Congratulations!

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 17:47:12 GMT, "Robert"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >To be honest, it's very hard to criticise anybody's views on any matter
> >relating to modern health. We just wont know the ACTUAL outcome of using a
> >mobile for, say, 50 years, light-use every single day of one's life.
>
> We do have that now. OK, 50 years ago they were not GSM mobile phones,
> and they ran at far higher power levels, but some people really have
> been using hand-held transceivers for that long.

And people had been smoking for 350 years (in the west, longer elsewhere), before it
was proved harmful.

--
Andy

---

› See More: Congratulations!

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:21:44 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>And people had been smoking for 350 years (in the west, longer elsewhere), before it
>was proved harmful.

No, that's not true. Some (but admittedly not all) of the risks were
known for a very very long time, but people chose to ignore them.

Even today, people are allowed to smoke, and to force their smoke onto
others, when we know that smoking kills more than half its users.

I'm not convinced that mobile phones are completely safe, but I do
know that they are several orders of magnitude safer than smoking,
sunshine, junk food, motor cars and even sharp knives.

Yet these nutters rant on about the illusory risks of microwave phone
radiation, ignoring the real risks of all these other things. Why?

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On 9 Jul 2006 14:21:34 -0700, "andy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'm sorry: it seems to be contagious - I didn't realise we all had to
>be pedantic twits on here

You said "an" not "every" If you don't write what you mean, there will
be someone who considers it a hole in your argument.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

"andy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As Brian says, it may eventually be shown that intensive use of a phone
> close to the head is not wise, but there is little evidence of harm.

Indeed.

> Radio signals become weaker further from their source, on the square of
> the distance, so average passive levels for non-phone users are
> thousands of times lower,

That's the crucial point - even if the source (eg mast) is just 20 metres away the
signal strength is a million times lower than if the source was 2cm away (eg mobile
phone in use) - all else being equal. Even an occasional user will absorb massively
more radiation from using a mobile phone than from masts. If there are problems we'll
almost certainly see them in heavy mobile users way before non users.

--
Andy

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:21:44 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >And people had been smoking for 350 years (in the west, longer elsewhere), before
it
> >was proved harmful.
>
> No, that's not true. Some (but admittedly not all) of the risks were
> known for a very very long time, but people chose to ignore them.

The main risks (lung cancer and heart disease) were not proved until the 1950's and
1970's respectively.

There is a famous quote by the government health minister in 1956 stating that no ill
effects have been proven.

> Even today, people are allowed to smoke, and to force their smoke onto
> others, when we know that smoking kills more than half its users.

Indeed. But we only know what we know following 4 centuries of use, and almost a
century of very widespread use.

> I'm not convinced that mobile phones are completely safe, but I do
> know that they are several orders of magnitude safer than smoking,
> sunshine, junk food, motor cars and even sharp knives.

Almost certainly.

> Yet these nutters rant on about the illusory risks of microwave phone
> radiation, ignoring the real risks of all these other things. Why?

How do you know they don't? Perhaps they rant on about these other things too just
not here (as it'd be OT!).

--
Andy

Gizmo, your words are of no importance to me. That's your business, not
mine. You can take your opinions and shove them so far up your rear end
that they give you nosebleeds for the rest of your f-ing life.

But I don't want to spend the rest of my life embattled by the
microwaves emanating from transmitters atop buildings, hills and
pavements, and those which come from people's mobile telephones. Full
stop. And they are microwaves. The frequency is the same as the
radiation in microwave ovens. Experience has proved me a miilion times
over its not healthy. And I've posted plenty of examples of people
claiming health problems in a previous message. It's not natural to
irradiate people. It's not healthy. It's not nice. It is in direct
violation of their human rights. It interferes with me on a daily
basis. And if you think that makes me something bad, then I'm very
happy to know I'll never be your friend.


Paul.

Gizmo wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Sure, sit on your little f-ing pedestal and call me a wanker.
>
> Ok. You're a wanker. And a clueless one at that.
>
> > Microwaves, which is what mobile telephones rely on (and no, it's NOT
> > radiowaves, it's microwaves!)
>
> Proof positive that you're either a troll or a ****wit ... maybe both.

On 9 Jul 2006 18:30:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>The frequency is the same as the
>radiation in microwave ovens.

No it isn't.

>Experience has proved me a miilion times
>over its not healthy

It certainly seems to have addled your brain. Well, something has.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

[email protected] wrote:

> But I don't want to spend the rest of my life embattled by the
> microwaves emanating from transmitters atop buildings, hills and
> pavements, and those which come from people's mobile telephones. Full
> stop. And they are microwaves. The frequency is the same as the
> radiation in microwave ovens. Experience has proved me a miilion times
> over its not healthy.

Experience shows that you are not reading the replies to this, and are
lying about the frequencies involved.

Paranoid whingeing aboout something you're actually worried about is
one thing, but fabricating nonsense to deceive gullible people
elsewhere is another.

One wonders why you wish to spend any of your supposedly valuable time
here; when you could gain much more of the attention you crave by
direct personal abuse or even assault against strangers in the street.

Lumpy wrote:

> Well, damn those advancements! Let's go back to 1876 (arbitrary date)
> when there was NO electricity,

Oops !

"The Volks Railway was the first public electric railway in the world.
It was opened on 4 August 1883 by Magnus Volk, the man who designed and
built the railway from scratch. Today the railway can carry up to forty
passengers along the beach for one and a quarter miles."

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c298

(I agree with you though)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That's your business, not
> mine.

Correct... Telecoms is my business. AT least you got one thing right <G>

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> radiation in microwave ovens. Experience has proved me a miilion times
> over its not healthy. And I've posted plenty of examples of people
> claiming health problems in a previous message. It's not natural to

Wasn't there also an experiment and a couple of recorded cases where
complaints about "emissions" from BTS were all occurring when said equipment
was powered down?

One example I can think of, very vaguely, is a new site that was built by
one of the networks - within a day or so of the tower being built, nearby
residents complained to the council and all sorts. A while later (I forget
how long, but I do recall it being quite a while), they were informed that
the equipment had never actually been switched on? Oddly enough, they all
went rather quiet after that...

Regards

Jon.

--
Jon Pitts
Email: [email protected] Attachments: [email protected]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 23:23:03 +0100, "Old Codger"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > We do have that now. OK, 50 years ago they were not
> > > GSM mobile phones, and they ran at far higher power
> > > levels, but some people really have been using
> > > hand-held transceivers for that long.
> >
> > But not with the antenna right beside the head.
>
> You are wrong. With the antenna right beside the head.
> That's how hand-held transceivers work.

But not usually at 900/1800 MHz. I've been using 2m (144-146 MHz) and 70cm
(430-440 MHz) for 25+ years with 2 to 3 watts of output power, but no
noticeable effects (apart from a tendency to waffle, but that affects all
radio amateurs no matter what equipment/antenna/power level <g>)

I did briefly mess about with a 23cm (1300 MHz) handheld (1W output,
similar to many phones) a few years ago but gave up as there was nobody
else on the band in my area..!

Ivor

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On 7 Jul 2006 12:24:26 -0700, "zacnici"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Also they don't object to
> > satellite and terrestial tv signals pumping out all
> > over the place.
>
> Satellite signal is very very weak - nothing like the
> high level of terrestrial TV transmitters, which is
> stronger than mobile signal in a lot of places.

I know someone who lives less than a mile from the Sutton Coldfield TV
mast which pumps out 1MW ERP 24/7 and he's still alive and kicking. Oh I
believe there are a few cellular base aerials lower down the mast, which
shall we get shut off first..?

BTW the mast was there well before the houses built around it, see the
photo at the very bottom of this page:
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/suttoncoldfield/index.asp

The article "Tales from a cold field" is worth a read too.


Ivor

"Old Codger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Simon Ough wrote:
> >
> > The only reason you don't own a "friggin" mobile is
> > that you are probably too "friggin" stupid to work one
> > :-)
>
> Oh *nobody's* that stupid surely. :-)
>
> All you have to do is switch on, dial a number, press OK
> and talk. Not terribly difficult to learn.

My mum can't manage it. I bought her a DECT cordless phone (identical to
operate) and she threw it against the wall..! (It didn't work after that
anyway..!)

Ivor

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Simon Ough wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Congratulations........
> >
> > Congratulations, you're a Grade A knobhead. Doors that
> > way --->
>
> I hope your microwave-emitting phone, and the
> microwave-emitting masts that service them don't always
> keep your brain so inundated with radiation that you
> never wake up to the fact of what a completely braindead
> wanker you are

I hereby invoke Jones's Law (a variant of Godwin's Law) which states that
anyone who has to resort to foul language to make a point has totally lost
it and should be ignored forthwith.

Ivor