be absurd to worry that they would spend the extra money
to exceed the FCC specifications for maximum output, although I'm sure that
there are individuals who would spend the extra money for an amplifier. I
would suspect that sales would get their money and the customer would be
sent to the complaint department to get their money's worth and the
responsibility would fall.

http://infotech.awardspace.com/

JB wrote:

...
Look if you really want the RF evaluation done, I need to charge you for it.
I could show you where you are wrong in your calculation, verify what is
correct and you can do what you want with it. It will cost you even more if
I have to actually measure the power bandwidth and density of the actual
unit.

You spoke earlier about widespread corruption and no trust beyond your fear.
I can understand suspicion, but your fear is largely based on the unknown.
It might help you to consider that manufacturers are largely motivated by
greed, so it would be absurd to worry that they would spend the extra money
to exceed the FCC specifications for maximum output, although I'm sure that
there are individuals who would spend the extra money for an amplifier. I
would suspect that sales would get their money and the customer would be
sent to the complaint department to get their money's worth and the
responsibility would fall.

http://infotech.awardspace.com/



Ahhh, you are an idiot!

You will have to excuse me. Yanno, sometimes you just run into that
rare circumstance where, at first the person "seems normal." After a
bit of dialog, however, you realize "there is no one home ...

1) They (cell phones) DON'T exceed the maximum allowed--and THAT IS
SCARY! (1.6W per Kg ... how much does your head weigh?)

2) An amplifier would do you little good unless you could also increase
the output on the cell tower ... but then, I don't like burnt toast! ;-)

3) The "damage" we "debate" is of such a nature, it could only be found
it statistical studies--all studies to date are flawed ...

4) I expect "this problem" to take longer sorting out than the the
tobacco problem/danger. How many deaths from tobacco alone?

5) Massive corruption, greed and loss of trust, that is in question?
What else do you call it when the will of the people is constantly
ignored; and when all-else-fails, the courts are called in to make a
decision that the will of the people is NOT constitutional! (Rather
illogical when the constitution takes justification from "we the people
...." I believe that same justification is used in the California law.)

6) New Orleans has still not recovered, despite "federal help", many are
still without homes--google it! If it were in another country, we could
have emergency supplies anywhere in the world in a matter of days and
begin helping rebuild in a matter of weeks ... more goes on in Oz than
meets than eye ... the terrorists only need to walk across the
border--good for us they are too stupid to figure that out ... I guess.

PLONK!

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
Look if you really want the RF evaluation done, I need to charge you for
it.
I could show you where you are wrong in your calculation, verify what is
correct and you can do what you want with it. It will cost you even
more if
I have to actually measure the power bandwidth and density of the actual
unit.

You spoke earlier about widespread corruption and no trust beyond your
fear.
I can understand suspicion, but your fear is largely based on the
unknown.
It might help you to consider that manufacturers are largely motivated
by
greed, so it would be absurd to worry that they would spend the extra
money
to exceed the FCC specifications for maximum output, although I'm sure
that
there are individuals who would spend the extra money for an amplifier.
I
would suspect that sales would get their money and the customer would be
sent to the complaint department to get their money's worth and the
responsibility would fall.

http://infotech.awardspace.com/



Ahhh, you are an idiot!

You will have to excuse me. Yanno, sometimes you just run into that
rare circumstance where, at first the person "seems normal." After a
bit of dialog, however, you realize "there is no one home ...

1) They (cell phones) DON'T exceed the maximum allowed--and THAT IS
SCARY! (1.6W per Kg ... how much does your head weigh?)

2) An amplifier would do you little good unless you could also increase
the output on the cell tower ... but then, I don't like burnt toast! ;-)


I was joking about actually putting an amplifier on any wireless device that
you can put in your pocket and runs on batteries. But I guess I have to be
very careful with the ignorant and superstitious, because an offhand quip
might be taken to heart and grow to be a religion like your exposure rant.
You call them "cell towers" because it is your boogie man. You probably
haven't even been on a tour to a transmitter site.

3) The "damage" we "debate" is of such a nature, it could only be found
it statistical studies--all studies to date are flawed ...

4) I expect "this problem" to take longer sorting out than the the
tobacco problem/danger. How many deaths from tobacco alone?

5) Massive corruption, greed and loss of trust, that is in question?
What else do you call it when the will of the people is constantly
ignored; and when all-else-fails, the courts are called in to make a
decision that the will of the people is NOT constitutional! (Rather
illogical when the constitution takes justification from "we the people
..." I believe that same justification is used in the California law.)

6) New Orleans has still not recovered, despite "federal help", many are
still without homes--google it! If it were in another country, we could
have emergency supplies anywhere in the world in a matter of days and
begin helping rebuild in a matter of weeks ... more goes on in Oz than
meets than eye ... the terrorists only need to walk across the
border--good for us they are too stupid to figure that out ... I guess.


PLONK!

Regards,
JS

Everyone check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Read the section on "Red Herring fallacies"


Your numbers are all wrong so you call me an idiot. These newsgroups are
googled and will probably be around for a while. Your conclusions based on
your own erroneous suppositions won't make me an idiot. But you obviously
have an environmental liberal whacko agenda to promote or you would produce
your evidence.

My 30 year + observations of a community of professionals (and not so
professionals) is the only statistical evidence I need to prove your dog
can't walk because it has no legs.

If you want to do some good, why don't you rant about X-ray exposure from
CRT's and why everyone should get rid of them in favor of LCD's for computer
monitors, because I guarantee it is way more a health risk than little
wireless devices.

You are correct that California is way AFU, but you don't know the half of
it. Until you do, the same mistakes will be made when it comes to your
town, because you are lock-stepped to belief systems that reject reality, so
you will continually lay the blame for your error elsewhere until it has you
by the throat.

JB wrote:

...

Did I hear something?

I thought I heard something!

Guess not ...

Regards,
JS

If you want to do some good, why don't you rant about X-ray exposure from
CRT's and why everyone should get rid of them in favor of LCD's for
computer
monitors, because I guarantee it is way more a health risk than little
wireless devices.


I spent 5 years in front of large CRTs while wearing a radiation monitor.
When no one showed any sign of radiation the monitoring ceased. Did pick up
some radiation from unrelated sources, but nothing from the CRTs.

Probably getting more radiation from the ionization smoke detector on the
ceiling of my den! Not to mention all the natural sources - bananas for
example.

Dave