Re: NEWS: Mobiles linked to disturbed sleep

On 2008-01-25, g <wh@t.me.worry> wrote:
> The really big source of radiation we all share, the sun, delivers
> roughly one KILOWATT every square meter on the earth. It is the
> identified cause of all sorts of skin problems, cancers, melanomas etc.

It's also getting silly. The rad, and the gray, measure dosages of
ionizing radiation, e.g. X-rays. Ionizing photon radiation is very
short wavelength radiation. Only the very shortest wavelengths from
the sun which make it to the ground (the ultraviolet) are ionizing, and
they are only barely so, which is why if you wear UV sun block you should
be safe. The remaining 999.99 Watts per square meter that sun block doesn't
block won't bother you.

The center of the sun's spectrum (i.e. the wavelengths that are too
long to be ionizing and hence don't bother you) is at a wavelength of
550 nanometers. If you turn on a light in your house it will emit
radiation at about the same wavelength. If you light up your stove it
will emit radiation with a wavelength in the 1000's of nanometers, say
10 times longer than the (already safe) sunlight. The shortest coherent
wavelength you'll find being emitted by a US cell phone is about 160
millimeters, 300,000 times longer than the sunlight whose wavelength is
already too long to do you any harm.

The number of rads you'll absorb from a CDMA and a GSM cell phone is
hence the same. It is identically zero in both cases. The CDMA
phone will heat up your ear a bit more, since its average power
consumption will be higher, while the GSM phone emits pulses at
audio frequencies which may, or may not, do something, though god
only knows what. Other than that, nada.

Dennis Ferguson

Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> The center of the sun's spectrum (i.e. the wavelengths that are too
> long to be ionizing and hence don't bother you) is at a wavelength of
> 550 nanometers. If you turn on a light in your house it will emit
> radiation at about the same wavelength. If you light up your stove it
> will emit radiation with a wavelength in the 1000's of nanometers, say
> 10 times longer than the (already safe) sunlight. The shortest coherent
> wavelength you'll find being emitted by a US cell phone is about 160
> millimeters, 300,000 times longer than the sunlight whose wavelength is
> already too long to do you any harm.

That would be a compelling argument if not for the (12 mm?) radiation from
something like a microwave oven, hundreds of thousands of times longer than
the sunlight but hazardous nonetheless.

--
God help us all,
The next President of the United States will be a liberal.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:34:52 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <479a00fd$0$84205$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Anon E. Muss wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:53:16 GMT, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory
>>> exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to
>>> be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely
>>> affected."
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> So GSM 850 is the culprit. I am safe with my 1900MHz only phone.
>
>Or with CDMA. Much lower radiation than GSM in either band.

Actually quite similar, and CDMA radios tend to put out more RF than
GSM, which is why battery life tends to be shorter for comparable
models.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:14:38 GMT, Stephen <yes@its.invalid> wrote in
<00vjp350b2go21jfn0ekj8u8ab89ljg2hu@4ax.com>:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:53:16 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> had a flock of green cheek conures squawk
>out:
>
>> Funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, the scientists studied 35
>> men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45.
>
>Study group not large enough.

Not necessarily. That only affects the standard error of estimate.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:05:17 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4799fa0e$0$84170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Joel Koltner wrote:
>> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>> news:52nip35g3mft1c9pmktovhvsa6c4qs5ljf@4ax.com...
>>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7199659.stm>
>>
>> I can't take an article like that seriously when it gives no quantatative data
>> whatsoever. Did using phones reduce deep sleep by an hour? 10 minutes? 30
>> seconds? And sentences such as, "...researchers said they could not rule out
>> the possibility that long-term [cell phone] use may raise the risk of cancer"
>> is a rather meaning statement as well, because you could substitude almost
>> anything for "cell phone" and have some researcher testify to it.
>> ("...reserachers said they could not rule out the possibility that long-term
>> Usenet use may raise the risk of cancer!")
>
>Dr. Dean Edell had a good laugh at that "study" a couple of days ago. A
>sample size of 71!

I guess your knowledge of statistics is as superficial as his is.
Nothing wrote with such a sample size if done properly. It simply means
the standard error of estimate will be larger, that small effects won't
necessarily be seen.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T (CINGULAR) WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>