Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing microwave technology.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> ...it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the
>> opinions of the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature
>
> You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

On the contrary, old chum, this is Usenet, a very public place, and I get to
say anything I like, anything at all. You are a foul-mouthed, immature waste
of space. Enjoy... ;o)

>> - so I guess he just is immature.
>

<snip> more rudeness from the Rod child.

THIS IS FUN!!!!

---

› See More: Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing microwave technology.

Jim Pills <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>>> ...it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the
>>> opinions of the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature

>> You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

> On the contrary, old chum, this is Usenet, a very public place, and I get to say anything I like,
> anything at all.

So stupid that it cant even work out what 'get no say' means.

<reams of your puerile **** flushed where it belongs>

"lynx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>>>
>>
>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
>>
> It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos.

**Nope. Tobacco companies lied. Asbestos has been KNOWN to be harmful for at
least 100 years.

But we now know
> better.

**Yep. The statistics show that smokers die earlier and by a range of
interesting diseases. Asbestos has been a known carcinogen for at leat 100
years. Despite several trials, there is no proven link between DECT 'phones
and any harmful effects.

And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
> living too close to power lines.

**No, there hasn't. Studies are amazingly difficult to get right. The
results of a recent study, found that a large number of people who used
mouthwash also suffered from mouth cancer. Therefore, using mouthwash
increases your chances of contracting mouth cancer, right? Wrong. The
majority of people who use mouthwash, also smoke.

Trials need to be CAREFULLY performed. Anecdotes don't count.

But the bottom line... wtf would you
> know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
> being a total arsehole on usenet.

**Standard response for the loser of an argument - insult your opponent. You
lose. Next time, back up your opinions with facts.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:56:24 -0000, "Jim Pills" <[email protected]> wrote:


>
>So you wade into an argument half-way through and take sides without having
>a clue what's going on.
>
>Sounds like you need a newsreader that shows all of the branches. If you'd
>had that, you'd have known that...
>
>> Regardless the language used in this thread has been immature... <bg>
>
>...it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the opinions of
>the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature - so I guess he just is
>immature.
>

As PeterD reads more of Rod's charming words, he now appologizes to
anyone for his failure to realize that Rod is only 12 years old, and
suffers from a lack of good upbringing. <g>

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:39:45 +1000, imorf
<[email protected]> wrote:

>PeterD wrote:
>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first evolved
>> as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and in fact
>> that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for us!
>
>you see no difference between the natural background radiation & UV
>radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak but close
>range EM radiation?

If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing and
non-ionizing radiation... <g>

I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a simple
matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out than you put
in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the extent he indicates
(causing physical discomfort and a three day headache) would require
many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100 watts (realize that over 50%
would be lost since it is radiated omnidirectionally.)

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > has been. When switching it off, the headache effect and light
headedness
> > diminishes almost immediately. (There are other effects that
>
> Rubbish, its just your psychologic condition

In your "well researched" opinion.
Fact is that WDECT phones operate at much the same frequency as microwave
ovens, and DO emit radiation an inch or two from the brain.
I for one get headaches when I use one for more than a few minutes, but
unfortunately they don't stop when I switch it off. However I'm sure not
everyone is necessarily affected in the same way. I do doubt there is any
problem just having one on standby in the same room though.

MrT.

"PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, it's likely people believing things that are not based on any
> evidence what so ever.

Yes, just like asbestos, everything is safe until proven otherwise?
Shame about the people who die in the meantime I guess.
Brain tumours do seem to be on the increase though, we just don't have a
*proven* cause yet.

MrT.

"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> **Two anecdotal stories do not constitute a properly designed study.

Very true, we had to wait decades for proof of asbestosis etc.

>I sure
> hope you don't use a cellular 'phone. Their power output can be
considerably
> higher than any DECT 'phone.

Obviously you don't realise the significance of the frequencies used in each
case.

MrT.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Michael <[email protected]> wrote

>>> When switching it off, the headache effect and
>>> light headedness diminishes almost immediately.

So it cant be due to the DECT phone.

>>> (There are other effects that I'm reluctant to
>>> mention for fear of being considered crazy!)

Yeah, those voices in the head can be a tad of a giveaway.

>> Rubbish, its just your psychologic condition

> In your "well researched" opinion.

Nope. No one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial.

No opinion involved what so ever.

> Fact is that WDECT phones operate at much the same frequency as
> microwave ovens, and DO emit radiation an inch or two from the brain.

Pity no one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial.

> I for one get headaches when I use one for more than a few minutes,

Bet you cant substantiate that claim with a proper double blind trial.

> but unfortunately they don't stop when I switch it off.

Do the decent thing and top yourself or sumfin.

> However I'm sure not everyone is necessarily affected in the same way.

Corse they arent.

> I do doubt there is any problem just having
> one on standby in the same room though.

There isnt any problem with using one either except in your pathetic little fetid imagination.

lynx <[email protected]> wrote:
> PeterD wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:39:45 +1000, imorf
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
>>>> evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and
>>>> in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for
>>>> us!
>>> you see no difference between the natural background radiation & UV
>>> radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak but
>>> close range EM radiation?
>>>
>>
>> If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing
>> and non-ionizing radiation... <g>
>>
>> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
>> phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a
>> simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out
>> than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the
>> extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort and a three day
>> headache) would require many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100 watts
>> (realize that over 50% would be lost since it is radiated
>> omnidirectionally.)

> What explanation do you have then?

You're imagining it.

> This is a known phenomenon.

Like hell it is. Its never been established using a proper double blind trial.

lynx <[email protected]> wrote:
> lynx wrote:
>
>> PeterD wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:39:45 +1000, imorf
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
>>>>> evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect,
>>>>> and in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible
>>>>> for us!
>>>> you see no difference between the natural background radiation & UV
>>>> radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak but
>>>> close range EM radiation?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing
>>> and non-ionizing radiation... <g>
>>> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
>>> phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a
>>> simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out
>>> than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the
>>> extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort and a three day
>>> headache) would require many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100
>>> watts (realize that over 50% would be lost since it is radiated
>>> omnidirectionally.)
>>
>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.

> p.s. perhaps the 'heating' is not so much a direct result of the microwave energy, but rather some
> sort of physiological reaction or response to it.

Or its your fetid imagination.

> If we take urticaria as an example, which can affect the whole body, but is just triggered by
> exposure of some sort.

Just another fruit loop fantasy.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
> "PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
>> phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a
>> simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out
>> than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the
>> extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort and a three day
>> headache) would require many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100 watts
>> (realize that over 50% would be lost since it is radiated
>> omnidirectionally.)

> To totally fry his brain maybe.

He hasnt got one, just ear to ear dog ****.

> (I guess yours is just not very sensitive. :-)

And yours is ear to ear dog ****.

lynx <[email protected]> wrote
> PeterD wrote
>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote

>>> Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of some ppl being more
>>> sensitive/affected than others?

>> No, it's likely people believing things that are not based on any evidence what so ever.

> Some ppl are more sensitive than others. This is fact.

Nothing like a fact with RF 'radiation'

> Allergies being one example, i.e. food, etc, and notably those who are extremely sensitive to
> sunlight.

Nothing like a fact with RF 'radiation'

And while its completely trivial to prove allergys and sensitivity to
sunlight using a proper double blind trial, that has never been proven
with with RF 'radiation' except with cataracts at VASTLY higher levels.

>>> And if there are reports of adverse effects with the use of these DECT phones, then surely they
>>> can't be ignored, even if they're not scientifically based.

>> Why? The other day after using my Bic pen I got a rash on my hand...
>> Therefore all Bic pens are dangerous? Or am I just sensitive? Or,
>> just maybe, I then went into the woods and got poison ivy?

>> IF something is not 'scientifically based' as you put it, it is just simply a wish or thought.

Or a fantasy.

> Evidence is evidence.

You dont have a shred of evidence of ANY health effects with DECT phones.

> If many ppl are saying that they have the same experience,

True in spades with fruit loops claiming that they have seen
unicorns, werewolves, that they have been abducted by aliens,
had angels spew all sorts of **** into their ear, etc etc etc.

All that proves is that there are hordes of you stupid fruit loops.

> that doesn't have to be as part of a scientific study to have validity.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you are completely off with the ****ing fairys.

>>> When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including
>>> handsets) constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if there are
>>> several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a 'sea' of (low) radiation!

>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
>> evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and
>> in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for us!

>>> What prompted the original posting, was that I had purchased one, and when I turned it on, I
>>> immediately noticed
>>> some of the effects mentioned in the article quoted-

>> *Immediately*? That blows your case then... Such effects would take time to become apparent.

> No, not really.

Fraid so.

> I didn't say instantly.

You clearly did say immediately.

> But there was noticeable correlation.

Easy to claim.

> I'm still experimenting to try to rule out any psychological effect.

The ONLY way to do that is a proper double blind trial
and by definition it isnt even possible for you to do that.

>> Realize that people working in communications and electroncis are exposed
>>> to these fields in *much* higher doses without suffering any side effects.

>>> although I had not seen> it then- so I went googling about cordless phones. Since then I have
>>> been switching the phones on and off to see if there is a correlation between the effects that I
>>> feel and the phones being in use, and there has been.

>> How have you been switching them off? Most don't really turn off but remain in communication with
>> the base even when 'off'. This is just like turning off a 'modern' TV: it is still on, it just
>> isn't
>> displaying anything on the screen.

>> You'd have to remove the battery to actually turn them off!

> I have the base station connected to a power board with a switch, and I simply unplug the battery
> connector in the handsets.

But havent done the ONLY thing that proves a damned thing, a proper double blind trial.

>>> When switching it off, the headache effect and light headedness diminishes almost immediately.

>> Again, 'immediately ' tends to tell me that there's something else involved here.

> Why? The radiation would cease when they're switched off.

Doesnt work like that with other things that generate those effects.

>>> (There are other effects that I'm reluctant to mention for fear of being considered crazy!)

>> Too late. Go ahead and list them.

> Most noticeable was a (very) slight heart dysrhythmia or palpitation,
> and an overall effect similar to high blood pressure.

You cant detect high blood pressure without measuring it.

> (Ok, so now you know I'm crazy)

Yep, those voices in the head are a dead giveaway.

> And these were effects mentioned in the report I linked to.

Which is where you got them from. Funny that.

> So if different ppl experience the same effects without
> knowledge of each other, then how is that not evidence relative to the cause of those effects?

Nope, not when those claimed effects are what everyone expects to get.

> And if more than one person has the same
> experience then doubtless there are others as well.

True in spades with fruit loops claiming that they have seen
unicorns, werewolves, that they have been abducted by aliens,
had angels spew all sorts of **** into their ear, etc etc etc.

All that proves is that there are hordes of you stupid fruit loops.

>>> I'm also very sensitive to mobile phones, so i feel that I simply can't use this phone at all.

>> eBay it then...

>> Move to the country. Have the power disconnected from your house. By candle light, read the
>> classic science fiction story "Press Enter".

> Don't knock it. The level of cancer in western society is unprecedented.

Just because we dont die of infectious disease much anymore.

If it actually was due to RF 'radiation', we'd see hordes of
kids getting cancer and in fact the incidence of cancers in
the 20s would have been unprecedented, and it aint.

> There's some Naturopath chinese guy who's had all the
> power cables for his house buried in the ground beneath it.

And hordes of those fools are stupid enough to buy the
feng shu bull**** and insist on operations they deal with
having phone numbers that have the correct digits in them.

> And we are poisoning ourselves with what we eat.

No we arent.

> Organic food is rapidly becoming popular for those who can afford it.

So was grovelling to some damned god or other.

Doesnt prove a damned thing about whether it works or not.

>> What you are complaining about is a sensitivity to a specific spectrum of frequencies

> That may well be the case.

Pity that cant be established using the only
thing that matters, proper double blind trials.

>> (not all frequencies, since you are not affected by power line EMF, broadcast radiation, EMF from
>> television receivers and computer monitors, etc.)

> How do you/I know? I live in an area with underground power.

Those still radiate.

> I don't sit close to the TV, but I do have problems if I stay at the computer for too long. (more
> than an hour, say)

The problem is that its got bad feng shu.

> Never experienced any probs with radios tho.

Pity about the RF they 'radiate'

>> Ask you self: what is the method? How do these frequencies cause me a problem?

> Well that's just it. We don't know enough about this matter to know how/why there is this problem.

Double blind trials were invented to separate real effects from fantasys.

> The brain works on electrical energy.

So does all sorts of things. They dont get tumours.

> We know this. So maybe it's some sort of resonance or interference with those electrical impulses.

Pity you cant substantiate ANY effect using a proper double blind trial.

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> PeterD <[email protected]> wrote

>> No, it's likely people believing things that are
>> not based on any evidence what so ever.

> Yes, just like asbestos, everything is safe until proven otherwise?

Nope, its obvious that swan dives off tall buildings without
a parachute will produce significant health problems.

> Shame about the people who die in the meantime I guess.

Just as long as its fools like you.

> Brain tumours do seem to be on the increase though,

Pig ignorant lie.

> we just don't have a *proven* cause yet.

Dont need a cause when there has been no increase.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:41:06 +1100, lynx <[email protected]> wrote:

>PeterD wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 08:39:45 +1000, imorf
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> PeterD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first evolved
>>>> as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and in fact
>>>> that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for us!
>>>>
>>> you see no difference between the natural background radiation & UV
>>> radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak but close
>>> range EM radiation?
>>>
>>
>> If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing and
>> non-ionizing radiation... <g>
>>
>> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
>> phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a simple
>> matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out than you put
>> in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the extent he indicates
>> (causing physical discomfort and a three day headache) would require
>> many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100 watts (realize that over 50%
>> would be lost since it is radiated omnidirectionally.)
>>
>>
>
>What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.

Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?

One doesn't get that much heat from a watt of power... Say the phone
puts out 2 watts of power (I'd be surprised if it is even close to a
watt, myself). Say 1 watt is absorbed by the head, over a hemisphere
with a radius of 2 inches. That results in a volume of about 15 cubic
inches.

Now put a watt into 15 cubic inches of water, and what heating effects
do you get? You can, I suppose, assume it is perfectly insulated, so
there is no heat loss, but that's not going to be true. In fact, the
head is liquid cooled (fairly efficiently at these rates), so maybe
just take that 15 cubic inches of water and put it on a table.

In the end, you'll notice no appreciable heat buildup in the water
from that one watt of power.