|
Re: (OT) How to cook an egg with 2 mobile phones....
de Al Klein 06/20/2006 06:05
On 20 Jun 2006 17:06:36 +0200, "John Jay Smith" <1@2.3> wrote:
>a simple 10 second movement of my fingers on my keyboard led me to this
>page.. but there is lots more if you search
>
>http://www.relfe.com/cellphones_brain_cancer.html
"Italian scientists have recently demonstrated that cell phone
radiation makes cancerous cells grow aggressively" Well, what they
proved is that radiation *similar to* cellular phone radiation can
affect tumor cells. But we already knew that - we've been using
radiation to cure cancer for decades. they didn't show that the brain
can receive microwave radiation. (We know that EM radiation causes
heat in animal cells - so what? We've known it for tens of thousands
of years - ever hear of sunlight? That also causes cancer, but the
brain can't receive it directly.)
>http://www.cancer-health.org/Brain_cancer.html
One problem - cell phones don't transmit on the resonant frequency of
the water molecule, so the basic assumption - that cellular radiation
does something similar to microwave oven radiation - is total
nonsense. But since they said something like it, you believe it.
"1 hour a day X 365 days a year = 365 hours
365 hours X 3 watts (a cellular phone transmits a MAXIMUM of 0.2
watts, and almost all of that goes somewhere other than into your
body) = 1095 watts in one year
1095 watts X 10 years = 10959 watts."
First, the amount of radiation absorbed by the body (the figures are
on the FCC's web site) is about 0.002 watts, not 3 watts, so the
amount of radiation absorbed in 10 years is 0.73 watts per year, or
7.3 watts in 10 years.
Second - the effects aren't cumulative - this isn't radioactivity. The
heating effect (that's the only effect on the body - read the web
site) - ASSUMING that the radiation was at the resonant frequency of
the water molecule (which it isn't) is almost nill - put your hand on
a 2 milliwatt incandescent bulb (there isn't any bulb that small,
because you couldn't detect the light it gave off) and you'd never
feel any heat. It's more dangerous to stand 10 feet from a dog - that
101 degree body temperature is heating your cells a lot more than the
2 milliwatts you're absorbing from your cell phone.
Now, John, if you think I'm wrong, refute what I've said - WITH FACTS,
not urls.
>I see a pattern here.
So do I - you either skim and accept claims, or you don't understand
the facts behind the claims well enough to evaluate the claims you
read.
> I never come to you and say you are wrong about anything.
>
>I post something, and you "the debunker" comes telling me that I am wrong.
Because most of the claims you post ARE wrong, as your claims about
the above urls are. Stop posting incorrect claims and I'll stop
pointing out that they're incorrect.
>You do this without taking the time to do a stupid Google search...
No need to do a Google search on something I've been familiar with for
years. The fact that it's on the internet doesn't make it correct,
and all claims to the contrary wrong. If you think appearing in
Google makes a claim correct, that's one of the problems - your
gullibility.
>your mind is programmed so much into wrong beliefs that you cannot even
>accept the notion that what you think you know is wrong.
What I think is always subject to correction - what I know is subject
to correction when I see proof that I'm wrong. Posting a link to a
web site that doesn't even claim what you say it claims isn't proof
that I'm wrong, John - it's proof that (at best) you don't understand
the subject.
But if you think what I posted above is incorrect, post the facts that
prove that it's incorrect. Anyone can make claims - let's see facts.