Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 87
  1. #41  
    Judging by some of the posts, and considering the fact that most posting use the Treo, I'm starting to think that indeed the use of the Treo may have some damaging affects in the brain area most involved with rational thinking.
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by Melvin2


    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?
    1. In all of these reports and references I've seen nothing about sperm.

    2. Turning off Wireless Mode is like turning off your cell phone. It doesn't receive and transmit anymore, by definition.

    I doubt this is your first cell phone. In that case, I doubt that the Treo's higher levels could have caused this problem in however few months you've had it. I wouldn't blame the Treo in particular, and when it comes down to it, it looks like the average SAR level is maybe 1.1-1.2, so we're not talking huge amounts.

    I personally would look elsewhere for a cause for that condition, but would leave the phone off when in the pocket for long periods to be safe.
  3. #43  
    Has this thread:

    -- http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...threadid=43044

    been noted yet?

    What goes around, comes around.
  4. #44  
    Originally posted by CmdrGuard
    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.
    "SAR is measured as Watts of radiation energy per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of brain tissue", so it's more wattage than that 1.49 number.

    It's more like 2 watts total.
  5.    #45  
    Oh that's great, just great!
  6. #46  
    If this at all concerning to you idiots, make sure you stay out of the sun as well.
  7. #47  
    Originally posted by Melvin2
    Oh that's great, just great!
    Ya know, I'm a bit more "cautious" than I need to be, but I think you're way too worked up about this... That can be worse for you than the questionable danger of all of this. Seriously, stress and freaking out has a devastating impact on so many different systems in our bodies.

    Keep in mind that by converting the wattage/kg to total watts for an average adult brain, I did not raise any levels or anything, I merely restated the terms. We could say 2000 mW and it sounds a lot scarier, but it's milliwatts. =)

    If you're so freaked, you should just leave wireless mode off when you're not using the phone, get a headset that is proven to reduce SAR and keep the phone away from your body when you're using it. Case closed. Then you can get more info from your doctor about the *real* cause for your condition. =)
  8. #48  
    Originally posted by JTREOB
    If this at all concerning to you idiots, make sure you stay out of the sun as well.
    All I've done is put things in different terms.

    The rudeness is totally unwarranted.
  9. #49  
    Originally posted by kennethW


    All I've done is put things in different terms.

    The rudeness is totally unwarranted.
    What's unwarranted is someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre beginning with the GULP headline.

    If one truely wanted to know what may cause a particular medical condition, this is hardly the place to find out, and I would think one should know that.

    This thread is truely whats unwarranted.
    Last edited by JTREOB; 01/25/2004 at 04:32 PM.
  10. #50  
    Originally posted by JTREOB

    If you truely wanted to know what may cause a particular medical condition, this is hardly the place to find out, and I would think you should know that.
    Which is why I recommended things that will minimize his *concern* that it's his phone (peace of mind) and told him to go back to the doctor...
  11. #51  
    Originally posted by kennethW


    Which is why I recommended things that will minimize his *concern* that it's his phone (peace of mind) and told him to go back to the doctor...
    I could not agree more. It should have been the first and last post to this discussion.
  12. #52  
    Originally posted by kennethW


    All I've done is put things in different terms.

    The rudeness is totally unwarranted.

    Originally posted by JTREOB




    If this at all concerning to you idiots, make sure you stay out of the sun as well.

    Judging by some of the posts, and considering the fact that most posting use the Treo, I'm starting to think that indeed the use of the Treo may have some damaging affects in the brain area most involved with rational thinking.
    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.

    Yes, there are things we can control for health and safety concerns.

    The only person acting absurb and rediculous is the person who keeps reading and responding with anger and hostility.
  13. #53  
    2 Watts, not too sure how you got that. But it makes a reasonable figure considering the distance I would expect the signal to travel to a nearby repeater. Still, 2 watts can be dangerous for long conversations.

    The safety procedures for a hand held ham radio suggest that you keep the antenna above your head when transmitting. Considering a cell phone transmits much more frequently (if not all the time), a 30 minute conversation on a cell phone is far far worse than one on a hand held transceiver by Kenwood.

    I really don't see how people with amateur radio licenses don't see that cell phones are actually quite dangerous.

    And for everyone else, don't give me this sun expose argument crap. By listing something more dangerous than the topic at hand, doesn't make the topic any less dangerous. It just makes you stupid.

    Yeah, the sun does cause radiation but its part of life. And cell phones appear to cause harmful radiation as well. If its part of your life fine, be aware of the risk and don't dismiss it cause you found something else out there that might kill you quicker.

    This all reminds me of when smoking was becoming quite well known as causing cancer. It was really imbedded in so many people lives, that they preferred to shut their eyes to the truth and ignore mounting evidence.

    But hey, smoking is more dangerous than sun expose, and prolonged sun expose may be worse than cell phone use. I guess if someone smokes, they should stay out in the sun and call their other chimney smoking, sun tanning buddies too... right JTREOB?
  14. #54  
    Originally posted by dlbrummels






    Yes, there are things we can control for health and safety concerns.

    The only person acting absurb and rediculous is the person who keeps reading and responding with anger and hostility.
    I guess I do get carried away when I see idiots make unwarranted assertions that cause others to worry irrationally.
  15. #55  
    Originally posted by JTREOB


    I guess I do get carried away when I see idiots make unwarranted assertions that cause others to worry irrationally.

    Nobody here is making unwarranted assertions, we have concerns about the prolonged exposure of a phone next to our heads.

    Since you don't like what we have to say, stay away, don't respond, go spread your ignorrance and hate somewhere else.

    Your own conversations express the minute level of intelligence you attained over your life.
  16. #56  
    Originally posted by dlbrummels



    Nobody here is making unwarranted assertions, we have concerns about the prolonged exposure of a phone next to our heads.

    Since you don't like what we have to say, stay away, don't respond, go spread your ignorrance and hate somewhere else.

    Your own conversations express the minute level of intelligence you attained over your life.
    You've brought nothing to the table except unwarranted assertions you happen find through your google or other one sided research. To be sure, you sure the hell are no expert in this matter.

    You certainly seem to be intent and have the time to continue to present unproven or undocumented leaps and assertions all negative by the way. I just hope the hell others are more rational then you as it pertains to this topic.
  17. #57  
    Originally posted by JTREOB


    You've brought nothing to the table except unwarranted assertions you happen find through your google or other one sided research. To be sure, you sure the hell are no expert in this matter.

    You certainly seem to be intent and have the time to continue to present unproven or undocumented leaps and assertions all negative by the way. I just hope the hell others are more rational then you as it pertains to this topic.

    This is untrue, I have been reading, watching, and researching the connection between certain cancers and their underlying causes. I have watched cell phones from the onset.

    I have looked at both sides of the research with and open mind.
    This discussion started with the better safe than sorry attitude.

    There is no evidence to the contray that rf is not dangerous. Whether it effects certain people differently, sure, there are many variables.

    To believe the goverments findings on anything hook line and sinker, is just scary, they are all about disinformation, lies, cover-ups, and the public right to know.

    With politicians for hire, goverment under the wing off big business, do you think you will hear otherwise ?

    They can hear every conversation and listen to every phone call, do you think the would want to lose trillions of dollars on recalls, fixing the problems ?

    It is just another area of concern, better safe than sorry.

    Just be safe out there !
  18.    #58  
    Okay gentlemen--back to your corners.

    The topic was the seemingly high level of radiation emitted from our beloved T.

    I still stand by my "GULP!" subject. Our unit is significantly higher than other very popular models and, after months of continuous and daily use, it is by far the most serious thing I have encountered pertaining to this otherwise awsome phone. Unfortunately, I really do consider this to be a very serious thing. Maybe some don't care about invisible radiation and subscribe to the "if I can't see it, it can't hurt me" philosophy, but I don't agree with that. I guess my current dilemma would be solved if I did.

    I'm not sure what I can or will do about it, but thank you all for your suggestions and feedback.
  19. Minsc's Avatar
    Posts
    967 Posts
    Global Posts
    974 Global Posts
    #59  
    I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the SAR ratings represent the MAXIMUM level a phone is capable of emitting. Under most circumstances, especially if you're in a decent coverage area, I would imagine the SAR level of the Treo would be far less than 1.5.
  20. mgauss's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    745 Global Posts
    #60  
    FYI the THE site for all this is www.microwavenews.com they are in 60 minutes and 20/20 often.

    In my site www.safelevel.com I have a free eBook on this plus also click on Latest news.

    Here are some highlights from Microwave News.com:

    Environmental Health Perspectives is now an open access journal. This means that all research articles in EHP, which is published by the NIEHS, are feely accessible on the Internet. Among the more than 10,000 research reports now available is the startling paper by the Lund University group in Sweden showing that very weak GSM mobile phone radiation can cause leakage through the blood-brain barrier, leading to neurological damage. The Lund paper appeared in EHP’s June 2003 issue and was posted on the Web last January (see MWN, J/F03). The studies on the blood-brain barrier by Lund’s Drs. Leif Salford and Bertil Persson prompted a workshop held in Germany in November. Microwave News was there and we will be posting a report on the meeting soon.

    Today it may be more of historical than scientific interest, but EPA’s 1990 evaluation of EMF cancer risks is now available on the Internet at no charge. Back then, the draft Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields was a hot item. A team led by Dr. Robert McGaughy had recommended that power-frequency EMFs should be classified as “probable human carcinogens” and that RF/MW radiation be considered a “possible human carcinogen.” These conclusions were leaked to Microwave News and were later broadcast around the world (see MWN, M/J90). The White House moved quickly to quell the controversy and commissioned another report, which, to no one’s surprise, found that there was in fact no EMF cancer risk (see MWN, N/D92). When the EPA draft report was released in late 1990, the EPA stated that it would be “inappropriate” to compare EMFs to chemical carcinogens. McGaughy’s position was later vindicated. In 1998, an expert panel assembled by the NIEHS judged ELF EMFs to be “possible human carcinogens” (see MWN, J/A98), and three years later, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) made the designation official (see MWN, J/A01). Work on the EMF report continued at EPA through the mid-1990s (see MWN, J/F98), but it was never released in final form. McGaughy, who is still at EPA, told us recently that under EPA’s current cancer guidelines, EMFs would be seen as “likely” carcinogens, but noted that any official decision would depend on an agency evaluation which has neither been done nor is planned. “Personally, I think there is something to worry about,” McGaughy said.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions