John Smith wrote:

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

Regards,
JS

This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/...=2008&public=0

and is VERY similar to how studies such as the one mentioned he

http://www.rense.com/general26/2yrs.htm

are being ignored.

But then, some will attempt to dismiss all this to "environmental
wackos"--"Darwin Awards" coming soon!

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Cecil:

I simply find it "strange", that the presumption that exposure to forms
of radiation (RF in this case) is always considered safe until
proved/proven harmful. The same goes for chemicals not existing in
nature and to which the human body (or any biological organisms for that
matter) has never been exposed. It seems all which is needed is to
chant a "paranoid/wacko" mantra and such forms of thought are naturally
generated in the human mind. The presumption, so generated, seems to
be, "If we have never seen it before, if we have never been exposed to
it before, maybe it is actually good for us!"

I mean, is this prudent thinking/behavior? Am I the only one to think
the proof should rest with those introducing the potential harmful
exposure/materials and their SAFETY--rather than those being exposed
having to prove its' harm in order to effect their own safety?

If you look at the parallels between how tobacco was allowed to
continue, without even a warning and for such a lengthy period, it all
revolved over disputing studies/good-science which kept pointing to the
dangers ... indeed, into the 70' and well beyond, the warning that
"smoking was bad" was met with those chanting the myths of flawed
studies ...

What truly amazes me is the fact that simple "safeguards" are available
to vastly reduce risk (at least with cell phones.) What has become so
ingrained into our thinking/media which can make otherwise responsible
men and women so irresponsible ... money, greed, corruption, insanity?

Someone here has thinking that is "a bit off", if it is me--I only pray
rationality will come home ... I will continue to "re-think my
thinking", maybe I will eventually see it ... until then, I do keep
abreast of the "Rush Limbaugh Manta"--"Things are Good and Getting
Better, don't trust your eyes, mind and thinking--they lie!" It simply
does NOT motivate me "To Believe!"

I am willing to listen to any studies which find that cell phone
radiation is making me smarter, handsomer, wittier, richer and more
sexually attractive to the ladies, etc. ;-) Just show me some honest,
unbiased studies which deal on REAL SCIENCE ... look at Love Canal in
New York and the battle to prove, legally, that these chemicals being
dumped into the environment were harming/killing people! ... how many
examples before one chooses to error on the side of caution?

Let me give you a "hard case example", perhaps 99%+ of the snakes in the
world are NOT POISONOUS--would I be prudent to consider the next snake I
see non-poisonous and of NO danger? I think not ... heck, just a
relatively "harmless bite" will get my attention! (not to mention the
danger of infection.)

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Most of the people around here who have their heads glued to
cellphones, constantly, don't have enough brains to support
tumors successfully, anyway, so the problem is non-existent.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Tom Donaly" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813
2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Most of the people around here who have their heads glued to
cellphones, constantly, don't have enough brains to support
tumors successfully, anyway, so the problem is non-existent.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
Now there is someone with some sense.
Mike, VK6MO

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:18:16 -0700, 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

Wrong again. The base fluid of blood is very like sea water, and with
good reason. The salt and other solute contents are essentially the
same between blood serum and sea water.

Unfortunately, your radio knowledge seems to be as inadequate as your
biology.

JosephKK wrote:

...
Wrong again. The base fluid of blood is very like sea water, and with
good reason. The salt and other solute contents are essentially the
same between blood serum and sea water.

Unfortunately, your radio knowledge seems to be as inadequate as your
biology.


This:

"First off, while both contain many of the same salts, concentration of
dissolved particles in blood is very different from that in seawater.
The primary constituents of both are sodium and chlorine (which together
make up common salt, NaCl), but seawater has three times as much sodium
and five times as much chlorine per unit weight. Hardly the same.
Furthermore, it contains eight times as much calcium and fifty times as
much magnesium."


From he

http://www.icr.org/article/513/

Will idiots never cease? At least learn how to Google and NOT be lazy
so you can't get off yer dead arse to do it!

Regards,
JS

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:10:05 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

From he

http://www.icr.org/article/513/

Brett,

You've been going to the gong show for science? Talk about lazy:
I think I first heard this one in a junior high school assembly during a "Mr. Wizard" film.

Creation scienz basing its refutation on a 50 year old program for
children is about as reputable a source of information as believing
the Georgian-Soviet (whoops russian) peace accord (which is to say
suitable only for the white house intelligence community who wanted it
signed in Atlanta which is a shorter DC helicopter flight than to
Moscow Idaho).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I threw in the creation science web site just for you!

Google up some university site(s), it will be the same ... now, git
offn' yer' lazy bum ...

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:10:05 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

From he

http://www.icr.org/article/513/

Brett,

You've been going to the gong show for science? Talk about lazy:
I think I first heard this one in a junior high school assembly during a "Mr. Wizard" film.

Creation scienz basing its refutation on a 50 year old program for
children is about as reputable a source of information as believing
the Georgian-Soviet (whoops russian) peace accord (which is to say
suitable only for the white house intelligence community who wanted it
signed in Atlanta which is a shorter DC helicopter flight than to
Moscow Idaho).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Come to think of it, your Google-ing abilities may be as wanting as your
logic abilities ...

So, a hint, if blood had as high a concentration of salt as sea water, a
person might be able to drink it and survive ... or, the osmotic
pressure of blood is around 300, that of sea water is over 1000 ...

Regards,
JS