Alert: Environmental and Human Health Effects of Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:58:38 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:
That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
radiation threats.

What threat? And how does individual decisions regarding cell phone
use put all of our eggs in one basket? There's no plausible physical
mechanism that anyone has proposed to date for why electromagnetic
radiation at 1 or 2 gigahertz might be bad for you,

Right Then you shouldn't have any hesitation to put your head in a
microwave oven. Sure. I hope you are putting your money where your
mouth is, and flooding yourself with radiation. Do you use a cell
phone? WiFi?

Playing such silly games just makes you look like a fool.

I suggest you learn to read in context (but you do this enough that
everyone thinks you are just dishonest). You mentioned "cell phones
and similar radiation threats" (which is begging the question). Cell
phones put out a fraction of a watt of power, and are not designed to
cook meat. Anything similar would also put out similarly low levels
of non-ionizing radiation.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On 27 Apr 2007 16:29:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:58:38 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:
That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
radiation threats.

What threat? And how does individual decisions regarding cell phone
use put all of our eggs in one basket? There's no plausible physical
mechanism that anyone has proposed to date for why electromagnetic
radiation at 1 or 2 gigahertz might be bad for you,

Right Then you shouldn't have any hesitation to put your head in a
microwave oven. Sure. I hope you are putting your money where your
mouth is, and flooding yourself with radiation. Do you use a cell
phone? WiFi?

Why can't you ever answer a question? You're obviously hiding
something.

Playing such silly games just makes you look like a fool.

I suggest you learn to read in context (but you do this enough that
everyone thinks you are just dishonest). You mentioned "cell phones
and similar radiation threats" (which is begging the question). Cell
phones put out a fraction of a watt of power, and are not designed to
cook meat. Anything similar would also put out similarly low levels
of non-ionizing radiation.
--
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 27 Apr 2007 16:29:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:


Right Then you shouldn't have any hesitation to put your head in a
microwave oven. Sure. I hope you are putting your money where your
mouth is, and flooding yourself with radiation. Do you use a cell
phone? WiFi?

Why can't you ever answer a question? You're obviously hiding
something.

Because whether or not I use a cell phone or wifi is simply none of
your f___ing business. We went through this last year when you whined
about me not answering such questions. You should know the answer by
now. My personal purchasing decisions one way or the other are not
relevant to the discussion: those decisions would be based on my
personal needs.

If you want to "dis" cell phones, why don't you talk about the
*real* risks? For example:

1. Smashing into something at 60 mph because you were trying
to type in a text message instead of looking at the road.

2. Yapping away in a loud voice in a movie theater while the
film is playing and while sitting next to a bodybuilder who
is feeling very aggressive due to all the steroids he is
popping, and who is none too pleased at the noise you are
making. A few teeth go down your throat along with the
phone.

3. Leaving an explicit text message from your girlfriend on
the phone and then giving the phone to your wife for the day
(that has probably happened to someone). The only question is
what hits you first - the cell phone, the rolling pin, or the
frying pan.

Playing such silly games just makes you look like a fool.

I suggest you learn to read in context (but you do this enough that
everyone thinks you are just dishonest). You mentioned "cell phones
and similar radiation threats" (which is begging the question). Cell
phones put out a fraction of a watt of power, and are not designed to
cook meat. Anything similar would also put out similarly low levels
of non-ionizing radiation.

(note the lack of a reply - he has none).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 27 Apr 2007 14:13:07 GMT, Chris wrote:

(Bill Z.) wrote in
:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for
your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next
alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given
the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The
properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000
K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century
(understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y,
check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that
doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket. From a risk management standpoint,
that
is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is
a
real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy.
Meanwhile,
there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of
greenhouse
gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
be nothing to fight over that need concern us.


I agree Bill. Otherwise this will be the first in the series of 'oils
wars'.

We (America) need to invest in renewable energy sources now (wind,
solar, hydro) and as a stop gap (I hate to say this, but ......) we
need
to build breeder reactors. Breeder would ensure that we there would
be
an unlimited amount of fuel for the future and as an added bonus we
could reduce the stores of highly radioactive waste from previously
wasteful reactors

That only shows how ignorant you are. The first priority is to reduce
energy use. There is no sustainable energy source large enough to
maintain current energy use, no matter how much research you do..

Here is a simple exapmle to demonstarte that you sir need to do your
homework.

If we take the total amount money that have been used to date on the
Iraq/Afganistamn war (MORE THAN $400 BILLION DOLLARS
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182)
we could purchase solar cells, place them on the nuclear testing grounds
of the 1940 - 1970 and TOTALLY ELIMINATE importing all forign oil. We
could take all oil burning/natural gas burning/coal fired electrical
plants OFFLINE. Phase out the internal combustion engin and go
electric. All this could be done in the next ten years.


If you would like to see my analysis of this issue I would be happy to
share it with you. Anybody can do the calcualtion/research, it all
available on the net.

Instead, we (Americans) will do nothing except bitch.

I will grant you you staement about reduction of energy use, but why
put a bandaid on a problem, when we can heal it (i.e. eliminate of
dependancy on forign oil)






The best part would that we could tell the Middle East 'Go eat sand"

Just like Bush: always the diplomat!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:02 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 27 Apr 2007 16:29:04 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:


Right Then you shouldn't have any hesitation to put your head in a
microwave oven. Sure. I hope you are putting your money where your
mouth is, and flooding yourself with radiation. Do you use a cell
phone? WiFi?

Why can't you ever answer a question? You're obviously hiding
something.

Because whether or not I use a cell phone or wifi is simply none of
your f___ing business. We went through this last year when you whined
about me not answering such questions. You should know the answer by
now. My personal purchasing decisions one way or the other are not
relevant to the discussion: those decisions would be based on my
personal needs.

You are obviously afraid to reveal this information. The question is
WHY? Are you embarrassed to be using a cell phone? Or NOT to be using
a cell phone, after insisting that it is safe??? The world would like
to know.

If you want to "dis" cell phones, why don't you talk about the
*real* risks? For example:

1. Smashing into something at 60 mph because you were trying
to type in a text message instead of looking at the road.

2. Yapping away in a loud voice in a movie theater while the
film is playing and while sitting next to a bodybuilder who
is feeling very aggressive due to all the steroids he is
popping, and who is none too pleased at the noise you are
making. A few teeth go down your throat along with the
phone.

3. Leaving an explicit text message from your girlfriend on
the phone and then giving the phone to your wife for the day
(that has probably happened to someone). The only question is
what hits you first - the cell phone, the rolling pin, or the
frying pan.

Irrelevant, since you already know that I don't have a cell phone (I'm
more honest than you).
--
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 30 Apr 2007 14:45:38 GMT, Chris wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

On 27 Apr 2007 14:13:07 GMT, Chris wrote:

(Bill Z.) wrote in
:

"Jeff Strickland" writes:

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for
your
entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next
alarmist
wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given
the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The
properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000
K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century
(understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y,
check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that
doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket. From a risk management standpoint,
that
is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is
a
real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy.
Meanwhile,
there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of
greenhouse
gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
be nothing to fight over that need concern us.


I agree Bill. Otherwise this will be the first in the series of 'oils
wars'.

We (America) need to invest in renewable energy sources now (wind,
solar, hydro) and as a stop gap (I hate to say this, but ......) we
need
to build breeder reactors. Breeder would ensure that we there would
be
an unlimited amount of fuel for the future and as an added bonus we
could reduce the stores of highly radioactive waste from previously
wasteful reactors

That only shows how ignorant you are. The first priority is to reduce
energy use. There is no sustainable energy source large enough to
maintain current energy use, no matter how much research you do..

Here is a simple exapmle to demonstarte that you sir need to do your
homework.

If we take the total amount money that have been used to date on the
Iraq/Afganistamn war (MORE THAN $400 BILLION DOLLARS
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182)
we could purchase solar cells, place them on the nuclear testing grounds
of the 1940 - 1970 and TOTALLY ELIMINATE importing all forign oil. We
could take all oil burning/natural gas burning/coal fired electrical
plants OFFLINE. Phase out the internal combustion engin and go
electric. All this could be done in the next ten years.

1. I don't think there's enough space there to provide that amount of
energy.
2. It is unfair to the wildlife to shade their homes like that. A MUCH
better solution would be to put those solar panels over all of our
roads, shading nothing but concrete & a few roadside plants.
--
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 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:02 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Because whether or not I use a cell phone or wifi is simply none of
your f___ing business. We went through this last year when you whined
about me not answering such questions. You should know the answer by
now. My personal purchasing decisions one way or the other are not
relevant to the discussion: those decisions would be based on my
personal needs.

You are obviously afraid to reveal this information. The question is
WHY? Are you embarrassed to be using a cell phone? Or NOT to be using
a cell phone, after insisting that it is safe??? The world would like
to know.

Vandeman, you are a moron. There is absolutely no reason for me to
divulge personal information about my purchasing decisions on a public
forum. Furthermore, I didn't even insist that cell phones were safe,
but rather just pointed out that your arguments against them were BS.
Finally, being "safe" is not a reason to purchase a cell phone and the
service you need to use it. That decision depends on quite a number
of factors that boil down to "am I getting enough to justify the
cost."

If you want to "dis" cell phones, why don't you talk about the
*real* risks? For example:

1. Smashing into something at 60 mph because you were trying
to type in a text message instead of looking at the road.

2. Yapping away in a loud voice in a movie theater while the
film is playing and while sitting next to a bodybuilder who
is feeling very aggressive due to all the steroids he is
popping, and who is none too pleased at the noise you are
making. A few teeth go down your throat along with the
phone.

3. Leaving an explicit text message from your girlfriend on
the phone and then giving the phone to your wife for the day
(that has probably happened to someone). The only question is
what hits you first - the cell phone, the rolling pin, or the
frying pan.

Irrelevant, since you already know that I don't have a cell phone (I'm
more honest than you).

I wasn't talking about you - any use of "you" in these examples was
clearly the "impersonal" use of the word, as a less stilted
alternative to "one".


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 30 Apr 2007 14:45:38 GMT, Chris wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

If we take the total amount money that have been used to date on the
Iraq/Afganistamn war (MORE THAN $400 BILLION DOLLARS
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182)
we could purchase solar cells, place them on the nuclear testing grounds
of the 1940 - 1970 and TOTALLY ELIMINATE importing all forign oil. We
could take all oil burning/natural gas burning/coal fired electrical
plants OFFLINE. Phase out the internal combustion engin and go
electric. All this could be done in the next ten years.

1. I don't think there's enough space there to provide that amount of
energy.
2. It is unfair to the wildlife to shade their homes like that. A MUCH
better solution would be to put those solar panels over all of our
roads, shading nothing but concrete & a few roadside plants.

LOL. Regardless of whether Chris estimated the land area accurately
enough, it sesm that our self-styled defender of animal rights wants
his beloved critters to live in an area with levels of radioactivity
that make them unsuitable for humans! :-)


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On 01 May 2007 17:31:29 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On 30 Apr 2007 14:45:38 GMT, Chris wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote in
:

If we take the total amount money that have been used to date on the
Iraq/Afganistamn war (MORE THAN $400 BILLION DOLLARS
http://nationalpriorities.org/index....per&Itemid=182)
we could purchase solar cells, place them on the nuclear testing grounds
of the 1940 - 1970 and TOTALLY ELIMINATE importing all forign oil. We
could take all oil burning/natural gas burning/coal fired electrical
plants OFFLINE. Phase out the internal combustion engin and go
electric. All this could be done in the next ten years.

1. I don't think there's enough space there to provide that amount of
energy.
2. It is unfair to the wildlife to shade their homes like that. A MUCH
better solution would be to put those solar panels over all of our
roads, shading nothing but concrete & a few roadside plants.

LOL. Regardless of whether Chris estimated the land area accurately
enough, it sesm that our self-styled defender of animal rights wants
his beloved critters to live in an area with levels of radioactivity
that make them unsuitable for humans! :-)

That's what it takes, to keep humans from invading their habitat. That
doesn't say much for us. Or you.

By the way, how come you didn't drop gratuitous physics jargon about
ionizing radiation, as you usually do? You are slipping!
--
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 01 May 2007 17:26:50 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Mike Vandeman writes:

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:02 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

Because whether or not I use a cell phone or wifi is simply none of
your f___ing business. We went through this last year when you whined
about me not answering such questions. You should know the answer by
now. My personal purchasing decisions one way or the other are not
relevant to the discussion: those decisions would be based on my
personal needs.

You are obviously afraid to reveal this information. The question is
WHY? Are you embarrassed to be using a cell phone? Or NOT to be using
a cell phone, after insisting that it is safe??? The world would like
to know.

Vandeman, you are a moron. There is absolutely no reason for me to
divulge personal information about my purchasing decisions on a public
forum. Furthermore, I didn't even insist that cell phones were safe,
but rather just pointed out that your arguments against them were BS.
Finally, being "safe" is not a reason to purchase a cell phone and the
service you need to use it. That decision depends on quite a number
of factors that boil down to "am I getting enough to justify the
cost."

I see: you didn't want us to interpret your failure to use a cell
phone as an admission that you consider them, in spite of appearances,
harmful.
--
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