Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing microwave technology.
lynx
Any comment appreciated re this subject.
I contacted Uniden, one of the largest manufacturers of DECT cordless
phones, and they informed me that the output of their phones is
typically 80mw, which they consider to be quite safe. Interestingly
cordless phone manufacturers do not state the output of their phones in
the specifications.
-------------------------------------
The initial market success for DECT was found in Germany in the early
1990s and it was in that country where adverse health effects from DECT
technology soon became apparent. Soon after the introduction of DECT in
Germany Dr. Leberecht von Klitzing, a medical physicist and researcher
from the University of Luebeck had infants brought to him who were
perfectly healthy, but their heart beat became erratic for no obvious
reason. As soon as the DECT cordless phone was removed from the bedroom
or neighboring apartment, the infant's heart beat returned to normal.
(11) Concerns within the German medical community led to the Freiburger
Appeal in October 2002, signed by over 130 medical practitioners from
the German environmental medicine medical organisation,
Interdisziplinäre Gesellschaft für Umweltmedizin e. V. (IGUMED). The
appeal was to express their concern over their medical observations of
adverse health impacts from the use of both cell phones and DECT
cordless phones. Symptoms were attributed to exposure to pulsed
microwave radiation from cell phone and DECT technology. The following
is an extract:
Out of great concern for the health of our fellow human beings do we -
as established physicians of all fields, especially that of
environmental medicine - turn to the medical establishment and those in
public health and political domains, as well as to the public. We have
observed, in recent years, a dramatic rise in severe and chronic
diseases among our patients, especially:
· Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders (e.g. attention
deficit disorder, ADD)
· Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with
medications
· Heart rhythm disorders
· Heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population
· Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer–s) and epilepsy
· Cancerous afflictions: leukemia, brain tumors
Moreover, we have observed an ever-increasing occurrence of various
disorders, often misdiagnosed in patients as psychosomatic:
· Headaches, migraines
· Chronic exhaustion
· Inner agitation
· Sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness
· Tinnitus
· Susceptibility to infection
· Nervous and connective tissue pains, for which the usual causes do not
explain even the most conspicuous symptoms
Since the living environment and lifestyles of our patients are familiar
to us, we can see especially after carefully-directed inquiry a clear
temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and
exposure to pulsed high-frequency microwave radiation (HFMR), such as:
· Installation of a mobile telephone sending station in the near vicinity
· Intensive mobile telephone use
· Installation of a digital cordless (DECT) telephone at home or in the
neighbourhood”. (12)
Specifically in relation to DECT phones the IGUMED called for a ban on
DECT telephones in preschools, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, events
halls, public buildings. They also called for a revision of the DECT
standards to reduce the radiation intensity. (13) The German Federal
Radiation Protection Agency (Bundesamt fur Strahlenschutz – BfS) has
expressed concerns over DECT phone use. They stated in a January 2006
press release that a DECT cordless phone is often the strongest single
source of microwave radiation in a private home. To prevent possible
health risks the Agency recommended minimizing personal radiation
exposure (if a DECT phone is used) by placing the base station in a
place where you do not spend much time, for example a hall. For the
workplace the Agency specifically advised to avoid placing DECT phones
on work desks and called upon manufacturers to redesign the phones to
include a feature of power output control, so that the power output
during a call would be adapted to the distance of the handset from its
base station. This would allow phone use only to the level of power
necessary to keep the communication going and power would be down while
on standby and connected to the base station/charger. (14) In December
of 2005 the Public Health Department, Salzburg Region, Austria issued
advice to the government, schools and parents warning of the lack of
studies available on either short-term or long-term health effects from
WLAN and DECT devices. However the department saw evidence of possible
adverse effects such as headaches, concentration difficulty,
restlessness, and memory problems etc. The official advice of the Public
health Department is not to use WLAN and DECT in Schools or
Kindergartens. (15)
quoted from: http://www.emfacts.com/papers/dect.pdf
also: "It is recommended that advice to new parents would be to have
nothing to do with DECT baby monitors whatsoever."
----
Stowe School, the Buckinghamshire public school, also removed part of
its wireless network after a teacher became ill. Michael Bevington, a
classics teacher for 28 years at the school, said that he had such a
violent reaction to the network that he was too ill to teach.
“I felt a steadily widening range of unpleasant effects whenever I was
in the classroom,” he said. “First came a thick headache, then pains
throughout the body, sudden flushes, pressure behind the eyes, sudden
skin pains and burning sensations, along with bouts of nausea. Over the
weekend, away from the classroom, I felt completely normal.”
quoted from: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=592
----
see also: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?cat=29
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Never eat yellow snow'
doRk Speed
DS
lynx
> lynx wrote:
>>
>> Any comment appreciated re this subject.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> You gotta die from something
>
> DS
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
"Hard work never killed anybody" But why take the risk
Dave
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:12sh0cm...@news.supernews.com...
> doRk Speed wrote:
>
>>>
>> You gotta die from something
>>
>> DS
>
> I was hoping for some rather more intelligent and informed comment.
>
Go download ARPANSA RPS3 and read it, especially Section 5. You can
download from here:
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/rf_standard.htm
The applicable limts are set quite conservatively and for DECT cordless
telephone the limit is 2W/kg averaged across a 10g sample (using the head
phantom). This is the same as a mobile phone.
There is a general testing exemption for products used by non-aware users
that emit less than 20mW average. For DECT technology the duty cycle is
approx 10%. The typical output peak power for a DECT unit is between 50 mW
and 120 mW, and with a duty cycle of 10% the average power is less than the
20mW threshold. So, in AU most DECT, WDECT and other low power (or low
duty cycle) similar technologies can be sold without being tested for SAR.
If these products are tested the SAR measurements are very low and close to
the maximum sensitivity of the test equipment, resulting in published
figures of low confidence (ie. if you tested the same unit multiple times
you could get lots of different results, all of them being of a small
magnitude).
I am unaware of any known epidemilogical evidence to support the theory that
DECT technology has any effect on health
Hope this helps.
PeterD
>
>Any comment appreciated re this subject.
>
>I contacted Uniden, one of the largest manufacturers of DECT cordless
>phones, and they informed me that the output of their phones is
>typically 80mw, which they consider to be quite safe. Interestingly
>cordless phone manufacturers do not state the output of their phones in
>the specifications.
>
>... snip...
>
>Stowe School, the Buckinghamshire public school, also removed part of
>its wireless network after a teacher became ill. Michael Bevington, a
>classics teacher for 28 years at the school, said that he had such a
>violent reaction to the network that he was too ill to teach.
>
>“I felt a steadily widening range of unpleasant effects whenever I was
>in the classroom,” he said. “First came a thick headache, then pains
>throughout the body, sudden flushes, pressure behind the eyes, sudden
>skin pains and burning sensations, along with bouts of nausea. Over the
>weekend, away from the classroom, I felt completely normal.”
>
>quoted from: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=592
>
>----
>
>see also: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?cat=29
Those two non-scientific references tell the story--there is (AFAIK)
no evidence that this is a problem. As to the 'teacher' story, it's
easy to see what the *real* story is... <g> A teaching 'classics' for
28 years you have to believe he's a very computer oriented person who
wanted computers in his classroom! (NOT!)
Rod Speed
> Any comment appreciated re this subject.
> I contacted Uniden, one of the largest manufacturers of DECT cordless
> phones, and they informed me that the output of their phones is typically 80mw, which they
> consider to be quite safe. Interestingly cordless phone manufacturers do not state the output of
> their phones in the specifications.
They dont need to when its below the standard.
> -------------------------------------
> The initial market success for DECT was found in Germany in the early 1990s and it was in that
> country where adverse health effects from DECT technology soon became apparent.
Bare faced lie.
> Soon after the introduction of DECT in Germany Dr. Leberecht von Klitzing, a medical physicist and
> researcher from the University of Luebeck had infants brought to him who were perfectly healthy,
> but their heart beat became erratic for no obvious reason. As soon as the DECT cordless phone was
> removed from the bedroom or neighboring apartment, the infant's heart beat returned to normal.
> (11)
How odd that that never actually made it into any peer reviewed medical journal.
There's a reason why it didnt.
> Concerns within the German medical community led to the Freiburger Appeal in October 2002, signed
> by over 130 medical practitioners from the German environmental medicine medical organisation,
> Interdisziplinäre Gesellschaft für Umweltmedizin e. V. (IGUMED). The appeal was to express their
> concern over their medical observations of adverse health impacts from the use of both cell phones
> and DECT cordless phones.
Yawn.
> Symptoms were attributed to exposure to pulsed microwave radiation from cell phone and DECT
> technology.
Easy to claim.
> The following is an extract:
<reams of utterly mindless shit flushed where it belongs>
> ----
> Stowe School, the Buckinghamshire public school, also removed part of its wireless network after a
> teacher became ill.
Well whoopy fucking do. Plenty of teachers did that before
DECT phones and mobile phones showed up, fuckwit.
> Michael Bevington, a classics teacher for 28 years at the school, said that he had such a violent
> reaction to the network that he was too ill to teach.
Just another short circuit between the ears.
> “I felt a steadily widening range of unpleasant effects whenever I was
> in the classroom,” he said. “First came a thick headache, then pains
> throughout the body, sudden flushes, pressure behind the eyes, sudden
> skin pains and burning sensations, along with bouts of nausea. Over
> the weekend, away from the classroom, I felt completely normal.”
Plenty get the same reaction to a room full of bratty kids.
> quoted from: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=592
> see also: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?cat=29
No thanks, its just more utterly mindless silly shit.
imorf
> doRk Speed wrote:
>
>> lynx wrote:
>>>
>>> Any comment appreciated re this subject.
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>> You gotta die from something
>>
>> DS
>
> I was hoping for some rather more intelligent and informed comment.
on the intrawebs?
/snort.
Trevor Wilson
>
> Any comment appreciated re this subject.
>
> I contacted Uniden, one of the largest manufacturers of DECT cordless
> phones, and they informed me that the output of their phones is typically
> 80mw, which they consider to be quite safe. Interestingly cordless phone
> manufacturers do not state the output of their phones in the
> specifications.
>
**Two anecdotal stories do not constitute a properly designed study. I sure
hope you don't use a cellular 'phone. Their power output can be considerably
higher than any DECT 'phone.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
lynx
some ppl being more sensitive/affected than others? And if there are
reports of adverse effects with the use of these DECT phones, then
surely they can't be ignored, even if they're not scientifically based.
When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including handsets)
constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if
there are several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a
'sea' of (low) radiation! What prompted the original posting, was that I
had purchased one, and when I turned it on, I immediately noticed some
of the effects mentioned in the article quoted- although I had not seen
it then- so I went googling about cordless phones. Since then I have
been switching the phones on and off to see if there is a correlation
between the effects that I feel and the phones being in use, and there
has been. When switching it off, the headache effect and light
headedness diminishes almost immediately. (There are other effects that
I'm reluctant to mention for fear of being considered crazy!) I'm also
very sensitive to mobile phones, so i feel that I simply can't use this
phone at all.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!'
lynx
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12sgskn...@news.supernews.com...
>
>> Any comment appreciated re this subject.
>>
>> I contacted Uniden, one of the largest manufacturers of DECT cordless
>> phones, and they informed me that the output of their phones is typically
>> 80mw, which they consider to be quite safe. Interestingly cordless phone
>> manufacturers do not state the output of their phones in the
>> specifications.
>>
>>
>
> **Two anecdotal stories do not constitute a properly designed study.
evidence there is, and there seems to be plenty of it if you care to
check: http://tinyurl.com/yqvcr7 (see my response to Dave for more comment)
> I sure
> hope you don't use a cellular 'phone. Their power output can be considerably
> higher than any DECT 'phone.
>
>
of the head, if I use one for just a minute or more. I once was kept on
a call by a Telstra operator for 10 minutes, and had a headache for
three days. Since then I have always used hands free/speakerphone.
Although the newer mobiles seem to have less effect than the earlier
ones had.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not tense, just terribly, terribly alert'
lynx
>
> , fuckwit.
>
>
Pig!
Rod Speed
> Dave wrote
>> Go download ARPANSA RPS3 and read it, especially Section 5. You can download from here:
>> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/rf_standard.htm
>> The applicable limts are set quite conservatively and for DECT
>> cordless telephone the limit is 2W/kg averaged across a 10g sample
>> (using the head phantom). This is the same as a mobile phone.
>> There is a general testing exemption for products used by non-aware
>> users that emit less than 20mW average. For DECT technology the duty
>> cycle is approx 10%. The typical output peak power for a DECT unit
>> is between 50 mW and 120 mW, and with a duty cycle of 10% the
>> average power is less than the 20mW threshold. So, in AU most
>> DECT, WDECT and other low power (or low duty cycle) similar
>> technologies can be sold without being tested for SAR. If these
>> products are tested the SAR measurements are very low and close to
>> the maximum sensitivity of the test equipment, resulting in
>> published figures of low confidence (ie. if you tested the same unit
>> multiple times you could get lots of different results, all of them
>> being of a small magnitude).
>> I am unaware of any known epidemilogical evidence to support the theory that DECT technology has
>> any effect on health
>> Hope this helps.
> Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of some ppl being more
> sensitive/affected than others?
Nope, its actually a case of no evidence of any affect on health what so ever.
> And if there are reports of adverse effects with the use of these DECT phones, then surely they
> can't be ignored, even if they're not scientifically based.
Corse they should be if they arent scientifically based.
The claims are as stupid as the claims that some fools
make that they have been experimented on by aliens.
> When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including
> handsets) constantly emit full power even on standby,
No they dont.
> and it was put to me that if there are several in the house, then the family is virtually living
> in a 'sea' of (low) radiation!
They are anyway from a variety of other sources like the electrical
wiring, TV transmitters, what the neighbours have, etc etc etc.
> What prompted the original posting, was that I had purchased one, and when I turned it on, I
> immediately noticed some of the effects mentioned in the article quoted- although I had not seen
> it then-
You just had a short circuit between the ears that
would have happened even if you had not bought one.
> so I went googling about cordless phones. Since then I have been switching the phones on and off
> to see if there is a correlation between the effects that I feel and the phones being in use, and
> there has been.
Just the placebo effect.
> When switching it off, the headache effect and light headedness diminishes almost immediately.
And it wouldnt if the effect was real.
> (There are other effects that I'm reluctant to mention for fear of being considered crazy!)
You are crazy anyway.
> I'm also very sensitive to mobile phones,
Pigs arse you are.
I'd bet my house that you couldnt pick it with a proper double blind trial.
> so i feel that I simply can't use this phone at all.
No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use one.
Rod Speed
>>> Any comment appreciated re this subject.
>>> I contacted Uniden, one of the largest manufacturers of DECT
>>> cordless phones, and they informed me that the output of their
>>> phones is typically 80mw, which they consider to be quite safe.
>>> Interestingly cordless phone manufacturers do not state the output of their phones in the
>>> specifications.
>> Two anecdotal stories do not constitute a properly designed study.
> Those were just two examples.
Yep, endless examples of that sort of mindless shit.
In spades with even sillier crap like homeopathy, praying to some
damned god or other, holding your mouth just right, etc etc etc.
> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
You wouldnt be able to pick when a cordless phone
or mobile was turned on in a proper double blind trial.
> and there seems to be plenty of it if you care to check: http://tinyurl.com/yqvcr7
Not a shred, actually.
> (see my response to Dave for more comment)
That was just as useless.
>> I sure hope you don't use a cellular 'phone. Their power output can be considerably higher than
>> any DECT 'phone.
> In fact I can't. I'll get a headache, and a warming effect on the side of the head, if I use one
> for just a minute or more.
Just your delusion. You wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper double blind trial.
> I once was kept on a call by a Telstra operator for 10 minutes, and had a headache for three days.
You previously claimed it goes away when you turn it off.
Cant have it both ways.
Plenty of people get headaches that last for 3 days.
> Since then I have always used hands free/speakerphone.
Pity those radiate too.
> Although the newer mobiles seem to have less effect than the earlier ones had.
Pity the radiation level hasnt changed. If anything its worse
now that so few of them have real antennas anymore.
Rod Speed
lynx
Rod Speed
>>>> , fuckwit.
>>> Pig!
>> Insane fruit loop.
You have absolutely no idea whether I do or not, insane fruit loop.
Dave
>>
>> I am unaware of any known epidemilogical evidence to support the theory
>> that DECT technology has any effect on health
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of some
> ppl being more sensitive/affected than others?
IMO, not unless chaos theory applies in the same way a butterfly near the
Amazon causes a cyclone near Broome.
> When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including handsets)
> constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if
> there are several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a
> 'sea' of (low) radiation!
There is no way that anyone with decent technical knowledge at Uniden would
have stated that. Simply because it is not true. Their DECT and WDECT phones
do not constantly emit full power when on Standby, instead the base and
handsets periodically poll for each other to make sure they are in range,
etc. Apart from the lack of a practical purpose in needing to do so, the
batteries would be flat in next to no time if they did.
>What prompted the original posting, was that I had purchased one, and when
>I turned it on, I immediately noticed some of the effects mentioned in the
>article quoted-
Well lets match stories.... I too have had experience dealing with people
complaining of headaches caused by the perceived effects of electroagnetic
radiation. In my case we were establishing an open air test site (OATS) for
electromagnetic interference testing. During the advertising stage of the
DA by council, they received two complaints from people regarding the health
effects of the radiation my OATS would emit. One, a 62 year old lady was
experiencing headaches caused by "radiation" from the OATS. When it was
explained to her it hadn't been built and existed only as a paper plan, she
countered she was so sensitive to electromagnetic radiation she could feel
the radiation approaching from wherever we had it stored (quote "It comes
through the air you know, that's how televisions work")
The second, after hearing about the problem from the first (they lived near
each other) wrote a long submission detailing how the radiation would affect
the local poultry and equine industries. It was quite comprehensive and
included an example detailing how his pheasants had recently stopped laying.
He was sure the pheasants (being sensitive birds) could sense the radiation
approaching and the lack of laying was due to headaches the birds were
experiencing.
I am quite sure they could be counted upon to validate your own situation.
Michael
> diminishes almost immediately. (There are other effects that
Rubbish, its just your psychologic condition
Michael
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>
>> , fuckwit.
>>
>>
>
> Pig!
No, Rod was right, you are a fuckwit
>
HeadRush
"PeterD" <pet...@hipson.net> wrote in message
news:gr3hs258bapmpq3sn...@4ax.com...
Here's a test to show how insignificant the radiation from a DECT or even
cell phone can be.
Get a large bowl of cold spaghetti (about the size of a human brain) and
whack it in the microwave oven for 5 minutes at high power.
Once done, dig into the middle of the spaghetti and you will find it is
cold, or at least much colder than the surrrounding spag.
That spaghetti has been bombarded by 850 watts of 2.4GHz RF and it still
didn't penetrate 7 or 8 centimeters deep into the spaghetti.
Now you can do the calculation to work out how much 1 watt, that's 1/850th
of the microwave power, will penetrate into the human brain with an 8mm
thick skull covering the grey matter.
HR
lynx
>>
>
> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
>
better. And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
living too close to power lines. But the bottom line... wtf would you
know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
being a total arsehole on usenet.
lynx
(politely) do you? Well that shows the value of your opinion then.
lynx
skin? But there was a case in the US where a woman real estate agent who
used her mobile continually for her job developed a brain tumour, and
sued Motorola. In the court case evidence was presented that the site of
the tumour was directly opposite where the phone antenna was positioned
when using it. And the other aspect of course is that phones (especially
mobiles) are used frequently and repetitiously, and the experts are
suggesting that it may take in excess of a decade for any effects to
begin to appear.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'It's called PMT because 'mad cow disease' is already taken'
Jim Pills
Regardless of the validity of your posts, I'd have to agree with you there -
Rod Speed is a rude piece of crap.
Jim Pills
I certainly don't think it's right. Rod and Michael have displayed a
disturbing lack of morals here. Why on earth they think it's ok to abuse
someone just because they disagree beats me. I would seriously doubt they'd
have the guts to do it to your face though (although I've no doubt they'll
claim they do, hehehe...)
Albinus
>
> It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos. But we now know
> better. And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
> living too close to power lines. But the bottom line... wtf would you
> know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
> being a total arsehole on usenet.
And radio communications have been around for over one hundred years yet
nobody has been killed by any radio frequency (at non-ionizing
wavelengths). Under the ionizing threshold the only effect is heat, and
2.4GHz is the perfect frequency for resonation of water molecules, which
is why microwave ovens use this frequency to excite water molecules.
Hence why sticking thousands of watts into you isn't a bright idea as
you'll overheat. Ionizing radiation on the other hand, kills plenty of
people - UV exposure anyone? In general it seems to be the same people
who jump up and down about cellular devices causing cancer are the same
ones frying on the beach most weekends.
I've spoken to a radiologist on this issue and he's given up trying to
explain to the arrogant that there's no risk at low frequencies. And by
arrogant he means the ignorant that can't be convinced otherwise.
lynx
> I'd have to agree with you there -
>
(unfortunately) to impose his belligerence with impunity.
> Rod Speed is a rude piece of crap.
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'RAM DISK is NOT an installation procedure!'
HeadRush
Take it this way, for the RF to penetrate the skull, you would feel heat
first. Microwave RF does not discriminate between brain cells and skin
cells. It hits the skin cells first. The molecules of water and fat in those
cells will absorb the alternating radio waves and heat up. For the
microwaves to penetrate your skull, the RF energy would have to be at such a
level that you would feel pain first. If you are feeling pain or any other
symptoms when using a cordless phone, I would say it is a psychosomatic
response to your concerns.
> But there was a case in the US where a woman real estate agent who used
> her mobile continually for her job developed a brain tumour, and sued
> Motorola. In the court case evidence was presented that the site of the
> tumour was directly opposite where the phone antenna was positioned when
> using it. And the other aspect of course is that phones (especially
> mobiles) are used frequently and repetitiously, and the experts are
> suggesting that it may take in excess of a decade for any effects to begin
> to appear.
Microwave RF is basically light - it's either on or off, so it can't have a
cumulative affect. Can you provide a link to the case above case. If it
happened in the US, I would treat it with a bit of suspicion.
FYI, I have been using handheld cell phones since 1989, bought the first
PAMTS Walkabout MK2 hand held and have used various handheld units since. I
make lengthy phone calls with the phone to my ear. I don't seem to have any
side effects and rarely get head aches.
HR
PeterD
>Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of
>some ppl being more sensitive/affected than others?
No, it's likely people believing things that are not based on any
evidence what so ever.
>And if there are
>reports of adverse effects with the use of these DECT phones, then
>surely they can't be ignored, even if they're not scientifically based.
Why? The other day after using my Bic pen I got a rash on my hand...
Therefore all Bic pens are dangerous? Or am I just sensitive? Or, just
maybe, I then went into the woods and got poison ivy?
IF something is not 'scientifically based' as you put it, it is just
simply a wish or thought.
>When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including handsets)
>constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if
>there are several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a
>'sea' of (low) radiation!
Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first evolved
as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and in fact
that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for us!
>What prompted the original posting, was that I
>had purchased one, and when I turned it on, I immediately noticed some
>of the effects mentioned in the article quoted-
*Immediately*? That blows your case then... Such effects would take
time to become apparent. Realize that people working in communications
and electroncis are exposed to these fields in *much* higher doses
without suffering any side effects.
>although I had not seen
>it then- so I went googling about cordless phones. Since then I have
>been switching the phones on and off to see if there is a correlation
>between the effects that I feel and the phones being in use, and there
>has been.
How have you been switching them off? Most don't really turn off but
remain in communication with the base even when 'off'. This is just
like turning off a 'modern' TV: it is still on, it just isn't
displaying anything on the screen.
You'd have to remove the battery to actually turn them off!
>When switching it off, the headache effect and light
>headedness diminishes almost immediately.
Again, 'immediately ' tends to tell me that there's somthing else
involved here.
>(There are other effects that
>I'm reluctant to mention for fear of being considered crazy!)
Too late. Go ahead and lisit them.
>I'm also
>very sensitive to mobile phones, so i feel that I simply can't use this
>phone at all.
eBay it then...
Move to the country. Have the power disconnected from your house. By
candle light, read the classic science fiction story "Press Enter".
What you are complaining about is a sensitivity to a specific spectrum
of frequencies (not all frequencies, since you are not affected by
power line EMF, broadcast radiation, EMF from television receivers and
computer monitors, etc.)
Ask you self: what is the method? How do these frequencies cause me a
problem?
PeterD
Analysis:
Rod: a reasonable reply.
Lynx: didn't like it so starts calling Rod names...
Humm, wonder who the nut is? <g>
Jim Pills
Analysis:
PeterD has responded to this post before bothering to read the whole thread.
PeterD ought to try to keep up? <g>
PeterD
I look at the post, I respond to the post. If the poster clips it so
that it makes no sense, or so that it makes the poster look bad,
that's his problem.
Regardless the language used in this thread has been immature... <bg>
Jim Pills
So you wade into an argument half-way through and take sides without having
a clue what's going on.
Sounds like you need a newsreader that shows all of the branches. If you'd
had that, you'd have known that...
> Regardless the language used in this thread has been immature... <bg>
...it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the opinions of
the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature - so I guess he just is
immature.
Rod Speed
> Does it actually need to penetrate the skull to do harm, or just the skin?
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that headaches aint skin aches.
> But there was a case in the US where a woman real estate agent
> who used her mobile continually for her job developed a brain tumour,
And plenty got brain tumours before mobiles were even invented.
> and sued Motorola. In the court case evidence was presented that the site of the tumour was
> directly opposite where the phone antenna was positioned when using it.
Yawn. There's always going to be some brain tumours in any particular area.
> And the other aspect of course is that phones (especially mobiles) are used frequently and
> repetitiously, and the experts are suggesting that it may take in excess of a decade for any
> effects to begin to appear.
How odd that we havent seen an increase in the brain tumour
rate even tho mobiles have been used for longer than that.
Rod Speed
>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
> It was thought that smoking was harmless,
Pig ignorant lie. The health downsides were known when it was first used.
> and asbestos. But we now know better.
Pity that those have been established with rigorous science.
Hasnt happened with mobile phones and DECT phones in spades.
> And there's been studies done to show the adverse
> effects from living too close to power lines.
Pig ignorant lie.
Pity about the MUCH higher 'radiation' levels from electric blankets.
<reams of your rabid insane ravings flushed where they belong>
Rod Speed
>>>> lynx <no...@nothere.com> wrote
>>>>> Stowe School, the Buckinghamshire public school, also removed part of its wireless network
>>>>> after a teacher became ill.
>>>> Well whoopy fucking do. Plenty of teachers did that before
>>>> DECT phones and mobile phones showed up, fuckwit.
>>>> , fuckwit.
>>> Pig!
>> No, Rod was right, you are a fuckwit
> You think it's ok to call someone a f__kwit simply for asking questions (politely) do you?
Pity I never did that. You cited what that school
did as if that proved a damned thing, fuckwit.
> Well that shows the value of your opinion then.
Yours in spades, fuckwit fruit loop.
Rod Speed
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12sjb74...@news.supernews.com...
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:12siheb...@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> , fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>> Pig!
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, Rod was right, you are a fuckwit
>> You think it's ok to call someone a f__kwit simply for asking questions (politely) do you? Well
>> that shows the value of your opinion then.
> I certainly don't think it's right.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you might or might not claim to 'think' in spades.
> Rod and Michael have displayed a disturbing lack of morals here.
You wouldnt know what morals were if they bit you on your lard arse.
> Why on earth they think it's ok to abuse someone just because they disagree beats me.
Pity we didnt do that. We JUST pointed out that only a fuckwit would
'think' that what that school did proves a damned thing about DECT phones.
> I would seriously doubt they'd have the guts to do it to your face though
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you might or might not claim to serious doubt in spades.
> (although I've no doubt they'll claim they do, hehehe...)
Wot stunningly impeccible morals you flaunt.
Rod Speed
You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.
> - so I guess he just is immature.
You get to like the language used or lump it, fuckwit.
Jim Pills
news:52uqbqF...@mid.individual.net...
>> ...it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the
>> opinions of the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature
>
> You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.
On the contrary, old chum, this is Usenet, a very public place, and I get to
say anything I like, anything at all. You are a foul-mouthed, immature waste
of space. Enjoy... ;o)
>> - so I guess he just is immature.
>
<snip> more rudeness from the Rod child.
THIS IS FUN!!!!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> ...it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the
>>> opinions of the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature
>> You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.
> On the contrary, old chum, this is Usenet, a very public place, and I get to say anything I like,
> anything at all.
So stupid that it cant even work out what 'get no say' means.
<reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs>
Jim Pills
> Jim Pills <e...@me.com> wrote:
>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:12sjb74...@news.supernews.com...
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:12siheb...@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> , fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Pig!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, Rod was right, you are a fuckwit
>
>>> You think it's ok to call someone a f__kwit simply for asking questions
>>> (politely) do you? Well that shows the value of your opinion then.
>
>> I certainly don't think it's right.
>
> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
> irrelevant.
Only to self-made ignorant biggots like yourself, mister Speed.
> What you might or might not claim to 'think' in spades.
That's not a sentence, brainiac.
>> Rod and Michael have displayed a disturbing lack of morals here.
>
> You wouldnt know what morals were if they bit you on your lard arse.
Hmmm... how to contradict yourself in one idiotic sentence. Nice! ;o)
>> Why on earth they think it's ok to abuse someone just because they
>> disagree beats me.
>
> Pity we didnt do that.
But you did, see. And your beloved "science" would prove that, hehehe...
We JUST pointed out that only a fuckwit would
> 'think' that what that school did proves a damned thing about DECT phones.
>> I would seriously doubt they'd have the guts to do it to your face though
>
> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
> irrelevant.
Mr. Speed's yellow stripe is positively glowing!
> What you might or might not claim to serious doubt in spades.
Another non-sentence.
>> (although I've no doubt they'll claim they do, hehehe...)
>
> Wot stunningly impeccible morals you flaunt.
Where?
I'm not going to converse with you any further, Mr. Speed, because you're
just too damned ignorant and rude. Enjoy the rest of your miserable life.
Ker... PLONK!
Jim Pills
Tut, tut, tut, more rude words. You know, you really ought to read a book,
Mr. Speed. ;o)
imorf
> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first evolved
> as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and in fact
> that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for us!
you see no difference between the natural background radiation & UV
radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak but close
range EM radiation?
doRk Speed
hasn't been able to have an erection since
DS
Jim P Sharma
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> , fuckwit.
>>>>>> Pig!
>>>>> No, Rod was right, you are a fuckwit
>>>> You think it's ok to call someone a f__kwit simply for asking questions (politely) do you? Well
>>>> that shows the value of your opinion then.
>>> I certainly don't think it's right.
>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
> Only to self-made ignorant biggots like yourself, mister Speed.
Wrong again, completely irrelevant to everyone, master Pills.
>> What you might or might not claim to 'think' in spades.
> That's not a sentence, brainiac.
Corse it is, fuckwit child.
>>> Rod and Michael have displayed a disturbing lack of morals here.
>> You wouldnt know what morals were if they bit you on your lard arse.
> Hmmm... how to contradict yourself in one idiotic sentence. Nice! ;o)
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag either.
>>> Why on earth they think it's ok to abuse someone just because they disagree beats me.
>> Pity we didnt do that.
> But you did, see.
Nope.
> And your beloved "science" would prove that,
> hehehe...
Pathetic.
>> We JUST pointed out that only a fuckwit would 'think' that what that school did proves a damned
>> thing about DECT phones.
Ignoring that wont make it go away, child.
>>> I would seriously doubt they'd have the guts to do it to your face though
>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
> Mr. Speed's yellow stripe is positively glowing!
How stunning moral, child.
>> What you might or might not claim to serious doubt in spades.
> Another non-sentence.
Wrong, as always.
>>> (although I've no doubt they'll claim they do, hehehe...)
>> Wot stunningly impeccible morals you flaunt.
> Where?
That pathetic excuse for bullshit of yours, child.
> I'm not going to converse with you any further, Mr. Speed,
We'll see...
> because you're just too damned ignorant and rude.
Whereas you have such impeccible manners, eh child ?
> Enjoy the rest of your miserable life.
> Ker... PLONK!
Fat lot of good that will ever do you, fuckwit child.
Jim P Sharma
Jim Pills <e...@me.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> lynx <no...@nothere.com> wrote
>>> Michael wrote
>>>> lynx <no...@nothere.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> lynx <no...@nothere.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Stowe School, the Buckinghamshire public school, also removed
>>>>>>> part of its wireless network after a teacher became ill.
>>>>>> Well whoopy fucking do. Plenty of teachers did that before
>>>>>> DECT phones and mobile phones showed up, fuckwit.
>>>>>> , fuckwit.
>>>>> Pig!
>>>> No, Rod was right, you are a fuckwit
>>> You think it's ok to call someone a f__kwit simply for asking questions (politely) do you?
>> Pity I never did that. You cited what that school
>> did as if that proved a damned thing, fuckwit.
>>> Well that shows the value of your opinion then.
>> Yours in spades, fuckwit fruit loop.
> Tut, tut, tut, more rude words.
You get to like it or lump it, fuckwit child.
> You know, you really ought to read a book, Mr. Speed. ;o)
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, fuckwit child.
PeterD
>
>So you wade into an argument half-way through and take sides without having
>a clue what's going on.
>
>Sounds like you need a newsreader that shows all of the branches. If you'd
>had that, you'd have known that...
>
>> Regardless the language used in this thread has been immature... <bg>
>
>...it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the opinions of
>the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature - so I guess he just is
>immature.
>
As PeterD reads more of Rod's charming words, he now appologizes to
anyone for his failure to realize that Rod is only 12 years old, and
suffers from a lack of good upbringing. <g>
PeterD
If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing and
non-ionizing radiation... <g>
I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a simple
matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out than you put
in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the extent he indicates
(causing physical discomfort and a three day headache) would require
many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100 watts (realize that over 50%
would be lost since it is radiated omnidirectionally.)
lynx
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:20:26 +1100, lynx <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of
>> some ppl being more sensitive/affected than others?
>>
>
> No, it's likely people believing things that are not based on any
> evidence what so ever.
>
one example, i.e. food, etc, and notably those who are extremely
sensitive to sunlight.
>> And if there are
>> reports of adverse effects with the use of these DECT phones, then
>> surely they can't be ignored, even if they're not scientifically based.
>>
>
> Why? The other day after using my Bic pen I got a rash on my hand...
> Therefore all Bic pens are dangerous? Or am I just sensitive? Or, just
> maybe, I then went into the woods and got poison ivy?
>
> IF something is not 'scientifically based' as you put it, it is just
> simply a wish or thought.
>
experience, that doesn't have to be as part of a scientific study to
have validity.
>
>> When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including handsets)
>> constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if
>> there are several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a
>> 'sea' of (low) radiation!
>>
>
> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first evolved
> as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and in fact
> that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for us!
>
>> What prompted the original posting, was that I
>> had purchased one, and when I turned it on, I immediately noticed some
>> of the effects mentioned in the article quoted-
>>
>
> *Immediately*? That blows your case then... Such effects would take
> time to become apparent.
correlation. I'm still experimenting to try to rule out any
psychological effect.
> Realize that people working in communications
> and electroncis are exposed to these fields in *much* higher doses
> without suffering any side effects.
>
>> although I had not seen
>> it then- so I went googling about cordless phones. Since then I have
>> been switching the phones on and off to see if there is a correlation
>> between the effects that I feel and the phones being in use, and there
>> has been.
>>
>
> How have you been switching them off? Most don't really turn off but
> remain in communication with the base even when 'off'. This is just
> like turning off a 'modern' TV: it is still on, it just isn't
> displaying anything on the screen.
>
> You'd have to remove the battery to actually turn them off!
>
simply unplug the battery connector in the handsets.
>
>> When switching it off, the headache effect and light
>> headedness diminishes almost immediately.
>>
>
> involved here.
>
Why? The radiation would cease when they're switched off.
>> (There are other effects that
>> I'm reluctant to mention for fear of being considered crazy!)
>>
>
>
Most noticeable was a (very) slight heart dysrhythmia or palpitation,
and an overall effect similar to high blood pressure. (Ok, so now you
know I'm crazy) And these were effects mentioned in the report I linked
to. So if different ppl experience the same effects without knowledge of
each other, then how is that not evidence relative to the cause of those
effects? And if more than one person has the same experience then
doubtless there are others as well.
>
>> I'm also
>> very sensitive to mobile phones, so i feel that I simply can't use this
>> phone at all.
>>
>
> eBay it then...
>
> Move to the country. Have the power disconnected from your house. By
> candle light, read the classic science fiction story "Press Enter".
>
There's some Naturopath chinese guy who's had all the power cables for
his house buried in the ground beneath it. And we are poisoning
ourselves with what we eat. Organic food is rapidly becoming popular for
those who can afford it.
> What you are complaining about is a sensitivity to a specific spectrum
> of frequencies
> (not all frequencies, since you are not affected by
> power line EMF, broadcast radiation, EMF from television receivers and
> computer monitors, etc.)
>
close to the TV, but I do have problems if I stay at the computer for
too long. (more than an hour, say) Never experienced any probs with
radios tho.
> Ask you self: what is the method? How do these frequencies cause me a
> problem?
>
how/why there is this problem. The brain works on electrical energy. We
know this. So maybe it's some sort of resonance or interference with
those electrical impulses.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Birthdays are good for you -the more you have the longer you live'
lynx
>>> I am unaware of any known epidemilogical evidence to support the theory
>>> that DECT technology has any effect on health
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>> Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of some
>> ppl being more sensitive/affected than others?
>>
>
> Amazon causes a cyclone near Broome.
>
I can give other examples, but there's no point. However, I will just
mention that as fate would have it I rang Mitsubishi yesterday about an
issue with an air conditioner, and the technician stated that in his 30
or so years experience he had only ever heard of one other person with
that reaction, but that it was a known reaction.
>
>> When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including handsets)
>> constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if
>> there are several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a
>> 'sea' of (low) radiation!
>>
>
> have stated that. Simply because it is not true. Their DECT and WDECT phones
> do not constantly emit full power when on Standby, instead the base and
> handsets periodically poll for each other to make sure they are in range,
> etc. Apart from the lack of a practical purpose in needing to do so, the
> batteries would be flat in next to no time if they did.
>
That's my mistake then I guess. I must have interpreted them saying that
the phones constantly emit radiation to mean at the same level as when
in use.
>
>> What prompted the original posting, was that I had purchased one, and when
>> I turned it on, I immediately noticed some of the effects mentioned in the
>> article quoted-
>>
>
> complaining of headaches caused by the perceived effects of electroagnetic
> radiation. In my case we were establishing an open air test site (OATS) for
> electromagnetic interference testing. During the advertising stage of the
> DA by council, they received two complaints from people regarding the health
> effects of the radiation my OATS would emit. One, a 62 year old lady was
> experiencing headaches caused by "radiation" from the OATS. When it was
> explained to her it hadn't been built and existed only as a paper plan, she
> countered she was so sensitive to electromagnetic radiation she could feel
> the radiation approaching from wherever we had it stored (quote "It comes
> through the air you know, that's how televisions work")
>
> The second, after hearing about the problem from the first (they lived near
> each other) wrote a long submission detailing how the radiation would affect
> the local poultry and equine industries. It was quite comprehensive and
> included an example detailing how his pheasants had recently stopped laying.
> He was sure the pheasants (being sensitive birds) could sense the radiation
> approaching and the lack of laying was due to headaches the birds were
> experiencing.
>
> I am quite sure they could be counted upon to validate your own situation.
>
>
>
There's just one fault with your argument. I never decided that if I put
a mobile phone to my ear, I would experience such-and-such. I
experienced the reactions that I did when I used the phone. i.e. it
happened- it was simply an observable phenomenon, and others have had
the same experience. There was media publicity a while back about a
local professor who's researching this issue, but I don't recall his
name. He's located in Brighton in Victoria I think.
And while I have your attention.. with these phones, are we in fact
talking about the same sort of radiation as emitted by TV, Plasma, or
LCD screens? And in particular are there known risks with LCD screens? I
need to have my LCD computer monitor just 300-400 mm distant.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If you can't do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly'
lynx
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If all is not lost, then where is it?'
lynx
microwave energy, but rather some sort of physiological reaction or
response to it. If we take urticaria as an example, which can affect the
whole body, but is just triggered by exposure of some sort.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Hit any user to continue'
Mr.T
"Michael" <mic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8Bgyh.4059$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > has been. When switching it off, the headache effect and light
headedness
> > diminishes almost immediately. (There are other effects that
>
> Rubbish, its just your psychologic condition
In your "well researched" opinion.
Fact is that WDECT phones operate at much the same frequency as microwave
ovens, and DO emit radiation an inch or two from the brain.
I for one get headaches when I use one for more than a few minutes, but
unfortunately they don't stop when I switch it off. However I'm sure not
everyone is necessarily affected in the same way. I do doubt there is any
problem just having one on standby in the same room though.
MrT.
Mr.T
> No, it's likely people believing things that are not based on any
> evidence what so ever.
Yes, just like asbestos, everything is safe until proven otherwise?
Shame about the people who die in the meantime I guess.
Brain tumours do seem to be on the increase though, we just don't have a
*proven* cause yet.
MrT.
Mr.T
> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
> phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a simple
> matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out than you put
> in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the extent he indicates
> (causing physical discomfort and a three day headache) would require
> many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100 watts (realize that over 50%
> would be lost since it is radiated omnidirectionally.)
To totally fry his brain maybe.
(I guess yours is just not very sensitive. :-)
MrT.
Mr.T
"HeadRush" <( . )( . )@(_!_).com> wrote in message
news:45c9c794$0$5748$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Take it this way, for the RF to penetrate the skull, you would feel heat
> first. Microwave RF does not discriminate between brain cells and skin
> cells. It hits the skin cells first. The molecules of water and fat in
those
> cells will absorb the alternating radio waves and heat up. For the
> microwaves to penetrate your skull, the RF energy would have to be at such
a
> level that you would feel pain first.
You are assuming *your* brain is no more sensitive than your skin.
That may not be the case for others.
Besides, your brain has a much higher moisture content than your skin, or
skull.
MrT.
Mr.T
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:45c8d094$0$16309$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> **Two anecdotal stories do not constitute a properly designed study.
Very true, we had to wait decades for proof of asbestosis etc.
>I sure
> hope you don't use a cellular 'phone. Their power output can be
considerably
> higher than any DECT 'phone.
Obviously you don't realise the significance of the frequencies used in each
case.
MrT.
lynx
sorry..nearly missed your post.> news:12sjbrf...@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:20:28 +1100, lynx <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any comment appreciated re this subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> I contacted Uniden, one of the largest manufacturers of DECT cordless
>>>>> phones, and they informed me that the output of their phones is
>>>>> typically 80mw, which they consider to be quite safe. Interestingly
>>>>> cordless phone manufacturers do not state the output of their phones in
>>>>> the specifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> ... snip...
>>>>>
>>>
>> Does it actually need to penetrate the skull to do harm, or just the skin?
>>
>
> first. Microwave RF does not discriminate between brain cells and skin
> cells. It hits the skin cells first. The molecules of water and fat in those
> cells will absorb the alternating radio waves and heat up. For the
> microwaves to penetrate your skull, the RF energy would have to be at such a
> symptoms when using a cordless phone, I would say it is a psychosomatic
> response to your concerns.
>
That's a good theory, and you may be right, except that I had no
anticipation of any problem with them until i experienced the symptoms.
>
>> But there was a case in the US where a woman real estate agent who used
>> tumour was directly opposite where the phone antenna was positioned when
>> suggesting that it may take in excess of a decade for any effects to begin
>> to appear.
>>
>
> cumulative affect.
Unfortunately I don't know much about this subject. X-rays for example
are cumulative.
> Can you provide a link to the case above case. If it
> happened in the US, I would treat it with a bit of suspicion.
>
Tried, but can't find anything. It was a media report several years old now.
> FYI, I have been using handheld cell phones since 1989, bought the first
> PAMTS Walkabout MK2 hand held and have used various handheld units since.
My first was a Motorola analogue 'bag' phone. :)
> I
> make lengthy phone calls with the phone to my ear. I don't seem to have any
> side effects and rarely get head aches.
>
We're not all the same. Many ppl do. I've had the cordless phones
switched on for about an hour now, and have a constant headache. But the
jury's still out. I'll need to do some more 'testing'. Also noteworthy
is that I've had a cordless analogue phone for years. Haven't had a
problem with that.
> HR
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Publik educazion iz jus good ass prrivat!!'
Rod Speed
> Dave wrote
>>>> I am unaware of any known epidemilogical evidence to support the theory that DECT technology
>>>> has any effect on health
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>> Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case
>>> of some ppl being more sensitive/affected than others?
>> IMO, not unless chaos theory applies in the same way a butterfly near the Amazon causes a cyclone
>> near Broome.
> I can give other examples, but there's no point.
Yep, unless you can demonstrate that you can pick it in a proper
double blind trial, all you have proven is that you're a fruit loop.
> However, I will just mention that as fate would have it I rang Mitsubishi yesterday about an issue
> with an air conditioner, and the technician stated that in his 30 or so years experience he had
> only ever heard of one other person with that reaction, but that it was a known reaction.
Irrelevant to whether you can show a real effect with a double blind trial.
>>> When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including
>>> handsets) constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if there are
>>> several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a 'sea' of (low) radiation!
>> There is no way that anyone with decent technical knowledge at
>> Uniden would have stated that. Simply because it is not true. Their
>> DECT and WDECT phones do not constantly emit full power when on
>> Standby, instead the base and handsets periodically poll for each
>> other to make sure they are in range, etc. Apart from the lack of a
>> practical purpose in needing to do so, the batteries would be flat
>> in next to no time if they did.
> That's my mistake then I guess.
As always.
> I must have interpreted them saying that the phones constantly emit radiation to mean at the same
> level as when in use.
Or asked a stupid question that got that answer.
Nope.
> I never decided that if I put a mobile phone to my ear, I would experience such-and-such. I
> experienced the reactions that I did when I used the phone.
No you didnt, you got a coincidence and talked
yourself into believing that you got that result after that.
One fella I know well gets a sadistic delight out of pretending to have
got a food poisoning result after eating seafood in a restaurant.
Its amazing how many of the other diners convince themselves
that they have got the same reaction to the food.
> i.e. it happened- it was simply an observable phenomenon,
Pity that until you can demonstrate that you can pick it in a double blind trial,
ALL you have shown is that you managed to convince yourself of an effect.
> and others have had the same experience.
Plenty are convinced that they have seen unicorns, werewolves,
yetis, aliens that have medically experimented on them, angels
that tell them all sorts of things, etc etc etc too.
All that proves is that there are hordes of you fruit loops around.
> There was media publicity a while back about a local professor who's researching this issue, but I
> don't recall his name. He's located in Brighton in Victoria I think.
Pity that fool hasnt ever managed to prove any effect using rigorous science.
> And while I have your attention.. with these phones, are we in fact talking about the same sort of
> radiation as emitted by TV, Plasma, or LCD screens?
Nope, different frequencys. Same frequencys are used by TV transmitters tho.
> And in particular are there known risks with LCD screens?
Nope, none that have been substantiated using rigorous science.
> I need to have my LCD computer monitor just 300-400 mm distant.
Best to smash it and go back to pencil and paper.
HeadRush
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:45ca9b27$0$11603$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "HeadRush" <( . )( . )@(_!_).com> wrote in message
> news:45c9c794$0$5748$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Take it this way, for the RF to penetrate the skull, you would feel heat
>> first. Microwave RF does not discriminate between brain cells and skin
>> cells. It hits the skin cells first. The molecules of water and fat in
> those
>> cells will absorb the alternating radio waves and heat up. For the
>> microwaves to penetrate your skull, the RF energy would have to be at
>> such
> a
>> level that you would feel pain first.
>
> You are assuming *your* brain is no more sensitive than your skin.
> That may not be the case for others.
Whether it is more sensitive or not, the microwaves have to get to the brain
first. The brain does not have pain receptors, the skin does.
>
> Besides, your brain has a much higher moisture content than your skin, or
> skull.
Your skull is made of not only calcium, but phosphorus and other minerals
which block the microwaves from reaching the brain even more.
HR
Rod Speed
> Michael <mic...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> When switching it off, the headache effect and
>>> light headedness diminishes almost immediately.
So it cant be due to the DECT phone.
>>> (There are other effects that I'm reluctant to
>>> mention for fear of being considered crazy!)
Yeah, those voices in the head can be a tad of a giveaway.
>> Rubbish, its just your psychologic condition
> In your "well researched" opinion.
Nope. No one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial.
No opinion involved what so ever.
> Fact is that WDECT phones operate at much the same frequency as
> microwave ovens, and DO emit radiation an inch or two from the brain.
Pity no one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial.
> I for one get headaches when I use one for more than a few minutes,
Bet you cant substantiate that claim with a proper double blind trial.
> but unfortunately they don't stop when I switch it off.
Do the decent thing and top yourself or sumfin.
> However I'm sure not everyone is necessarily affected in the same way.
Corse they arent.
> I do doubt there is any problem just having
> one on standby in the same room though.
There isnt any problem with using one either except in your pathetic little fetid imagination.
Rod Speed
You're imagining it.
> This is a known phenomenon.
Like hell it is. Its never been established using a proper double blind trial.
Rod Speed
Or its your fetid imagination.
> If we take urticaria as an example, which can affect the whole body, but is just triggered by
> exposure of some sort.
Just another fruit loop fantasy.
Rod Speed
He hasnt got one, just ear to ear dog shit.
> (I guess yours is just not very sensitive. :-)
And yours is ear to ear dog shit.
Rod Speed
>>> Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of some ppl being more
>>> sensitive/affected than others?
>> No, it's likely people believing things that are not based on any evidence what so ever.
> Some ppl are more sensitive than others. This is fact.
Nothing like a fact with RF 'radiation'
> Allergies being one example, i.e. food, etc, and notably those who are extremely sensitive to
> sunlight.
Nothing like a fact with RF 'radiation'
And while its completely trivial to prove allergys and sensitivity to
sunlight using a proper double blind trial, that has never been proven
with with RF 'radiation' except with cataracts at VASTLY higher levels.
>>> And if there are reports of adverse effects with the use of these DECT phones, then surely they
>>> can't be ignored, even if they're not scientifically based.
>> Why? The other day after using my Bic pen I got a rash on my hand...
>> Therefore all Bic pens are dangerous? Or am I just sensitive? Or,
>> just maybe, I then went into the woods and got poison ivy?
>> IF something is not 'scientifically based' as you put it, it is just simply a wish or thought.
Or a fantasy.
> Evidence is evidence.
You dont have a shred of evidence of ANY health effects with DECT phones.
> If many ppl are saying that they have the same experience,
True in spades with fruit loops claiming that they have seen
unicorns, werewolves, that they have been abducted by aliens,
had angels spew all sorts of shit into their ear, etc etc etc.
All that proves is that there are hordes of you stupid fruit loops.
> that doesn't have to be as part of a scientific study to have validity.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you are completely off with the fucking fairys.
>>> When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including
>>> handsets) constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if there are
>>> several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a 'sea' of (low) radiation!
>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
>> evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and
>> in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for us!
>>> What prompted the original posting, was that I had purchased one, and when I turned it on, I
>>> immediately noticed
>>> some of the effects mentioned in the article quoted-
>> *Immediately*? That blows your case then... Such effects would take time to become apparent.
> No, not really.
Fraid so.
> I didn't say instantly.
You clearly did say immediately.
> But there was noticeable correlation.
Easy to claim.
> I'm still experimenting to try to rule out any psychological effect.
The ONLY way to do that is a proper double blind trial
and by definition it isnt even possible for you to do that.
>> Realize that people working in communications and electroncis are exposed
>>> to these fields in *much* higher doses without suffering any side effects.
>>> although I had not seen> it then- so I went googling about cordless phones. Since then I have
>>> been switching the phones on and off to see if there is a correlation between the effects that I
>>> feel and the phones being in use, and there has been.
>> How have you been switching them off? Most don't really turn off but remain in communication with
>> the base even when 'off'. This is just like turning off a 'modern' TV: it is still on, it just
>> isn't
>> displaying anything on the screen.
>> You'd have to remove the battery to actually turn them off!
> I have the base station connected to a power board with a switch, and I simply unplug the battery
> connector in the handsets.
But havent done the ONLY thing that proves a damned thing, a proper double blind trial.
>>> When switching it off, the headache effect and light headedness diminishes almost immediately.
>> Again, 'immediately ' tends to tell me that there's something else involved here.
> Why? The radiation would cease when they're switched off.
Doesnt work like that with other things that generate those effects.
>>> (There are other effects that I'm reluctant to mention for fear of being considered crazy!)
>> Too late. Go ahead and list them.
> Most noticeable was a (very) slight heart dysrhythmia or palpitation,
> and an overall effect similar to high blood pressure.
You cant detect high blood pressure without measuring it.
> (Ok, so now you know I'm crazy)
Yep, those voices in the head are a dead giveaway.
> And these were effects mentioned in the report I linked to.
Which is where you got them from. Funny that.
> So if different ppl experience the same effects without
> knowledge of each other, then how is that not evidence relative to the cause of those effects?
Nope, not when those claimed effects are what everyone expects to get.
> And if more than one person has the same
> experience then doubtless there are others as well.
True in spades with fruit loops claiming that they have seen
unicorns, werewolves, that they have been abducted by aliens,
had angels spew all sorts of shit into their ear, etc etc etc.
All that proves is that there are hordes of you stupid fruit loops.
>>> I'm also very sensitive to mobile phones, so i feel that I simply can't use this phone at all.
>> eBay it then...
>> Move to the country. Have the power disconnected from your house. By candle light, read the
>> classic science fiction story "Press Enter".
> Don't knock it. The level of cancer in western society is unprecedented.
Just because we dont die of infectious disease much anymore.
If it actually was due to RF 'radiation', we'd see hordes of
kids getting cancer and in fact the incidence of cancers in
the 20s would have been unprecedented, and it aint.
> There's some Naturopath chinese guy who's had all the
> power cables for his house buried in the ground beneath it.
And hordes of those fools are stupid enough to buy the
feng shu bullshit and insist on operations they deal with
having phone numbers that have the correct digits in them.
> And we are poisoning ourselves with what we eat.
No we arent.
> Organic food is rapidly becoming popular for those who can afford it.
So was grovelling to some damned god or other.
Doesnt prove a damned thing about whether it works or not.
>> What you are complaining about is a sensitivity to a specific spectrum of frequencies
> That may well be the case.
Pity that cant be established using the only
thing that matters, proper double blind trials.
>> (not all frequencies, since you are not affected by power line EMF, broadcast radiation, EMF from
>> television receivers and computer monitors, etc.)
> How do you/I know? I live in an area with underground power.
Those still radiate.
> I don't sit close to the TV, but I do have problems if I stay at the computer for too long. (more
> than an hour, say)
The problem is that its got bad feng shu.
> Never experienced any probs with radios tho.
Pity about the RF they 'radiate'
>> Ask you self: what is the method? How do these frequencies cause me a problem?
> Well that's just it. We don't know enough about this matter to know how/why there is this problem.
Double blind trials were invented to separate real effects from fantasys.
> The brain works on electrical energy.
So does all sorts of things. They dont get tumours.
> We know this. So maybe it's some sort of resonance or interference with those electrical impulses.
Pity you cant substantiate ANY effect using a proper double blind trial.
Rod Speed
> PeterD <pet...@hipson.net> wrote
>> No, it's likely people believing things that are
>> not based on any evidence what so ever.
> Yes, just like asbestos, everything is safe until proven otherwise?
Nope, its obvious that swan dives off tall buildings without
a parachute will produce significant health problems.
> Shame about the people who die in the meantime I guess.
Just as long as its fools like you.
> Brain tumours do seem to be on the increase though,
Pig ignorant lie.
> we just don't have a *proven* cause yet.
Dont need a cause when there has been no increase.
Rod Speed
Just a coincidence.
>>> But there was a case in the US where a woman real estate agent who
>>> used her mobile continually for her job developed a brain tumour,
>>> and sued Motorola. In the court case evidence was presented that
>>> the site of the tumour was directly opposite where the phone
>>> antenna was positioned when using it. And the other aspect of
>>> course is that phones (especially mobiles) are used frequently and
>>> repetitiously, and the experts are suggesting that it may take in
>>> excess of a decade for any effects to begin to appear.
>>>
>>
>> Microwave RF is basically light - it's either on or off, so it
>> can't have a cumulative affect.
> Unfortunately I don't know much about this subject.
Or any other subject either.
> X-rays for example are cumulative.
Pig ignorant lie.
>> Can you provide a link to the case above case. If it
>> happened in the US, I would treat it with a bit of suspicion.
> Tried, but can't find anything. It was a media report several years old now.
It happened in the US.
>> FYI, I have been using handheld cell phones since 1989, bought the
>> first PAMTS Walkabout MK2 hand held and have used various handheld
>> units since.
> My first was a Motorola analogue 'bag' phone. :)
So you cant have used a hands free with that.
>> I make lengthy phone calls with the phone to my ear. I don't seem to have any side effects and
>> rarely get head aches.
> We're not all the same. Many ppl do.
True in spades with fruit loops claiming that they have seen
unicorns, werewolves, that they have been abducted by aliens,
had angels spew all sorts of shit into their ear, etc etc etc.
All that proves is that there are hordes of you stupid fruit loops.
> I've had the cordless phones switched on for about an hour now, and have a constant headache.
That's just another symptom of your insanity.
> But the jury's still out.
There is no jury, just another fruit loop that hasnt actually got
a clue about how to test for a real or psychological effect.
> I'll need to do some more 'testing'.
Not even possible for you to do the only test that matters, a proper double blind trial.
> Also noteworthy is that I've had a cordless analogue phone for years. Haven't had a problem with
> that.
Pity that those produce a lot more RF 'radiation' than a DECT phone does.
Mr.T
"HeadRush" <( . )( . )@(_!_).com> wrote in message
> Your skull is made of not only calcium, but phosphorus and other minerals
> which block the microwaves from reaching the brain even more.
Just as well or death might be instantaneous :-)
Still, the whole world once "knew" the earth was flat too.
Smart people don't assume they know everything.
MrT.
PeterD
Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
One doesn't get that much heat from a watt of power... Say the phone
puts out 2 watts of power (I'd be surprised if it is even close to a
watt, myself). Say 1 watt is absorbed by the head, over a hemisphere
with a radius of 2 inches. That results in a volume of about 15 cubic
inches.
Now put a watt into 15 cubic inches of water, and what heating effects
do you get? You can, I suppose, assume it is perfectly insulated, so
there is no heat loss, but that's not going to be true. In fact, the
head is liquid cooled (fairly efficiently at these rates), so maybe
just take that 15 cubic inches of water and put it on a table.
In the end, you'll notice no appreciable heat buildup in the water
from that one watt of power.
PeterD
>
>Evidence is evidence. If many ppl are saying that they have the same
>experience, that doesn't have to be as part of a scientific study to
>have validity.
>
Many people say they talk directly to god too. But since god's a
fantasy, that doesn't have validity either.
Many musliims say that if they blow themselves up with a bunch of
non-muslims that they 'go immediately to heaven'. That has no validity
either.
Clockmeister
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5305hmF...@mid.individual.net...
> Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
>> Michael <mic...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>> When switching it off, the headache effect and
>>>> light headedness diminishes almost immediately.
>
> So it cant be due to the DECT phone.
>
>>>> (There are other effects that I'm reluctant to
>>>> mention for fear of being considered crazy!)
>
> Yeah, those voices in the head can be a tad of a giveaway.
>
>>> Rubbish, its just your psychologic condition
>
>> In your "well researched" opinion.
>
> Nope. No one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double
> blind trial.
>
> No opinion involved what so ever.
>
>> Fact is that WDECT phones operate at much the same frequency as
>> microwave ovens, and DO emit radiation an inch or two from the brain.
>
> Pity no one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double
> blind trial.
>
Though I agree, where are the results of the trials that back up your
assertion?
Trevor Wilson
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> lynx <no...@nothere.com> wrote
>>
>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>>>
>>
>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
>>
> It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos.
**Nope. Tobacco companies lied. Asbestos has been KNOWN to be harmful for at
least 100 years.
But we now know
> better.
**Yep. The statistics show that smokers die earlier and by a range of
interesting diseases. Asbestos has been a known carcinogen for at leat 100
years. Despite several trials, there is no proven link between DECT 'phones
and any harmful effects.
And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
> living too close to power lines.
**No, there hasn't. Studies are amazingly difficult to get right. The
results of a recent study, found that a large number of people who used
mouthwash also suffered from mouth cancer. Therefore, using mouthwash
increases your chances of contracting mouth cancer, right? Wrong. The
majority of people who use mouthwash, also smoke.
Trials need to be CAREFULLY performed. Anecdotes don't count.
But the bottom line... wtf would you
> know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
> being a total arsehole on usenet.
**Standard response for the loser of an argument - insult your opponent. You
lose. Next time, back up your opinions with facts.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Matt2 - Amstereo
> case.
>
> MrT.
1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
Even a stupid car crashing fuckwit should be able to do better than that pathetic effort, child.
Rod Speed
Smart people have noticed that double blind trials
separate what is actually happening from fantasy.
lynx
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12sjb1c...@news.supernews.com...
>
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> lynx <no...@nothere.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>>>>
>>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
>>>
>> It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos.
>>
>
> **Nope. Tobacco companies lied.
Not sure about sixteen century Britain either.
> Asbestos has been KNOWN to be harmful for at least 100 years.
>
>
>
>> But we now know better.
>>
>
> **Yep. The statistics show that smokers die earlier and by a range of
> interesting diseases. Asbestos has been a known carcinogen for at leat 100
> years. Despite several trials, there is no proven link between DECT 'phones
> and any harmful effects.
>
>
>
>> And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
>> living too close to power lines.
>>
>
> **No, there hasn't. Studies are amazingly difficult to get right. The
> results of a recent study, found that a large number of people who used
> mouthwash also suffered from mouth cancer. Therefore, using mouthwash
> increases your chances of contracting mouth cancer, right? Wrong. The
> majority of people who use mouthwash, also smoke.
>
> Trials need to be CAREFULLY performed. Anecdotes don't count.
>
ignored:
http://tinyurl.com/29lbja
> But the bottom line... wtf would you
>
>> know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
>> being a total arsehole on usenet.
>>
>
> **Standard response for the loser of an argument - insult your opponent. You
> lose.
> Next time, back up your opinions with facts.
>
I'd like to thank all those who have provided me with some useful info
on this issue.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?'
lynx
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:41:06 +1100, lynx <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> PeterD wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:39:45 +1000, imorf
>>> <im...@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first evolved
>>>>> as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and in fact
>>>>> that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for us!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> you see no difference between the natural background radiation & UV
>>>> radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak but close
>>>> range EM radiation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing and
>>> non-ionizing radiation... <g>
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
>>> phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a simple
>>> matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out than you put
>>> in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the extent he indicates
>>> (causing physical discomfort and a three day headache) would require
>>> many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100 watts (realize that over 50%
>>> would be lost since it is radiated omnidirectionally.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.
>>
>
> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>
that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
'physically' impossible?
> One doesn't get that much heat from a watt of power... Say the phone
> puts out 2 watts of power (I'd be surprised if it is even close to a
> watt, myself). Say 1 watt is absorbed by the head, over a hemisphere
> with a radius of 2 inches. That results in a volume of about 15 cubic
> inches.
>
> Now put a watt into 15 cubic inches of water, and what heating effects
> do you get? You can, I suppose, assume it is perfectly insulated, so
> there is no heat loss, but that's not going to be true. In fact, the
> head is liquid cooled (fairly efficiently at these rates), so maybe
> just take that 15 cubic inches of water and put it on a table.
>
> In the end, you'll notice no appreciable heat buildup in the water
> from that one watt of power.
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not 30 something! I'm $29.95, plus shipping and handling'
lynx
that experience. Quite a different matter to those who actually have an
experience that they can relate.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Plan like you'll live forever. Live like there's not tomorrow'
lynx
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:56:24 -0000, "Jim Pills" <e...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> So you wade into an argument half-way through and take sides without having
>> a clue what's going on.
>>
>> Sounds like you need a newsreader that shows all of the branches. If you'd
>> had that, you'd have known that...
>>
>>> Regardless the language used in this thread has been immature... <bg>
>>>
>> ...it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the opinions of
>> the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature - so I guess he just is
>> immature.
>>
>>
>
> As PeterD reads more of Rod's charming words, he now appologizes to
> anyone for his failure to realize that Rod is only 12 years old, and
> suffers from a lack of good upbringing. <g>
>
>
thanks! :)
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Who are all these kids, and why are they calling me daddy??'
Albinus
>
> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
> that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
> 'physically' impossible?
Same heating effect you have when standing in front of a heater or out
in the sun. Just the wavelength from the sun can cause cancer - unlike
that from cellular devices.
HeadRush
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.
>>>
>>
>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>
> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that
> I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically'
> impossible?
I get a "warm" ear when I use my DECT and GSM phone. But I don't think it's
caused by the radio waves, it's caused by the movement and pressure of the
phone rubbing against my ear and surrounds. The tell-tale sign that I've
been gas-bagging on the phone is my one glowing red ear.
I bet if you walked around with a TV remote control pressed against your ear
for 10 minutes you'd feel a heating sensation. Your head and ears have a lot
of nerves, blood vessels and pressure points that can trigger various
sensations. I know of a few tradesman who idiotically will not wear ear
protection because they get headaches from the pressure of the headband and
ear cups.
HR
lynx
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12snghh...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>>>>
>>>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.
>>>>
>>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>>>
>> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that
>> I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically'
>> impossible?
>>
>
> I get a "warm" ear when I use my DECT and GSM phone. But I don't think it's
> caused by the radio waves, it's caused by the movement and pressure of the
> phone rubbing against my ear and surrounds. The tell-tale sign that I've
> been gas-bagging on the phone is my one glowing red ear.
>
One, I don't press the phone against my ear, I hold it very lightly, and
two, in my case the pain effect was in the area behind the ear and
extending into the cheek and jaw. I do experience the effect that you
describe when using a corded phone, but without the associated
discomfort of the surrounding area of the ear, and the headache. If I
have to use a mobile to my ear, I just turn the volume full on, and hold
it several centimetres away.
> I bet if you walked around with a TV remote control pressed against your ear
> for 10 minutes you'd feel a heating sensation. Your head and ears have a lot
> of nerves, blood vessels and pressure points that can trigger various
> sensations. I know of a few tradesman who idiotically will not wear ear
> protection because they get headaches from the pressure of the headband and
> ear cups.
>
> HR
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I lose my weight, but it keeps finding me again!'
Brendon
> Their DECT and WDECT phones
> do not constantly emit full power when on Standby, instead the base and
> handsets periodically poll for each other to make sure they are in
range,
> etc.
Relevant point: The base unit of DECT phones continuously transmit a
beacon signal. The interval varies depending on whether it's DECT or
WDECT from memory.
Mr.T
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:45ca461f$0$16371$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> **Yep. The statistics show that smokers die earlier and by a range of
> interesting diseases.
Yep, and people smoking 200 years ago didn't know that. I wonder how many
would NOT have dismissed any risks?
>Asbestos has been a known carcinogen for at leat 100 years.
Yep, and people were still disputing it 40 years ago. Just like you are
doing now, they claimed there was no proof. At least none they would accept.
Fortunately James Hardie has now learnt an expensive lesson why that is not
necessarily the best policy.
>Despite several trials, there is no proven link between DECT 'phones
> and any harmful effects.
Ah, there's the rub, "several trials" do not PROVE a negative. Simply that
no one has conclusively proven the positive, YET.
> Trials need to be CAREFULLY performed. Anecdotes don't count.
Exactly, they don't prove anything is safe either, just because the dangers
are not yet understood (if indeed there are any)
A real scientist remains open minded when there is insufficient proof one
way or the other.
MrT.
Mr.T
> One doesn't get that much heat from a watt of power... Say the phone
> puts out 2 watts of power (I'd be surprised if it is even close to a
> watt, myself). Say 1 watt is absorbed by the head, over a hemisphere
> with a radius of 2 inches. That results in a volume of about 15 cubic
> inches.
>
> Now put a watt into 15 cubic inches of water, and what heating effects
> do you get? You can, I suppose, assume it is perfectly insulated, so
> there is no heat loss, but that's not going to be true. In fact, the
> head is liquid cooled (fairly efficiently at these rates), so maybe
> just take that 15 cubic inches of water and put it on a table.
>
> In the end, you'll notice no appreciable heat buildup in the water
> from that one watt of power.
And you KNOW that is the only POSSIBLE cause for ANY possible biological
effects, HOW exactly?
MrT.
Mr.T
"Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
news:45cb99b2$0$9775$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz
And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would actually mean
*different* in most cases wouldn't it?
MrT.
Rod Speed
>>>>> PeterD wrote
>>>>>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
>>>>>> evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect,
>>>>>> and in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is
>>>>>> responsible for us!
>>>>> you see no difference between the natural background radiation &
>>>>> UV radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak
>>>>> but close range EM radiation?
>>>> If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing
>>>> and non-ionizing radiation... <g>
>>>> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
>>>> phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a
>>>> simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out
>>>> than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the
>>>> extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort and a three day
>>>> headache) would require many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100
>>>> watts (realize that over 50% would be lost since it is radiated
>>>> omnidirectionally.)
>>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.
>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that I and others experience
> when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically' impossible?
Your imagination. Same thing that produced sightings of unicorns,
leprechauns, yetis, werewolves, angels, gods, etc etc etc.
Clockmeister
Why the insult? So you have nothing to back up the assertion that no one
has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial?
It's a genuine question
Justin
"Clockmeister" <whow...@andwhy.com> wrote in message
news:12sogk7...@corp.supernews.com...
| >
| > Even a stupid car crashing fuckwit should be able to do better than that
| > pathetic effort, child.
|
| Why the insult? So you have nothing to back up the assertion that no one
| has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial?
|
| It's a genuine question
|
|
|
|
Because that's all our beloved Roddles knows, don't take it personally,
you're not alone...
lynx
> MrT.
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I don't have a solution but I admire the problem'
HeadRush
> Mr.T wrote:
>
>> "Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
>> news:45cb99b2$0$9775$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>> 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz
>>>
>>
>> And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would actually
>> mean
>> *different* in most cases wouldn't it?
>>
>
> And now 5.8 Ghz, which is what mine is.
If you have these concerns and have felt the symptoms with mobile phones,
why did you buy a 5.8GHz cordless phone?
HR
lynx
didn't realise the similarities between DECT and mobiles, and had been
using an analogue cordless, although I have had some effect from that,
but only after about an hour or so. I really think the problem has to do
with digital technology and the frequency.
> HR
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Proverb: A short sentence based on long experience'
John Fields
---
So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your
stance?
--
JF
PeterD
>PeterD wrote:
>
>>
>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>>
>
>I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
>that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
>'physically' impossible?
>
Other than it is immaginary? You've shown no proof of heating, only a
statement 'that I get heating'. That feeling of 'heating' could be
anything... What steps have you taken to measure the heating?
Nick
news:45ca6534$0$1155$61c65585@un-2park-reader->> You know, you really ought
to read a book, Mr. Speed. ;o)
>
> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, ****** child.
And yet you, apparently, can't.
Have to say, I agree with Jim and PeterD - you are, quite obviously, a 12
year old suffering from a lack of a decent upbringing. I think I'll
killfilter you as well.
I was going to say that you could always post something intelligent and
informative but then again - you can't, can you?
Rod Speed
> Why the insult?
No insult, just the facts, child.
> So you have nothing to back up the assertion that no one has ever established ANY health effects
> with a proper double blind trial?
It isnt an assertion, its a fact, child.
> It's a genuine question
Presumably you actually are that stupid.
No surprise that you only ever get to crash cars.
Lets go thru this very very slowly for those who are as thick as a brick.
If any health effect had been established using a proper double blind trial, the
results of that trial would be cited by those who claim that there are health effects.
They dont, so there arent any.
Rod Speed
> So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
> to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
> though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your stance?
Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.
Rod Speed
> HeadRush wrote:
>
>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:12sonaq...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
>>>> news:45cb99b2$0$9775$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>> 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz
>>>>>
>>>> And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would
>>>> actually mean *different* in most cases wouldn't it?
>>>>
>>> And now 5.8 Ghz, which is what mine is.
>>>
>>
>> If you have these concerns and have felt the symptoms with mobile
>> phones, why did you buy a 5.8GHz cordless phone?
>>
>
> Simply didn't occur to me that there could be a problem with it. I
> didn't realise the similarities between DECT and mobiles, and had been
> using an analogue cordless, although I have had some effect from that,
> but only after about an hour or so.
Nothing like what you said previously.
> I really think the problem has to do with digital technology
More fool you. Fools like you made the same stupid claims about AMPS mobile phones.
> and the frequency.
Easy to claim.
Rod Speed
wrote just the puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.
John Fields
wrote:
---
Whether he's taken any steps or not, it's entirely possible that he
could feel the heating just through absorption of the RF energy into
the skin and its transformation into heat, much like a cup of water
can be heated in a microwave oven because of the RF output from the
magnetron being converted into heat after being absorbed by the
water.
For example, let's assume that the phone is putting out an average
power of 3 watts, that it's resting against someone's ear, and that
the head the ear is attached to is an ellipsoid with equatorial
radii of 3.5" and a polar radius of 5.5".
If we further assume that the flesh affected by the RF signal covers
half the head, that it's 1/8" thick and that it's axis is normal to
the equator, then its volume will be:
V = V1 - V2, where:
4pi r1 r2 r3 12.56 * 3.5" * 3.5" * 5.5"
V1 = -------------- = ---------------------------- ~ 141"^3,
6 6
4pi r1 r2 r3 12.56 * 3.25" * 3.25" * 5.25"
V2 = -------------- = ------------------------------- ~ 116"^3,
6 6
so,
V = V1 - V2 = 141"^3 - 116"^3 = 25 cubic inches
Now, since that flesh is going to be 90% water, let's err on the
conservative side (more water means it takes more power to heat it
to a given temperatrure in a given time) and say it's _all_ water.
Further, since the phone's antenna puts out an omnidirectional
radiation pattern, let's say that half the power leaving the phone
will be absorbed by the 25 cubic inches of water. It won't be,
(look at the geometry) but again, we err on the side of caution.
Half of the phone's output power is 1.5 watts, which is about 5 BTU.
Salt water weighs about 64 pounds per cubic foot, and a cubic foot
is 1728 cubic inches, so our 25 cubic inches weighs:
25"^3
F = --------- * 64lb = 0.925lb
1728"^3
Therefore, since 1 BTU is the amount of power required to raise the
temperature of 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit in one hour, 5
BTUs will raise the temperature of 25 cubic inches of water 1F in 12
minutes, or about 0.1F per minute. Some people might be able to
detect that rate of rise in their skin temperature over ambient, and
remember that the power density won't be the same throughout the 25
cubic inches, so the temperature rise in the skin closest to the
antenna will be considerably greater than 0.1F per minute.
--
JF