More on mobile phones & other wireless devices

On 20 Apr 2007 00:57:36 -0700, tom wrote:

On Apr 19, 11:58 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
Mike Vandeman writes:


(although it is not known that any risks to human health actually
exist).

Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
known that any risks to human health actually exist".

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You smoked 'im, Bill! Tom

In your dreams.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 19 Apr 2007 23:46:59 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:25:10 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:
In case you didn't notice, we aren't talking about physics, and it's
pretty irrelevant.

No, it is highly relevant. You claimed that one could be "cooked"
by a cell phone (i.e., heated) and ignored the fact that the absoption
or radiation is highly frequency dependent when hf equals the
excitation energy. Simply saying the frequency is "close" in some
unqualified sense is not good enough.

As far as I can see, you have nothing specific to say. That implies
that you don't know anything about the subject.

I just said something very specific. It isn't my fault that you know
so little about physics. I suggest you stick to topics where you might
actually have a little competence.

Health impacts are not a branch of physics, dumdum.

When medical research shows that cell phone use
causes tumors on the auditory nerve, no amount of hand-waving and
name-dropping can explain that away. Please explain why you think it's
IMPOSSIBLE for cell phones to do damage.

The "research" shows at best a very low risk of tumors for unknown
reasons (and is not very convincing).

Nonsense. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the tumors are
always on the side where the phone is held.

Care to provide a statistical analysis to back that up (accounting
for the prevalence of left-handed versus right-handed individuals)?

Read the research yourself. Until you do, you have nothing useful to
say.

There is no direct physical evidence that electromagnetic
radiation is responsible. The normal cause of radiation-induced
tumors (ionization) requires frequencies many orders of magnitudes
higher than those used in a cell phone.

Can you show that being subjected to continual loud noise does not
cause such tumors? You do know that some individuals tend to use
cell phones in very noisy environments, don't you?

Nonsense. You can't carry on a conversation in a noisy environment,
and noise doesn't JUST enter the ear where the phone is held. DUH! You
don't have a leg to stand on. Explain why they found tuumors related
to cell phone use. Science trumps your ignorant speculation.

You have no proof for your speculations and you don't have a clue as
to what "science" is (see you statment above). If there are in fact a
few cases of tumors after very long cell phone use on the side where
the phone is held, you have no justification for blaming
electromagnetic radiation at frequencies way too low to cause
ionization and at power levels way too low to cause significant
heating.

Yes, I do. (1) It's no coincidence that the tumors were right where
the cell phones were held. (2) No one has ever said that this effect
was due to "heating". You are only demonstrating your total ignorance
of science.

You also apparently have no experience in the real world, since you
will frequently see people using cell phones in noisy environments
(and no doubt turning the volume way up so they can hear over the
background noise).

No, I don't. I see a lot of cell phone users, but they always end the
call if it gets noisy. They don't "turn up the volume". Besides, there
is no evidence that noise causes TUMORS.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 19 Apr 2007 23:49:08 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:21:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:
LOL. Highly relevant - you were caught lying.

Now you ARE lying. Quote my alleged "lie". (Hint: you CAN'T; there
wasn't one.)

Vandeman, you lied by turning the phrase "too low to cause ionization"
into an unqualified "low". That sort of behavior is at best sloppy
at at worst completely dishonest. Given that it was pointed out to
you and that you didn't simply admit a mistake, the most likely
explanation is that you lied through your teeth.

Pure BS. All I did was split the line so I could respond to your use
of the word "low" for something that isn't very low.

Pure truth on my part: the frequencies used for cell phones are very
low compared to those of visible light, much less the even higher
frequencies needed for ionization. You were intellectually dishonest
(i.e., you lied) by pretending I had said something quite different.

I know you'd much prefer to talk about anything but the fact that cell
phones are harmful and have been proven to cause tumors.

Actually, I'd prefer to talk about physics, a subject you apparently
know nothing about. :-) And the URL you cited to back up your claim
stated that any harmful effects had not been proven!

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 19 Apr 2007 23:58:24 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

How about something more relevant?:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/ce...s-health-faq/:

Copyright: (c) 1996-2003 John E. Moulder & The Medical College of
Wisconsin
Author: John E. Moulder

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Mobile Phone Base Station
Antennas and Human Health

What a joke! You snipped the first part:

:: From: (John Moulder)
:: Newsgroups: sci.med.physics, sci.physics.electromag
:: Subject: Cell Phone Antennas & Health FAQs
:: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:02:40 -0500
:: Message-ID:
:: Reply-To: (John Moulder)
:: Summary: A series of Q&As on wireless communication (including cell
:: phone) base station antennas and human health.
:: Keywords: cellular, phone, mobile, PCS, health, antennas, EMF, cancer, FCC, tower, mast, RF
:: User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8
::
:: Archive-name: medicine/cell-phone-antennas-health-faq
:: NPosting-Frequency: monthly
:: Last-modified: 7 June 2003
:: Version: 4.9.3

This is the usenet posting of some character who apparently thinks
these musings are of any possible interest to a group called
"sci.physics.electromag". In spite of that, you own citation
claims you are (to be polite) exaggerating:

(although it is not known that any risks to human health actually
exist).

Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
known that any risks to human health actually exist".

Maybe because that was 3 YEARS before this, idiot:

Then why the f___ did you provide that particular URL. You made a
claim.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features...,7105692.story

Cell phone risks cited in studies

Three groups find danger of tumors

By Nancy McVicar
South Florida Sun-Sentinel Health Writer
Posted February 1 2006

LOL. You are reduced to believing the musings of someone who works at
a newspaper?

Two of the studies found a correlation between the tumor's location
and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone.
One also suggests the greatest risk is in people who began using the
phones before age 20, but researchers said the study group was small
and more research should be done.

I.e., there was nothing conclusive due to tiny sample sizes, and even
less to indicate that the cause of any effect, if real, is electromagnetic
radiation and not something else.

Before making any claims regarding cell phone use, you can first
explain what was done to control for the following:

1. Are these tumors associated with sound intensity
given that some people turn the volume up way too far
with a variety of elctronic devices, particularly when
they use earphones.

2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
one is right handed or left handed in the general population?

3. Do the same people use iPods, MP3 players, or other devices
that produce loud music, and which ear to they put the earplug
in?

If you can't answer those questions, all you have is a correlation
for unknown reasons, some of which may be only incidentally correlated
with cell phone use.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 19 Apr 2007 23:46:59 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:25:10 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:
In case you didn't notice, we aren't talking about physics, and it's
pretty irrelevant.

No, it is highly relevant. You claimed that one could be "cooked"
by a cell phone (i.e., heated) and ignored the fact that the absoption
or radiation is highly frequency dependent when hf equals the
excitation energy. Simply saying the frequency is "close" in some
unqualified sense is not good enough.

As far as I can see, you have nothing specific to say. That implies
that you don't know anything about the subject.

I just said something very specific. It isn't my fault that you know
so little about physics. I suggest you stick to topics where you might
actually have a little competence.

Health impacts are not a branch of physics, dumdum.

The effects of electromagnetic radition on matter is, however, and that
was the issue.

The "research" shows at best a very low risk of tumors for unknown
reasons (and is not very convincing).

Nonsense. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the tumors are
always on the side where the phone is held.

Care to provide a statistical analysis to back that up (accounting
for the prevalence of left-handed versus right-handed individuals)?

Read the research yourself. Until you do, you have nothing useful to
say.


No, I don't. I see a lot of cell phone users, but they always end the
call if it gets noisy. They don't "turn up the volume". Besides, there
is no evidence that noise causes TUMORS.

Care to cite any study that even tried to see if that was the case? You
were, after all, talking about benign tumors on an auditory nerve, and
you have simply not shown any physical mechanism that would explain how
electomagnetic radiation might be responsible.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On 20 Apr 2007 16:17:49 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 19 Apr 2007 23:58:24 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

How about something more relevant?:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/ce...s-health-faq/:

Copyright: (c) 1996-2003 John E. Moulder & The Medical College of
Wisconsin
Author: John E. Moulder

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Mobile Phone Base Station
Antennas and Human Health

What a joke! You snipped the first part:

:: From: (John Moulder)
:: Newsgroups: sci.med.physics, sci.physics.electromag
:: Subject: Cell Phone Antennas & Health FAQs
:: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:02:40 -0500
:: Message-ID:
:: Reply-To: (John Moulder)
:: Summary: A series of Q&As on wireless communication (including cell
:: phone) base station antennas and human health.
:: Keywords: cellular, phone, mobile, PCS, health, antennas, EMF, cancer, FCC, tower, mast, RF
:: User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8
::
:: Archive-name: medicine/cell-phone-antennas-health-faq
:: NPosting-Frequency: monthly
:: Last-modified: 7 June 2003
:: Version: 4.9.3

This is the usenet posting of some character who apparently thinks
these musings are of any possible interest to a group called
"sci.physics.electromag". In spite of that, you own citation
claims you are (to be polite) exaggerating:

(although it is not known that any risks to human health actually
exist).

Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
known that any risks to human health actually exist".

Maybe because that was 3 YEARS before this, idiot:

Then why the f___ did you provide that particular URL. You made a
claim.

Probably for the same reason that you deliberately deleted the text I
sent. What are you aftraid of, that you have to remove information?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features...,7105692.story

Cell phone risks cited in studies

Three groups find danger of tumors

By Nancy McVicar
South Florida Sun-Sentinel Health Writer
Posted February 1 2006

LOL. You are reduced to believing the musings of someone who works at
a newspaper?

"Musings". Tell the truth (I know, you can't). She was reporting the
results of research studies. Obviously, you don't want information you
don't like, whatever the source.

Two of the studies found a correlation between the tumor's location
and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone.
One also suggests the greatest risk is in people who began using the
phones before age 20, but researchers said the study group was small
and more research should be done.

I.e., there was nothing conclusive due to tiny sample sizes, and even
less to indicate that the cause of any effect, if real, is electromagnetic
radiation and not something else.

That's not what they said. It's purely routine to ask for more
research.

Before making any claims regarding cell phone use, you can first
explain what was done to control for the following:

1. Are these tumors associated with sound intensity
given that some people turn the volume up way too far
with a variety of elctronic devices, particularly when
they use earphones.

That's ludicrous.. Loud sound doesn't cause TUMORS. Otherwise, rock
musicians would be full of them, and we would have heard of it before
now. You are grasping at straws.

2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
one is right handed or left handed in the general population?

Irrelevant. They are correlated with WHERE THE CELL PHONE WAS HELD.

3. Do the same people use iPods, MP3 players, or other devices
that produce loud music, and which ear to they put the earplug
in?

Ludicrous. Loud sound doesn't cause TUMORS. Otherwise, rock musicians
would be full of them, and we would have heard of it before now. You
are grasping at straws.

If you can't answer those questions, all you have is a correlation
for unknown reasons, some of which may be only incidentally correlated
with cell phone use.

You are grasping at straws, and obviously know NOTHING of this
subject. You aren't even aware of the research that has been done. You
are just another egomaniacal electronics nerd.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 20 Apr 2007 16:22:07 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 19 Apr 2007 23:46:59 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:19:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:25:10 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:
In case you didn't notice, we aren't talking about physics, and it's
pretty irrelevant.

No, it is highly relevant. You claimed that one could be "cooked"
by a cell phone (i.e., heated) and ignored the fact that the absoption
or radiation is highly frequency dependent when hf equals the
excitation energy. Simply saying the frequency is "close" in some
unqualified sense is not good enough.

As far as I can see, you have nothing specific to say. That implies
that you don't know anything about the subject.

I just said something very specific. It isn't my fault that you know
so little about physics. I suggest you stick to topics where you might
actually have a little competence.

Health impacts are not a branch of physics, dumdum.

The effects of electromagnetic radition on matter is, however, and that
was the issue.

You still haven't even DISCUSSED the effects of cell phone radiation
on matter. All you said is that it's not "ionizing radiation". That
doesn't say what it DOES.

The "research" shows at best a very low risk of tumors for unknown
reasons (and is not very convincing).

Nonsense. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the tumors are
always on the side where the phone is held.

Care to provide a statistical analysis to back that up (accounting
for the prevalence of left-handed versus right-handed individuals)?

Read the research yourself. Until you do, you have nothing useful to
say.


No, I don't. I see a lot of cell phone users, but they always end the
call if it gets noisy. They don't "turn up the volume". Besides, there
is no evidence that noise causes TUMORS.

Care to cite any study that even tried to see if that was the case? You
were, after all, talking about benign tumors on an auditory nerve, and
you have simply not shown any physical mechanism that would explain how
electomagnetic radiation might be responsible.

I don't need to. It happened. YOU explain it. And NOT from loud noise,
which is absurd and laughable.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 20 Apr 2007 16:04:28 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 19 Apr 2007 23:49:08 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:21:03 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:
LOL. Highly relevant - you were caught lying.

Now you ARE lying. Quote my alleged "lie". (Hint: you CAN'T; there
wasn't one.)

Vandeman, you lied by turning the phrase "too low to cause ionization"
into an unqualified "low". That sort of behavior is at best sloppy
at at worst completely dishonest. Given that it was pointed out to
you and that you didn't simply admit a mistake, the most likely
explanation is that you lied through your teeth.

Pure BS. All I did was split the line so I could respond to your use
of the word "low" for something that isn't very low.

Pure truth on my part: the frequencies used for cell phones are very
low compared to those of visible light, much less the even higher
frequencies needed for ionization. You were intellectually dishonest
(i.e., you lied) by pretending I had said something quite different.

I know you'd much prefer to talk about anything but the fact that cell
phones are harmful and have been proven to cause tumors.

Actually, I'd prefer to talk about physics, a subject you apparently
know nothing about.

There you go, LYING again. I know enough to know that you are
bluffing. You know NOTHING about health impacts. You just like to show
off your nerdiness.

:-) And the URL you cited to back up your claim
stated that any harmful effects had not been proven!

Scientists are cautious, and ALWAYS say that. Research on effects that
take decades to occur is inherently difficult, due to the short
lifespan of the researchers. That's why many of them use fruit flies
instead of human subjects.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 20 Apr 2007 16:17:49 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 19 Apr 2007 23:58:24 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:
Did you even bother to read what you cited? You know, "... it is not
known that any risks to human health actually exist".

Maybe because that was 3 YEARS before this, idiot:

Then why the f___ did you provide that particular URL. You made a
claim.

Probably for the same reason that you deliberately deleted the text I
sent. What are you aftraid of, that you have to remove information?

I commented that it was a newspaper article and suggested that you
find the original material.

By Nancy McVicar
South Florida Sun-Sentinel Health Writer
Posted February 1 2006

LOL. You are reduced to believing the musings of someone who works at
a newspaper?

"Musings". Tell the truth (I know, you can't). She was reporting the
results of research studies. Obviously, you don't want information you
don't like, whatever the source.

You can't be serious. I know plenty of people who have been interviewed
by the press regarding various research projects and it is not uncommon
for the reporter to mess up critical details.


Two of the studies found a correlation between the tumor's location
and the side of the head where people reported they held the phone.
One also suggests the greatest risk is in people who began using the
phones before age 20, but researchers said the study group was small
and more research should be done.

I.e., there was nothing conclusive due to tiny sample sizes, and even
less to indicate that the cause of any effect, if real, is electromagnetic
radiation and not something else.

That's not what they said. It's purely routine to ask for more
research.

Your own quote said, "the study group was small". Do you understand
the implicatoins of that statement.


Before making any claims regarding cell phone use, you can first
explain what was done to control for the following:

1. Are these tumors associated with sound intensity
given that some people turn the volume up way too far
with a variety of elctronic devices, particularly when
they use earphones.

That's ludicrous.. Loud sound doesn't cause TUMORS. Otherwise, rock
musicians would be full of them, and we would have heard of it before
now. You are grasping at straws.

Rock musicians don't get nearly the sound levels that their
fans do (and can wear earplugs as long as it doesn't show). In addition,
the tumors in question are very rare, whether cell phones are used or
not.

2. Is the location of these tumors correlated with whether
one is right handed or left handed in the general population?

Irrelevant. They are correlated with WHERE THE CELL PHONE WAS HELD.

"Where the cell phone is held" is typically correlated with handedness.
It is by one ear or the other.

3. Do the same people use iPods, MP3 players, or other devices
that produce loud music, and which ear to they put the earplug
in?

Ludicrous. Loud sound doesn't cause TUMORS. Otherwise, rock musicians
would be full of them, and we would have heard of it before now. You
are grasping at straws.

Not so. Rock musicians do not stand in front of the speakers, and of
course Vandeman has presented no data about these individuals.

If you can't answer those questions, all you have is a correlation
for unknown reasons, some of which may be only incidentally correlated
with cell phone use.

You are grasping at straws, and obviously know NOTHING of this
subject. You aren't even aware of the research that has been done. You
are just another egomaniacal electronics nerd.

Translation - Vandeman would make a very sloppy researcher.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 20 Apr 2007 16:22:07 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 19 Apr 2007 23:46:59 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


The effects of electromagnetic radition on matter is, however, and that
was the issue.

You still haven't even DISCUSSED the effects of cell phone radiation
on matter. All you said is that it's not "ionizing radiation". That
doesn't say what it DOES.

We had this discussion last year and I went through it in some
detail. I see no reason to repeat the same "conversation" just
for your benefit. The short version is that you'll get a very
small amount of heat, but not localized due to the wavelength
being comparable to the size of one's head, and if the head was
a good absorber, you'd see noticable attenuation as you do a
360 degree turn, putting your head between the phone and the
base station, and you simply don't see that in practice.


No, I don't. I see a lot of cell phone users, but they always end the
call if it gets noisy. They don't "turn up the volume". Besides, there
is no evidence that noise causes TUMORS.

Care to cite any study that even tried to see if that was the case? You
were, after all, talking about benign tumors on an auditory nerve, and
you have simply not shown any physical mechanism that would explain how
electomagnetic radiation might be responsible.

I don't need to. It happened. YOU explain it. And NOT from loud noise,
which is absurd and laughable.

You mean you can't back up your statements.

Loud noise is not absurd as a possible cause - the response of the ear
to sound is to send a signal along the auditory nerve, and there is a
lot of complex chemistry involved theere. So it is something you
simply have to check before coming to any definitive conclusion.

Also, people who use cell phones heavily may also be heavily into
using MP3 players, portable CD players, etc., and it is well known
that these tend to be played at volumes high enough to cause hearing
damage. Do you know if the reaction to that damage might lead to
tumors or not?

Of course, you don't know, which means you are simply speculating.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB