Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 87
  1. #21  
    Originally posted by kennethW
    dlbrummels, I'm not sure why you're quoting a huge chunk of an anti-RF company site (the post with "RF Safe" info), unless you're involved with that company. Your post says "shop with us". So how can you irresponsibly advocate using headphones/buds when your site sells products to counteract the RF issues related to those accessories?

    This is totally not a flame, I'm just trying to understand your situation and help people get information that is as complete (if not as accurate) as possible. It's even easier to discount companies than it is to discount governments, especially with so much sensationalism surrounding the subject.


    Not a testimonial to any company. There is no sensationalism, only fear, people shouldn't believe the pablum the goverment is spooning them. If I only had a dollar for every lie.

    There is no science that can defend the cell phone industries claims and the goverments SARS numbers.

    I, as others, have posted links earlier, and I still have the video tape of the reults of the first testing, in which the industry tried to later disprove the results. They hired the scientists, paid for tests, didn't like the results.


    All the people her are like a "big family". Everybody wants each other to be safe, and out of harms way !

    And when in doubt, take the necessary prcautions.
  2. #22  
    Originally posted by Tekara
    there's not enough wattage to cause problems. . . plus the frequency isn't quite optimal for cooking anyway.

    you've got a better shot at getting cancer from all the 2.4ghz wireless equipment (same frequency your household microwave uses) than you do from a 1900mhz cell phone.
    True, stick your microwave against your head for a few hours a day and you"ll be dead in a few.
  3. #23  
    Look, I admit there is plenty of debate on the overall biological effects of CDMA and GSM RF exposure. Like most things in life you should look at the current data available and make an informed decision. We will probably never stop using our phones, but I dont think there is ever anything wrong with a little caution (like keeping it out of your front pocket) To be fair, the following are very recent medical literature articles supporting the hypothesis that radiofrequency radiation does not induce biological cell damage:


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


    Now, to be devil's advocate, the following are also recent medical literature articles supporting the theory that it does:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    These are just a few of the many articles published inthe last few years. I am certain many more will follow. Realize that the technical aspects of such experiments are very difficult and many are thrown out due to the sketchy results. We are still a long way from proving any side.

    Remember that your brain is extremely resistent to radiation induced cell damage and your genitals/intestines are very sensitive because they are always rapidly dividing allowing more chance for cell division error. You should probably not keep the phone in your front pocket.

    The last thing I will say is to also know that most (if not all) radiation exposure you acquire stays with you FOR LIFE. Radiation is quantitative and the biological effects may not be apparent for many many years (not to scare you CASH 70 )
    There is currently a tremendous amount of additional literature on a related issue of the use of unneccesary CT scans in children for this very reason.

    And also..I think those RF shields are a waste of money
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by cash70
    LOL...if the radiation from antennas and other highly radiated equipment on navy ships didn't fry any of my body parts, I don't think that the Treo 600 is going to do anything. And I did work near them on a regular basis for many years.

    P.S. If you ask my ex she will tell you that the radiation did affect my brain.

    cash70
    We are talking about device pinpointed against your head, not the radio waves in the air passing threw your body.


    Those are dangerous enough, but hardly possible to control in most cases.

    Better safe than sorry!
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by keithmeyer
    Look, I admit there is plenty of debate on the overall biological effects of CDMA and GSM RF exposure. Like most things in life you should look at the current data available and make an informed decision. We will probably never stop using our phones, but I dont think there is ever anything wrong with a little caution (like keeping it out of your front pocket) To be fair, the following are very recent medical literature articles supporting the hypothesis that radiofrequency radiation does not induce biological cell damage:


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


    Now, to be devil's advocate, the following are also recent medical literature articles supporting the theory that it does:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    These are just a few of the many articles published inthe last few years. I am certain many more will follow. Realize that the technical aspects of such experiments are very difficult and many are thrown out due to the sketchy results. We are still a long way from proving any side.

    Remember that your brain is extremely resistent to radiation induced cell damage and your genitals/intestines are very sensitive because they are always rapidly dividing allowing more chance for cell division error. You should probably not keep the phone in your front pocket.

    The last thing I will say is to also know that most (if not all) radiation exposure you acquire stays with you FOR LIFE. Radiation is quantitative and the biological effects may not be apparent for many many years (not to scare you CASH 70 )
    There is currently a tremendous amount of additional literature on a related issue of the use of unneccesary CT scans in children for this very reason.

    And also..I think those RF shields are a waste of money

    You might be interested in seeing the "catscan" of the lady who died of brain cancer, and the pattern in her brain, that matched the center load wiring pattern of the antenae of her phone.
  6. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
    #26  
    Hi guys I manufacture meters to measure Cell Phones for a living.

    You can buy I mean see my meter at www.safelevel.com/cellsensor

    I sell it on eBay for only $ 24.95 browse for "high frequency meter"

    You can believe the studies showing no problems or the studies showing problems.

    The head researcher at Motorola died suing Motorola for a brain tumor...the guy had over 500 patents to his name.

    Now the meter can show you how to hold the phone so as to minimize exposure, it helps you find a headset to get rid of the exposure (some headsets act like antennas and make the problem worse!), and while you use the headset it helps you measure the reading around your lap where you are holding the phone!

    Very useful meter.

    1) We need cell phones
    2) We are not stupid we know the radiation hot spots are not good for us
    3) We feel it makes sense to measure the fields in order to know where to hold the phone and to find headsets that are a solution to the problem!

    That's why I started the company!

    George
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by webslappy
    here's a quote from the FDA study that finds no link between cell phones and brain cancer:


    "Many experts say that no matter how near the cell phone's antenna--even if it's right up against the skull--the six-tenths of a watt of power emitted couldn't possibly affect human health. They're probably right, says John E. Moulder, Ph.D., a cancer researcher and professor of radiation oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin. It's true, he says, that from the physics standpoint, biological effects from mobile phones are "somewhere between impossible and implausible."

    They do go to say that further research is probably still needed though.
    Their theories aren't based on experimenting with live subjects.

    It is based on Ohm's and Kirchoffs laws, formulas, data and statistics. I read the report, and consider it "Junk Science", as is with most Govermental Agencies , and people funded directly or indirectly by the goverment.

    What is killing us is what the goverment isn't telling us.

    Please be safe out there !
  8. #28  
    OK, is there anyone that can present me a possible mechanism for how RF radiation causes any real significant harm in humans?

    Whenever anyone says "Radiation" the public screams in terror because of the association with radioactivity and nuclear weapons... RF radiation is a completely different kind that is INCAPABLE of ionizing DNA, and there is no mechanism that would allow radiation of that low a power to alter any of the appropriate molecules into carcinogens. Hence, I can see no reason for how a cell phone could cause cancer. Can anyone offer a convincing explanation rather than terrified speculation?

    Also, keep in mind the power of the placebo effect. Particularly with regards to decentralized pain like "burning sensations" and headaches, there are endless numbers of studies that prove they are readily made up without any real physical cause at all. Think it terms of statistics, and try to keep anecdotal evidence away from your thinking.
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by Eteq
    OK, is there anyone that can present me a possible mechanism for how RF radiation causes any real significant harm in humans?

    Whenever anyone says "Radiation" the public screams in terror because of the association with radioactivity and nuclear weapons... RF radiation is a completely different kind that is INCAPABLE of ionizing DNA, and there is no mechanism that would allow radiation of that low a power to alter any of the appropriate molecules into carcinogens. Hence, I can see no reason for how a cell phone could cause cancer. Can anyone offer a convincing explanation rather than terrified speculation?

    Also, keep in mind the power of the placebo effect. Particularly with regards to decentralized pain like "burning sensations" and headaches, there are endless numbers of studies that prove they are readily made up without any real physical cause at all. Think it terms of statistics, and try to keep anecdotal evidence away from your thinking.
    Yes if you read some findings, other than the crap the goverment tells you. I guess the deaths, tumors, cancers are placebo ?

    Aren't your theories based on anecdotal evidence ?

    Statistics as a bases of truth ? Surely you jest, the easiest of all lies, can be based statistically, simply choose where you pull your statistics from, bias from that !
  10. #30  
    this is serious, I am going to start using my headphone, I find it cheaper than buying a 24.95 meter that I will only use once , I cant imagine myself using the meter everytime I use the phone , people are going to believe I am kookoo .
  11. #31  
    The sun that we are all exposed to is significantly more dangerous due to cancer causing radiation levels then any cell phone, and I'm referring to no more then 10 minutes a week of direct sunlight. That is a fact.

    Maybe one would like to see the cat scans of thousands of individuals who within weeks of contracting Melanoma had it spread to their lungs or brain or liver, and since we're trying to raise fear here, how about including the many cases were dermatologists could not even attempt to remove malignant growths caused by the suns radiation from individuals in and around the neck and head region without killing the patient. There's plenty more.

    but tell me, are you planning to stay inside during daylight hours for the rest of your life? It would make a great deal more sense then worrying about cell phone RF

    As a matter of fact, if you enjoy daylight, eat processed meats, eat foods high in saturated fats, breath city air, drink water containing fluoride, use anti perspirant, drink coffee, eat food containing red dye, use artifical sweetners, or subject yourself to a whole host of other exposures, which are too many to name here, you may according to research be subjecting yourself to cancer causing agents of far greater concern then cell phone RF

    Frankly, this is a rediculous thread that does nothing but raise some absurd and unwarranted fears . It also carries with it a strong scent of malicious intent.

    As for the one with infertility, their concern would better directed by considering boxers, staying out of hot tubs and refraining from bike rides of any length then in carrying a cell phone in their front pocket.
    Last edited by JTREOB; 01/25/2004 at 03:40 AM.
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by keithmeyer
    The last thing I will say is to also know that most (if not all) radiation exposure you acquire stays with you FOR LIFE. Radiation is quantitative and the biological effects may not be apparent for many many years (not to scare you CASH 70 )
    Not at all. That's why I live every day to the fullest! You never know.

    cash70
    Me = Nokia 5170/Palm III > Kyocera 6035 > Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 700p > Treo 755p > Treo Pro > Palm Pre

    Wife = Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 755p > Palm Centro > Palm Pixi
  13. #33  
    The radiation exposure one aquires stay with them the rest of their life? That is absurd and totally incorrect as stated. You people need to get your heads screwed on straight.
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by dlbrummels


    We are talking about device pinpointed against your head, not the radio waves in the air passing threw your body.


    Those are dangerous enough, but hardly possible to control in most cases.

    Better safe than sorry!
    Trust me. I've had plenty of devices pinpointed against my head and other parts of my body way more powerful than a cell phone. Even have a piece of paper documenting the amount of radiation I absorbed in 10 years. I don't even need to put food in a microwave.

    I agree with "better safe than sorry". But if I took it to extremes I would not have joined the military nor I would get on the beltway here in DC to go to work. Give us one inch of snow and there is nothing more dangerous in the universe than driving on the beltway.

    This is just a very personal issue. I agree that for some is very serious and they should take any precautions they feel necessary. But for others is a non-issue. Take smoking. I know people that smoked their entire life and lived 90 years. Happy. No traces of cancer at all. At the same time, I know others that did not touch a cigarette and died of lung cancer very young. And there is conclusive data about the effects of smoking. Figure that one out.

    cash70
    Me = Nokia 5170/Palm III > Kyocera 6035 > Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 700p > Treo 755p > Treo Pro > Palm Pre

    Wife = Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 755p > Palm Centro > Palm Pixi
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by dlbrummels


    Yes if you read some findings, other than the crap the goverment tells you. I guess the deaths, tumors, cancers are placebo ?

    Aren't your theories based on anecdotal evidence ?

    Statistics as a bases of truth ? Surely you jest, the easiest of all lies, can be based statistically, simply choose where you pull your statistics from, bias from that !
    First of all, why would the government (and which government, btw?) make ANY of this up? Second, the articles I'm referring to on the placebo effect can be found in independent medical journals unaffiliated with the government.

    And what theories are you talking about? I didn't even posit a theory - I simply stated that RF radiation is not strong enough to ionize, and asked for a working theory on how it could nevertheless cause cancer.

    And no, people that die of tumors aren't examples of the placebo effect, but there's no reason to think RF radiation caused the tumors. I myself had a brain tumor, and it was before I got a cell phone... by your standards, this is enough to disprove the cell phone danger...



    And cash70, I think I can figure your smoking example out... its basic statistics - considering how many smokers there are, plenty are going to live a full life... but nevertheless, for many their life is shortened by smoking-related illness... When you consider just how many people are in the world, it becomes obvious why so many things happen that don't seem to fit with statistical patterns... there's so many people that really strange things are bound to occur to a few people.
  16.    #36  
    Frankly, this is a rediculous thread that does nothing but raise some absurd and unwarranted fears . It also carries with it a strong scent of malicious intent.
    As the original poster, I'm sorry you thought my post was rediculous and I assure you I meant no malicious intent against the T. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I absolutely love my T. I formerly had the Hitachi G1000 which I thought was pretty cool, but then, as soon as the T came out, I switched and never ever looked back. Not even once. Not for a second. The Treo 600 has been nothing but a godsend to me. I absolutely love it and have no reason whatsoever to knock it. In fact, I highly recommend it; and, as such, the unit is with me every single waking hour of every single day--and has been since the day it was first introduced.

    Ok...now that that has been cleared up...

    I have two questions:

    1. Yes or No: Can a high SAR rating kill or damage sperm?

    2. Yes or No: Will turning off the Wireless Mode before putting the unit in your pocket help? Or, is the radiation level the same either way?
  17. #37  
    DO you eat kryspy kream donuts full of transfat, is you culture so that you feed your kids with oreo cookies. Do you still eat that pre-re-processed ready food who' first second ingredient included processed whiened flower, or sugar or plam oil ?

    Do you have early offset of geriatric diabetes, are you overweight (that's 65% of you), do you have high blood pressure ? DO you watch TV more often than not... Do you drink diet coke while chomping down on a "healthy" so called chicken foccacia by McKiller ?

    Please folks, please put things in perspective...
  18. #38  
    In Ham Radio safety regulations, RF radiation IS dangerous. There are explicit regulations that state how to set up a large powerful antenna so as to minimize the radiation, you the transmitter may receive, as well as neighbors! There are also recommendations that hand held transceivers be used with large antennas so that transmissions are over your head when speaking into the microphone.

    These handheld transceivers put out about 3-4 watts of power on 400 MHZ. The technology of them is very similar to the early days cells phones, so much so that they can be used as cells phones on certain repeater towers and with certain codes.

    So for one, I'm skeptical that these cell phones really only use 1 watt or so of power, cause they sure seem to get much hotter than 1 watt should make them. And I also doubt that cell phone towers are so close that 1 watt of power would suffice for daily use.

    At the very least, to state RF radiation is NOT dangerous is clearly false. RF radiation can be dangerous depending on the power of the transmission (watts) distance from transmission to person (meters), and the duration of the transmission (seconds). Maybe cell phones use such small amounts of power that they are harmless, but that seems unlikely that the power put out by cell phones are so low enough that they cause no effects when the phones are mere centimeters from your brain and on calls from a minute to God knows how long.
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by Eteq


    First of all, why would the government (and which government, btw?) make ANY of this up? Second, the articles I'm referring to on the placebo effect can be found in independent medical journals unaffiliated with the government.

    And what theories are you talking about? I didn't even posit a theory - I simply stated that RF radiation is not strong enough to ionize, and asked for a working theory on how it could nevertheless cause cancer.

    And no, people that die of tumors aren't examples of the placebo effect, but there's no reason to think RF radiation caused the tumors. I myself had a brain tumor, and it was before I got a cell phone... by your standards, this is enough to disprove the cell phone danger...

    And cash70, I think I can figure your smoking example out... its basic statistics - considering how many smokers there are, plenty are going to live a full life... but nevertheless, for many their life is shortened by smoking-related illness... When you consider just how many people are in the world, it becomes obvious why so many things happen that don't seem to fit with statistical patterns... there's so many people that really strange things are bound to occur to a few people.

    I don't know, could it be the goverment that tested radiation fallout and the effects on their own troops.

    The goverment that denied for decades the dangers of "Agent Orange" , denied the soldiers health claims.

    The goverment that withheld the truth about Aids while other goverments were telling the truth ?

    There are so many lies, it is hard to find the real truth.

    I would rather be wrong, than dead wrong.
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by CmdrGuard
    In Ham Radio safety regulations, RF radiation IS dangerous. There are explicit regulations that state how to set up a large powerful antenna so as to minimize the radiation, you the transmitter may receive, as well as neighbors! There are also recommendations that hand held transceivers be used with large antennas so that transmissions are over your head when speaking into the microphone.

    These handheld transceivers put out about 3-4 watts of power on 400 MHZ. The technology of them is very similar to the early days cells phones, so much so that they can be used as cells phones on certain repeater towers and with certain codes.

    So for one, I'm skeptical that these cell phones really only use 1 watt or so of power, cause they sure seem to get much hotter than 1 watt should make them. And I also doubt that cell phone towers are so close that 1 watt of power would suffice for daily use.

    At the very least, to state RF radiation is NOT dangerous is clearly false. RF radiation can be dangerous depending on the power of the transmission (watts) distance from transmission to person (meters), and the duration of the transmission (seconds). Maybe cell phones use such small amounts of power that they are harmless, but that seems unlikely that the power put out by cell phones are so low enough that they cause no effects when the phones are mere centimeters from your brain and on calls from a minute to God knows how long.
    Very much correct, there is every reason to take whatever safety precautions you can.

    I have been in electronics my whole adult life. I have been repairing computers since there was home computers.

    I know the risks of the technologies.

    Sure, you may not be the one to be affected by it, but maybe someone you care about maybe.

    And to the person who said their family member smoked his whole life and didn't get cancer, good for them !

    Don't make the exception the rule, smoking kills, if you don't think so may GOD have mercy on you.

    If you think for one moment that the goverment will protect you, just look around at what is left of our Vietnam Vets.

    MMMM.... statistics, interesting, less than 10% unemployment ?
    Guess what, they stop counting you when your benefits run out, and if you didn't get them, your not even included in the statistic !

    Garbage IN Garbage Out...
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions