|
Re: (OT) How to cook an egg with 2 mobile phones....
de John Jay Smith 06/20/2006 06:26
sorry I dont want to get into a lengthy debate...
you are entitled to your opinion... and I respect that.
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ju5g92t3bg06pj048q0ae61rofbv5frugr@4ax.com...
> 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.