"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:13piqtdja3vt4c9@corp.supernews.com:
> the possibility that long-term [cell phone] use may raise the risk of
> cancer"
What raises the risk of cancer is taking a vaccine injection loaded with
cancer-causing LIVE virii from the major drug companies, mixed in with the
dead virus you're taking the injection for.
There was a very disturbing video posted on
alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries not long ago on this very subject.
Very disturbing because it had a banned segment from Merck's best scientist
casually talking about it and not realizing he was being taped before a PBS
interview.
Joel Koltner wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:52nip35g3mft1c9pmktovhvsa6c4qs5ljf@4ax.com...
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7199659.stm>
>
> I can't take an article like that seriously when it gives no quantatative data
> whatsoever. Did using phones reduce deep sleep by an hour? 10 minutes? 30
> seconds? And sentences such as, "...researchers said they could not rule out
> the possibility that long-term [cell phone] use may raise the risk of cancer"
> is a rather meaning statement as well, because you could substitude almost
> anything for "cell phone" and have some researcher testify to it.
> ("...reserachers said they could not rule out the possibility that long-term
> Usenet use may raise the risk of cancer!")
Dr. Dean Edell had a good laugh at that "study" a couple of days ago. A
sample size of 71!
Maybe it was an effort by the industry to get people to use more peak
minutes, and less "free" night minutes.
Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:53:16 GMT, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory
>> exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to
>> be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely
>> affected."
>
> [snip]
>
> So GSM 850 is the culprit. I am safe with my 1900MHz only phone.
Or with CDMA. Much lower radiation than GSM in either band.
Maybe Verizon, Sprint, and Alltel can turn this study to their advantage
in their marketing materials.
"Fewest Spurious Rads"
"Fewest Rads per Call"
"Less Rads in More Places"
"It's the Radiation"
"Least Powerful Network"
(yeah I know that the current unit of radiation is the gray, but rad
sounds much better).
I like that. The script for the actor promoting it goes..
"It's the Radiation!" (yawn)
g
SMS wrote:
> Anon E. Muss wrote:
> Or with CDMA. Much lower radiation than GSM in either band.
>
> Maybe Verizon, Sprint, and Alltel can turn this study to their advantage
> in their marketing materials.
g wrote:
> I like that. The script for the actor promoting it goes..
>
> "It's the Radiation!" (yawn)
I forgot, "Fewest Dropped Rads."
The CDMA carriers can follow Cingular's example in "Fewest Dropped
Calls" and commission a study on radiation. Then no matter what the
results of the study show, they can come up with some way of
interpreting the study to build a marketing campaign upon "Fewest
Dropped Rads." If they need help in this, they can hire the marketing
person from Cingular that came up with "Fewest Dropped Calls." If the
company doing the study claims that the carriers are misinterpreting the
study, it makes no difference.
By the way, whatever happened to the Sprint and Cingular lawsuits over
"Fewest Dropped Calls" and "Most Powerful Network?" I never saw any news
stories about how these were resolved.
SMS wrote:
> I forgot, "Fewest Dropped Rads."
>
> If they need help in this, they can hire the marketing
> person from Cingular that came up with "Fewest Dropped Calls." If the
> company doing the study claims that the carriers are misinterpreting the
> study, it makes no difference.
>
> By the way, whatever happened to the Sprint and Cingular lawsuits over
> "Fewest Dropped Calls" and "Most Powerful Network?" I never saw any news
> stories about how these were resolved.
I don't know what happened WRT any pertinent lawsuits but I'd have to
say the "fewest dropped rads" may have more merit than "fewest dropped
calls" at least from a technical efficiency perspective.
The fundamental problem with getting 3G and beyond coverage is "dropped
rads", or somewhat more precisely, the excess propagation loss due to
real terrain and environments. If we were on a flat earth with no
obstacles, we'd already have 4G anywhere we wanted it. It's the "dropped
rads" that are preventing it. Typical cell links can have all but one
millionth (-60 d of the power that would have arrived in a LOS/flat
earth environment actually get to the phone. Those "dropped rads" are
the difference between 10 kBs (voice) and 10 Gbs (I-don't-know-what
application).
However, the term "rad" or "radiation" is a tough one to market. It's
going to take all that they can muster to spin it so that it is
palatable. The public in general doesn't seem to like words like
"nuclear" and "radiation" that relate to the unseen. Thus anything that
uses them becomes suspect.
The really big source of radiation we all share, the sun, delivers
roughly one KILOWATT every square meter on the earth. It is the
identified cause of all sorts of skin problems, cancers, melanomas etc.
It is arguably a million times worse than cell phones in regard to the
energy delivered yet we absorb it, bask in it and relish the charring
(OK, "tan") it produces on our bodies. In it's absence people pay money
to go sit under other radiation to get the same effect. BUT, mention an
unseen form of 'radiation' and everything changes, 'nuclear' families
and 'radiant' smiles notwithstanding.
Jer wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7199659.stm>
>>
>> Using a mobile phone before going to bed could stop you getting a
>> decent night's sleep, research suggests.
>> The study, funded by mobile phone companies, suggests radiation from
>> the handset can cause insomnia, headaches and confusion.
>> It may also cut our amount of deep sleep - interfering with the
>> body's ability to refresh itself.
>> The study was carried out by Sweden's Karolinska Institute and Wayne
>> State University in the US.
>> Funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, the scientists studied 35
>> men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45.
>> Some were exposed to radiation equivalent to that received when using
>> a mobile phone, others were placed in the same conditions, but given
>> only "sham" exposure.
>> Those exposed to radiation took longer to enter the first of the
>> deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one.
>> The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory
>> exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to
>> be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely
>> affected."
>> Researcher Professor Bengt Arnetz said: "The study strongly suggests
>> that mobile phone use is associated with specific changes in the
>> areas of the brain responsible for activating and coordinating the
>> stress system."
>> Another theory is that radiation may disrupt production of the
>> hormone melatonin, which controls the body's internal rhythms.
>> [MORE]
>>
>
>
> Then I guess we shouldn't leave the cell turned on lying on a bedside
> table unless it's wrapped in two layers of tin foil.
>
Uh Oh! Does everyone have their tin foil hat withing reach? ;-)
g wrote:
> The really big source of radiation we all share, the sun, delivers
> roughly one KILOWATT every square meter on the earth. It is the
> identified cause of all sorts of skin problems, cancers, melanomas etc.
Nonsense. All cancer is caused by smoking.
--
God help us all,
The next President of the United States will be a liberal.
On 2008-01-25, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote:
> The really big source of radiation we all share, the sun, delivers
> roughly one KILOWATT every square meter on the earth. It is the
> identified cause of all sorts of skin problems, cancers, melanomas etc.
It's also getting silly. The rad, and the gray, measure dosages of
ionizing radiation, e.g. X-rays. Ionizing photon radiation is very
short wavelength radiation. Only the very shortest wavelengths from
the sun which make it to the ground (the ultraviolet) are ionizing, and
they are only barely so, which is why if you wear UV sun block you should
be safe. The remaining 999.99 Watts per square meter that sun block doesn't
block won't bother you.
The center of the sun's spectrum (i.e. the wavelengths that are too
long to be ionizing and hence don't bother you) is at a wavelength of
550 nanometers. If you turn on a light in your house it will emit
radiation at about the same wavelength. If you light up your stove it
will emit radiation with a wavelength in the 1000's of nanometers, say
10 times longer than the (already safe) sunlight. The shortest coherent
wavelength you'll find being emitted by a US cell phone is about 160
millimeters, 300,000 times longer than the sunlight whose wavelength is
already too long to do you any harm.
The number of rads you'll absorb from a CDMA and a GSM cell phone is
hence the same. It is identically zero in both cases. The CDMA
phone will heat up your ear a bit more, since its average power
consumption will be higher, while the GSM phone emits pulses at
audio frequencies which may, or may not, do something, though god
only knows what. Other than that, nada.
> It's also getting silly.
....
No, it's already gotten silly. I was abetting the demise.
> The number of rads you'll absorb from a CDMA and a GSM cell phone is
> hence the same. It is identically zero in both cases. The CDMA
> phone will heat up your ear a bit more, since its average power
> consumption will be higher,
I agree, which was part of my point.
My own opinion is that the basically unmeasurable amount of heat
delivered by a cellphone is inconsequential. Certainly there is not
enough energy delivered to ionize anything and we may as well talk about
solar heating. In any case, I'm a heck of lot more concerned about UV
and sunburn than I am from anything my cell phone might do.
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> The center of the sun's spectrum (i.e. the wavelengths that are too
> long to be ionizing and hence don't bother you) is at a wavelength of
> 550 nanometers. If you turn on a light in your house it will emit
> radiation at about the same wavelength. If you light up your stove it
> will emit radiation with a wavelength in the 1000's of nanometers, say
> 10 times longer than the (already safe) sunlight. The shortest coherent
> wavelength you'll find being emitted by a US cell phone is about 160
> millimeters, 300,000 times longer than the sunlight whose wavelength is
> already too long to do you any harm.
That would be a compelling argument if not for the (12 mm?) radiation from
something like a microwave oven, hundreds of thousands of times longer than
the sunlight but hazardous nonetheless.
--
God help us all,
The next President of the United States will be a liberal.
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:34:52 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <479a00fd$0$84205$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:53:16 GMT, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory
>>> exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to
>>> be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely
>>> affected."
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> So GSM 850 is the culprit. I am safe with my 1900MHz only phone.
>
>Or with CDMA. Much lower radiation than GSM in either band.
Actually quite similar, and CDMA radios tend to put out more RF than
GSM, which is why battery life tends to be shorter for comparable
models.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:14:38 GMT, Stephen <yes@its.invalid> wrote in
<00vjp350b2go21jfn0ekj8u8ab89ljg2hu@4ax.com>:
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:53:16 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> had a flock of green cheek conures squawk
>out:
>
>> Funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, the scientists studied 35
>> men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45.
>
>Study group not large enough.
Not necessarily. That only affects the standard error of estimate.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:05:17 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4799fa0e$0$84170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Joel Koltner wrote:
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:52nip35g3mft1c9pmktovhvsa6c4qs5ljf@4ax.com...
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7199659.stm>
>>
>> I can't take an article like that seriously when it gives no quantatative data
>> whatsoever. Did using phones reduce deep sleep by an hour? 10 minutes? 30
>> seconds? And sentences such as, "...researchers said they could not rule out
>> the possibility that long-term [cell phone] use may raise the risk of cancer"
>> is a rather meaning statement as well, because you could substitude almost
>> anything for "cell phone" and have some researcher testify to it.
>> ("...reserachers said they could not rule out the possibility that long-term
>> Usenet use may raise the risk of cancer!")
>
>Dr. Dean Edell had a good laugh at that "study" a couple of days ago. A
>sample size of 71!
I guess your knowledge of statistics is as superficial as his is.
Nothing wrote with such a sample size if done properly. It simply means
the standard error of estimate will be larger, that small effects won't
necessarily be seen.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
Re: Mobiles linked to disturbed sleep 
of the power that would have arrived in a LOS/flat
Linear Mode
