Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 92
  1. #31
    PeterD
    Guest

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

    On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:36:32 +1100, lynx <[email protected]> wrote:


    >
    >Evidence is evidence. If many ppl are saying that they have the same
    >experience, that doesn't have to be as part of a scientific study to
    >have validity.
    >


    Many people say they talk directly to god too. But since god's a
    fantasy, that doesn't have validity either.

    Many musliims say that if they blow themselves up with a bunch of
    non-muslims that they 'go immediately to heaven'. That has no validity
    either.




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




  2. #32
    Rod Speed
    Guest

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

    Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote
    > Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >> 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.


    > Though I agree, where are the results of the trials that back up your assertion?


    Even a stupid car crashing ****wit should be able to do better than that pathetic effort, child.





  3. #33
    Albinus
    Guest

    Re: Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing microwavetechnology.

    lynx wrote:
    >
    > I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
    > that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
    > 'physically' impossible?


    Same heating effect you have when standing in front of a heater or out
    in the sun. Just the wavelength from the sun can cause cancer - unlike
    that from cellular devices.



  4. #34
    HeadRush
    Guest

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


    "lynx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?

    >
    > I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that
    > I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically'
    > impossible?


    I get a "warm" ear when I use my DECT and GSM phone. But I don't think it's
    caused by the radio waves, it's caused by the movement and pressure of the
    phone rubbing against my ear and surrounds. The tell-tale sign that I've
    been gas-bagging on the phone is my one glowing red ear.

    I bet if you walked around with a TV remote control pressed against your ear
    for 10 minutes you'd feel a heating sensation. Your head and ears have a lot
    of nerves, blood vessels and pressure points that can trigger various
    sensations. I know of a few tradesman who idiotically will not wear ear
    protection because they get headaches from the pressure of the headband and
    ear cups.

    HR









  5. #35
    Mr.T
    Guest

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


    "Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > **Yep. The statistics show that smokers die earlier and by a range of
    > interesting diseases.


    Yep, and people smoking 200 years ago didn't know that. I wonder how many
    would NOT have dismissed any risks?

    >Asbestos has been a known carcinogen for at leat 100 years.


    Yep, and people were still disputing it 40 years ago. Just like you are
    doing now, they claimed there was no proof. At least none they would accept.
    Fortunately James Hardie has now learnt an expensive lesson why that is not
    necessarily the best policy.

    >Despite several trials, there is no proven link between DECT 'phones
    > and any harmful effects.


    Ah, there's the rub, "several trials" do not PROVE a negative. Simply that
    no one has conclusively proven the positive, YET.

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


    Exactly, they don't prove anything is safe either, just because the dangers
    are not yet understood (if indeed there are any)
    A real scientist remains open minded when there is insufficient proof one
    way or the other.

    MrT.





  6. #36
    Mr.T
    Guest

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


    "PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news[email protected]...
    > 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.


    And you KNOW that is the only POSSIBLE cause for ANY possible biological
    effects, HOW exactly?

    MrT.





  7. #37
    Mr.T
    Guest

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


    "Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz


    And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would actually mean
    *different* in most cases wouldn't it?

    MrT.





  8. #38
    Rod Speed
    Guest

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

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


    > I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that I and others experience
    > when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically' impossible?


    Your imagination. Same thing that produced sightings of unicorns,
    leprechauns, yetis, werewolves, angels, gods, etc etc etc.

    >> 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.






  9. #39
    PeterD
    Guest

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

    On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:37:03 +1100, lynx <[email protected]> wrote:

    >PeterD wrote:
    >


    >>
    >> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
    >>

    >
    >I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
    >that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
    >'physically' impossible?
    >


    Other than it is immaginary? You've shown no proof of heating, only a
    statement 'that I get heating'. That feeling of 'heating' could be
    anything... What steps have you taken to measure the heating?



  10. #40
    Rod Speed
    Guest

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

    Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote
    > Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >> Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>> 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.


    >>> Though I agree, where are the results of the trials that back up
    >>> your assertion?


    >> Even a stupid car crashing ****wit should be able to do better than
    >> that pathetic effort, child.


    > Why the insult?


    No insult, just the facts, child.

    > So you have nothing to back up the assertion that no one has ever established ANY health effects
    > with a proper double blind trial?


    It isnt an assertion, its a fact, child.

    > It's a genuine question


    Presumably you actually are that stupid.

    No surprise that you only ever get to crash cars.

    Lets go thru this very very slowly for those who are as thick as a brick.

    If any health effect had been established using a proper double blind trial, the
    results of that trial would be cited by those who claim that there are health effects.

    They dont, so there arent any.





  11. #41
    Rod Speed
    Guest

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

    John Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:51:30 +1100, "Rod Speed"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> lynx <[email protected]> wrote
    >>> PeterD wrote
    >>>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>> PeterD wrote
    >>>>>> 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?

    >>
    >>> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating
    >>> effect that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if
    >>> it's 'physically' impossible?

    >>
    >> Your imagination. Same thing that produced sightings of unicorns,
    >> leprechauns, yetis, werewolves, angels, gods, etc etc etc.


    > So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
    > to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
    > though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your stance?


    Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
    rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health effect.
    PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
    blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.





  12. #42
    Rod Speed
    Guest

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

    lynx <[email protected]> wrote:
    > HeadRush wrote:
    >
    >> "lynx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >>> Mr.T wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
    >>>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>
    >>>>> 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz
    >>>>>
    >>>> And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would
    >>>> actually mean *different* in most cases wouldn't it?
    >>>>
    >>> And now 5.8 Ghz, which is what mine is.
    >>>

    >>
    >> If you have these concerns and have felt the symptoms with mobile
    >> phones, why did you buy a 5.8GHz cordless phone?
    >>

    >
    > Simply didn't occur to me that there could be a problem with it. I
    > didn't realise the similarities between DECT and mobiles, and had been
    > using an analogue cordless, although I have had some effect from that,
    > but only after about an hour or so.


    Nothing like what you said previously.

    > I really think the problem has to do with digital technology


    More fool you. Fools like you made the same stupid claims about AMPS mobile phones.

    > and the frequency.


    Easy to claim.





  13. #43
    Trevor Wilson
    Guest

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


    "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> **Yep. The statistics show that smokers die earlier and by a range of
    >> interesting diseases.

    >
    > Yep, and people smoking 200 years ago didn't know that.


    **Of course. They usually died of something else, long before tobacco
    related problems affilcted them. That and because the range of problems
    caused by tobacco weren't readily appreciated. Constriction of blood
    vessels, for instance, was a problem not associated with tobacco, whilst
    lung cancer was.

    I wonder how many
    > would NOT have dismissed any risks?


    **Quite a few, actually. Doctors were heavy users of tobacco, before tested
    showed that the product was dangerous.

    >
    >>Asbestos has been a known carcinogen for at leat 100 years.

    >
    > Yep, and people were still disputing it 40 years ago.


    **Nope. NEVER under dispute. Let me repeat my words:

    Asbestos has been a KNOWN carcinogen for at least 100 years.

    Note the emphasis. There has been ZERO doubt that asbestos was harmful, for
    at least 100 years.


    Just like you are
    > doing now, they claimed there was no proof. At least none they would
    > accept.
    > Fortunately James Hardie has now learnt an expensive lesson why that is
    > not
    > necessarily the best policy.


    **James Hardie has always known of the dangers associated with asbestos.

    >
    >>Despite several trials, there is no proven link between DECT 'phones
    >> and any harmful effects.

    >
    > Ah, there's the rub, "several trials" do not PROVE a negative. Simply that
    > no one has conclusively proven the positive, YET.


    **Indeed. How many tests do manufacturers need to perform to prove that
    their product is safe?

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

    >
    > Exactly, they don't prove anything is safe either, just because the
    > dangers
    > are not yet understood (if indeed there are any)
    > A real scientist remains open minded when there is insufficient proof one
    > way or the other.


    **Certainly. I am ready to listen to anyone who has performed a proper
    placebo trial with DECT 'phones which show them to be harmful to humans. I
    have yet to see any such study.


    --
    Trevor Wilson
    www.rageaudio.com.au



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




  14. #44
    Trevor Wilson
    Guest

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


    "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "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.


    **Wrong. Asbestos has been a KNOWN carcinogen for at least 100 years.

    >
    >>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.


    **Wrong. I am aware of the frequencies involved and, more importantly, the
    extremely low power levels involved with DECT 'phones.


    --
    Trevor Wilson
    www.rageaudio.com.au



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




  15. #45
    Rod Speed
    Guest

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

    Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote
    > Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >> Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>> Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>> 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.


    >>>>> Though I agree, where are the results of the trials that back up your assertion?


    >>>> Even a stupid car crashing ****wit should be able to do better than that pathetic effort,
    >>>> child.


    >>> Why the insult?


    >> No insult, just the facts, child.


    > You presented no facts.


    Bare faced lie. You have admitted to crashing cars and your posts are the evidence that you are a
    ****wit.

    >>> So you have nothing to back up the assertion that no one has ever
    >>> established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial?


    >> It isnt an assertion, its a fact, child.


    > And the results of the double blind trials are to found where?


    medline

    >>> It's a genuine question


    >> Presumably you actually are that stupid.


    >> No surprise that you only ever get to crash cars.


    >> Lets go thru this very very slowly for those who are as thick as a brick.


    >> If any health effect had been established using a proper double blind trial, the results of that
    >> trial would be cited by those who claim that there are health effects.


    > The results of that trial would also be cited by those who claim that there are no health effects.


    They are indeed.

    >> They dont, so there arent any.


    > Neither have


    Pig ignorant lie, as always from you.

    > and until you provide the results of the double blind trial, if there were any, you have made an
    > assertion and not stated a fact.


    A fact remains a fact regardless of whether a cite
    is provided, you stupid car crashing ****wit child.





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast