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

John Fields <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> John Fields <[email protected]> wrote

>>> 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.

> While I agree with your position that a double blind test could clear up
> whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by _some_
> individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms seem to be,

No could about it, thats the whole point of double
blind trials, to separate real and imagined effects.

> I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that until evidence
> is produced to counter the proposition that exposure to RF at
> close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the winds.

Pity I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that last.

That question was very carefully studied once it became clear
that radars can produce cataracts and consideration was given
to how widespread that effect of microwave radiation is.

That was studied very carefully with microwave ovens.

> In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the
> contrary, both sides of the argument are suspect.

Only for those pig ignorant about the basics of what has been studied
using rigorous science with the effects of microwaves on humans.

> The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the side of caution

You dont actually have a clue about what my position is.

> and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure to
> near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals

Not a shred of evidence that it is.

> and unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

> As I see it, only time will tell.

Time has already told. Hand held radio transmitters that use those
frequencys have been around for a hell of a long time now and time has told
that there isnt a shred of rigorous scientific evidence that there are ANY health
effects whatever at the levels seen with DECT phones or mobiles either.

---

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

Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote:
> "John Fields" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:56:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> John Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> ---
>> While I agree with your position that a double blind test could
>> clear up whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by
>> _some_ individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms
>> seem to be, I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that
>> until evidence is produced to counter the proposition that exposure
>> to RF at close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the
>> winds.
>>
>> In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the contrary, both
>> sides of the argument are suspect.
>>
>> The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the
>> side of caution and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure
>> to near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals and
>> unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.
>>
>> As I see it, only time will tell.
>>
>
> Indeed.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you only ever get to crash cars.

"HeadRush" <( . )( . )@(_!_).com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If you have these concerns and have felt the symptoms with mobile phones,
> why did you buy a 5.8GHz cordless phone?

Mine is 2.4GHz which AFAIK (now), is worse than 5.8 anyway. However, like
most here, I didn't believe there was a problem until I bought one myself,
and started experiencing problems directly correlated with my actual usage,
(and only with calls longer than a few minutes).
I never use a mobile phone long enough to have problems, even if they were
the same frequency, and I never have a problem with a normal wired phone, no
matter how long the call. So now I transfer back to a normal handset for
longer calls, but have no idea if I am still doing any long term damage.
Theoretically not of course, but the actual proof is lacking one way or the
other IMO.

Still, I say the same about God, so that places me in the minority there as
well :-)

MrT.

John Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:27:42 -0500, PeterD <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?

> Whether he's taken any steps or not, it's entirely possible that he
> could feel the heating just through absorption of the RF energy into
> the skin and its transformation into heat, much like a cup of water
> can be heated in a microwave oven because of the RF output from the
> magnetron being converted into heat after being absorbed by the water.

Nope, the power levels used by DECT phones are MUCH too low for that.

> For example, let's assume that the phone
> is putting out an average power of 3 watts,

Stupid assumption, its NOTHING like that.

Reams of pointless wanking with irrelevant numbers flushed where it belongs.

Mr.T wrote:
> "HeadRush" <( . )( . )@(_!_).com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> If you have these concerns and have felt the symptoms with mobile phones,
>> why did you buy a 5.8GHz cordless phone?
>
> Mine is 2.4GHz which AFAIK (now), is worse than 5.8 anyway. However, like
> most here, I didn't believe there was a problem until I bought one myself,
> and started experiencing problems directly correlated with my actual usage,
> (and only with calls longer than a few minutes).
> I never use a mobile phone long enough to have problems, even if they were
> the same frequency, and I never have a problem with a normal wired phone, no
> matter how long the call. So now I transfer back to a normal handset for
> longer calls, but have no idea if I am still doing any long term damage.
> Theoretically not of course, but the actual proof is lacking one way or the
> other IMO.
>
> Still, I say the same about God, so that places me in the minority there as
> well :-)
>
> MrT.
>
>
>
IF the phone heats you up you're going to be toast if you have MRI !

Sure the frequencies involved are much lower, but you 'sensitive'types....

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
>>>>>> 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.

> Cite?

Your post in this thread will do fine.

>>>>> 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

> You will have to do better then that.

Pathetic, really.

>>>>> 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.

> Cite?

Even you shudl be able to do better than that pathetic effort, child.

>>> 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.

> Not without a body of evidence to support your assertion is isn't.

Even you shudl be able to do better than that pathetic effort, child.

> Your "facts" are mere unsubstantiated assertions unless you provide the hard evidence to support
> them.

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

Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "John Fields" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:56:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Fields <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> While I agree with your position that a double blind test could
>>>> clear up whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by
>>>> _some_ individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms
>>>> seem to be, I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that
>>>> until evidence is produced to counter the proposition that exposure
>>>> to RF at close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the
>>>> winds.
>>>>
>>>> In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the contrary,
>>>> both sides of the argument are suspect.
>>>>
>>>> The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the
>>>> side of caution and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure
>>>> to near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals and
>>>> unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.
>>>>
>>>> As I see it, only time will tell.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you only ever
>> get to crash cars.
>
> Did you say something?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you only ever get to crash cars.

John Fields <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> John Fields <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> John Fields <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> 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.

>>> While I agree with your position that a double blind test could clear up
>>> whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by _some_
>>> individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms seem to be,

>> No could about it, thats the whole point of double
>> blind trials, to separate real and imagined effects.

> Not necessarily.

Fraid so.

> The point is that a double blind test set up to test
> the RF sensitivity of many people could easily make
> the sensitivity of a single individual seem like an
> aberration in the test or just the result of statistics.

A double blind trial WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO CLAIMS TO
BE GETTING AN REAL EFFECT proves without a shadow of
doubt whether its a real or imagined effect WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL.

And its completely trivial to design the trial WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL
to decide whether the result is statistically significant or not.

>>> I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that until evidence
>>> is produced to counter the proposition that exposure to RF at
>>> close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the winds.

>> Pity I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that last.

> I never said you explicitly said it,

I didnt even imply anything even remotely resembling anything like that either.

> but your attitude seems to be one of "If it hasn't
> been proven to be all bad then it must be all good."

You need to get your seems machinery seen to.

>> That question was very carefully studied once it became clear
>> that radars can produce cataracts and consideration was given
>> to how widespread that effect of microwave radiation is.

>> That was studied very carefully with microwave ovens.

> Yes, but you're comparing high-power RF with low-power RF;

Nope. When that effect with high power radars was discovered,
the epidemiology with lower power RF was carefully scrutenised
and there isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects with those
who use normal low power RF transmitters.

Similar epidemiology has been done with nuclear radiation once
it became clear that high levels does indeed produce significant
health effects, and it looks rather like low level effects not only
dont produce health effects, they actually produce health benefits.
And that appears to be because they encourage the system to
deal with genetic damage, primes the immune system in effect.

> apples and oranges, as it were.

Wrong, as always.

>>> In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the
>>> contrary, both sides of the argument are suspect.

>> Only for those pig ignorant about the basics of what has been studied
>> using rigorous science with the effects of microwaves on humans.

> Now, now... If you want to get insulting, two can play that game.

You can play any game you like, you have always been
and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> Do you have links to any long-term studies that have
> been done WRT any negative aspects of cellphone use?

Find them yourself using medline.

>>> The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the side of caution

>> You dont actually have a clue about what my position is.

> Sure I do.

No you dont.

> It seems to be that if you don't consider a proposition valid
> (or more to the point, if you don't understand it) then you damn it.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
in fact have a clue about what my position actually is.

And your puerile jab in brackets fools no one.

>>> and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure to
>>> near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals

>> Not a shred of evidence that it is.

> That doesn't mean that it isn't. After all, the double-blind
> tests to which you keep referring haven't been done,

Corse they have.

Its very unlikely indeed that that fruit loop gutless wonder
is the only individual in the entire world that actually gets an
effect that can be sustantiated in a proper double blind trial.

> so all the evidence isn't in yet, is it?

It never is in that sense that every single individual
in the entire world is tested to see if they can detect
the effect of low level RF in a double blind trial.

Only a fool would suggest that that means a damned thing.

>>> and unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

>>> As I see it, only time will tell.

>> Time has already told. Hand held radio transmitters that use
>> those frequencys have been around for a hell of a long time
>> now and time has told that there isnt a shred of rigorous
>> scientific evidence that there are ANY health effects whatever
>> at the levels seen with DECT phones or mobiles either.

> Again, without rigorous _scientific_ testing at the frequencies
> and power levels involved over an extended period of time

Thats been done by all those individuals using those, fool.

> all of your "evidence" is just anecdotal.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a ****ing clue about what epidemeology is about.

> Now, it may well be true that cellphone use poses no health risk at all, but without
> adequate testing, over an extended period of time, how would one know?

Pity about the epidemeology.

John Fields <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> John Fields <[email protected]> wrote
>>> PeterD <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> 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?

>>> Whether he's taken any steps or not, it's entirely possible that he
>>> could feel the heating just through absorption of the RF energy into
>>> the skin and its transformation into heat, much like a cup of water
>>> can be heated in a microwave oven because of the RF output from the
>>> magnetron being converted into heat after being absorbed by the water.

>> Nope, the power levels used by DECT phones are MUCH too low for that.

> Nonsense.

We'll see...

> _Any_ power dissipated in an RF absorber will
> result in a temperature rise of the absorber.

Pity that that is swamped by much bigger effects like the pulse
when its something as big as the head with those power levels.

>>> For example, let's assume that the phone
>>> is putting out an average power of 3 watts,

>> Stupid assumption, its NOTHING like that.

> OK, then, what power levels _do_ they work at?

Thats already been stated in the thread with DECT phones.

>> Reams of pointless wanking with irrelevant numbers flushed where it belongs.

> You obviously missed the point,

No I didnt.

> don't understand the simple physics involved,

In your dreams. I understood them before you were even born thanks.

> and are starting to become insulting in order to try to change
> the direction of the discussion in an attempt to hide your
> ignorance and keep from having to admit that you were wrong.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> Pity.

Pathetic, actually.

Some gutless car crashing ****wit desperately cowering behind
Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote just the puerile
**** thats all it can ever manage.

Some gutless car crashing ****wit desperately cowering behind
Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote just the puerile
**** thats all it can ever manage.

"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.

Exactly!

> >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.

Exactly! You don't see any parallels here?

> 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.

In fact most people didn't know unfortunately, but asbestos has been used
for far more than 100 years in any case.

> 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.

But not the users, which is the important part.

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

You can't unfortunately, despite your claims. Only time can tell the
limitations (or not) of current test procedures.

> **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.

By that logic, simply not performing any studies makes everything safe. Yes
that is standard corporate/government policy.
If only it were really so! :-)

MrT.

"Trevor Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> **Wrong. Asbestos has been a KNOWN carcinogen for at least 100 years.

I didn't know 40 years ago, and I don't believe many other users did either.
Even more so all the users OVER 100 years ago.
And there's the problem, people like you believe they know everything there
is to know, pity real science often takes time to catch up.

MrT.

Some gutless car crashing ****wit desperately cowering behind
Clockmeister <[email protected]> wrote just the puerile
**** thats all it can ever manage.

John Fields <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> John Fields <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> John Fields <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> John Fields <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>> While I agree with your position that a double blind test could clear up
>>>>> whether the effects of RF are capable of being detected by _some_
>>>>> individuals in terms of whatever their particular symptoms seem to be,

>>>> No could about it, thats the whole point of double
>>>> blind trials, to separate real and imagined effects.

>>> Not necessarily.

>> Fraid so.

>>> The point is that a double blind test set up to test
>>> the RF sensitivity of many people could easily make
>>> the sensitivity of a single individual seem like an
>>> aberration in the test or just the result of statistics.

>> A double blind trial WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO CLAIMS TO
>> BE GETTING AN REAL EFFECT proves without a shadow of
>> doubt whether its a real or imagined effect WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL.

>> And its completely trivial to design the trial WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL
>> to decide whether the result is statistically significant or not.

> Oh, is _that_ what you meant...

That is what I originally said to the fruit loop, that until he can
establish with a proper double blind trial, that he can in fact
actually detect whether the DECT phone is transmitting,
all we have is his assertion that he can, and its MUCH more
likely that he's actually imagining any effect he claims to get.

> Next time it would behoove you to phrase your
> claims in a manner less likely to be misinterpreted.

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

In http://groups.google.com/group/aus.c...b8835fccbb62ad
I actually said

>>> I'd bet my house that you couldnt pick it with a proper double blind trial.

Even someone as stupid as you should have been able to read and comprehend that if
someone was actually stupid enough to lent you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

> Or is English not your first language?

Even someone as stupid as you should have been able to read and
comprehend a sentance thats as simple as that if someone was
actually stupid enough to lent you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

> BTW, it's "A REAL EFFECT" not "AN REAL EFFECT."

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>> I disagree with your seemingly cavalier attitude that until evidence
>>>>> is produced to counter the proposition that exposure to RF at
>>>>> close range isn't safe, caution should be thrown to the winds.

>>>> Pity I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that last.

>>> I never said you explicitly said it,

>> I didnt even imply anything even remotely resembling anything like that either.

>>> but your attitude seems to be one of "If it hasn't
>>> been proven to be all bad then it must be all good."

>> You need to get your seems machinery seen to.

> Not at all.

Corse you do.

> If you didn't mean for your statement to imply what it did, then perhaps
> you should consider attending a course in English remedial writing.

No perhaps about you needing bull****ting 101 in spades.

>>>> That question was very carefully studied once it became clear
>>>> that radars can produce cataracts and consideration was given
>>>> to how widespread that effect of microwave radiation is.

>>>> That was studied very carefully with microwave ovens.

>>> Yes, but you're comparing high-power RF with low-power RF;

>> Nope. When that effect with high power radars was discovered,
>> the epidemiology with lower power RF was carefully scrutenised
>> and there isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects with those
>> who use normal low power RF transmitters.

>> Similar epidemiology has been done with nuclear radiation once
>> it became clear that high levels does indeed produce significant
>> health effects, and it looks rather like low level effects not only
>> dont produce health effects, they actually produce health benefits.
>> And that appears to be because they encourage the system to
>> deal with genetic damage, primes the immune system in effect.

>>> apples and oranges, as it were.

>> Wrong, as always.

> I've noticed you like to say that a lot, as if you're some kind of authority,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> and yet you never cite references which lend credence to your claims.

Another pig ignorant bare faced lie.

> Much as if you were the be-all and end-all of
> what you want to be considered an authority over.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> Is there a reason for that?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

And it isnt even possible to post a cite for the statement that
'its actually a case of no evidence of any affect on health what so ever'
you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

>>>>> In the absence of rigorous scientific evidence to the
>>>>> contrary, both sides of the argument are suspect.

>>>> Only for those pig ignorant about the basics of what has been studied
>>>> using rigorous science with the effects of microwaves on humans.

>>> Now, now... If you want to get insulting, two can play that game.

>> You can play any game you like, you have always been
>> and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> More blather, but paint-by-numbers seems to be your stock in trade.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> That is, if you don't have an answer, you just fire
> off one of your canned epithets in order to try to
> avoid the issue by creating a momentary diversion.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> Truly an amateur tactic, particularly when the
> epithets are banal, repetitious, and dated, LOL!

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> Do you have links to any long-term studies that have
>>> been done WRT any negative aspects of cellphone use?

>> Find them yourself using medline.

> Geez, it seems like if knew as much about it as you say
> you do, you'd be anxious to prove me wrong with a simple
> link which substantiates your rather shaky position so far.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> Oh well...

Indeed.

>>>>> The problem I see with your position is that it doesn't err on the side of caution

>>>> You dont actually have a clue about what my position is.

>>> Sure I do.

>> No you dont.

> Yes, I do.

No you dont.

> How about this:

> You're a rather self-absorbed narcissist who can't
> bear to think that he's just ordinary and who will go
> to great lengths to convince himself that he isn't.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

And that wouldnt be you resorting to insults when its clear
that you cant actually sustain that stupid claim that I have
ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like
what my position actually is on erring on the side of caution ?

> Whether he can fool anyone else into falling for his line isn't as
> important as fooling himself, in that that way he can always fall
> back on his delusions and convince himself that he is right and
> everyone else is wrong, no matter what proof they offer.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> It seems to be that if you don't consider a proposition valid
>>> (or more to the point, if you don't understand it) then you damn it.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
>> in fact have a clue about what my position actually is.

> Hmmm...

> Isn't that remarkably similar to the:

> "Thanks for that completely superfluous
> proof of why you only ever get to crash cars."

> You posted _twice_ to Clockmeister?

Fools like you two dont qualify for anything better, ****wit.

> I think I also saw it somewhere else with your name attached
> to it, so it seems you've learned to paint that picture over and
> over and over and over again with slightly different colors,
> but from the same page in the coloring book.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>> And your puerile jab in brackets fools no one.

> Parentheses, actually,

Wrong again.

> and it's not intended to, since it's true.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> Puerile it had to be in order to allow you to understand it.
> Seems like it worked!

Pathetic, really. Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

>>>>> and doesn't recognize that the effects of exposure to
>>>>> near-field RF may be pronounced in some individuals

>>>> Not a shred of evidence that it is.

>>> That doesn't mean that it isn't. After all, the double-blind
>>> tests to which you keep referring haven't been done,

>> Corse they have.

> "Corse"?

You get to like that or lump it, ****wit.

> Got some links?

Got anything other than pathetic excuse for bull**** and puerile **** ?

Corse you havent.

>> Its very unlikely indeed that that fruit loop gutless wonder
>> is the only individual in the entire world that actually gets an
>> effect that can be sustantiated in a proper double blind trial.

> Then there'll be more than one who can, so why try to poison the results

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> by identifying him and calling him a fruit loop gutless
> wonder in order to try to exclude him from the sample?

Never ever did anything even remotely resembling anything like that either.

I in fact told him that that is the only way to prove if he's getting a real or imaginary effect.

> Because you want to do what you can to try make
> your position unassailable by discreting him.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> A true double blind trial would be independent of your bias,

Must be one of those rocket scientist pathetic excuses for bull**** artists.

> but it seems you want those whom you disagree with
> to vanish in order to make the results favor your bent.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> So, in the end, you're a coward who's unwilling
> to be judged by a jury you haven't tampered with.

There is no jury with a double blind trial, ****wit.

>>> so all the evidence isn't in yet, is it?

>> It never is in that sense that every single individual
>> in the entire world is tested to see if they can detect
>> the effect of low level RF in a double blind trial.

>> Only a fool would suggest that that means a damned thing.

> Geez, and here you are, explaining what you think that means...

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>> and unrecognizable in others, with or without a double blind test.

>>>>> As I see it, only time will tell.

>>>> Time has already told. Hand held radio transmitters that use
>>>> those frequencys have been around for a hell of a long time

> What frequencies and for how long?

Chase that up for yourself.

>>>> now and time has told that there isnt a shred of rigorous
>>>> scientific evidence that there are ANY health effects whatever
>>>> at the levels seen with DECT phones or mobiles either.

>>> Again, without rigorous _scientific_ testing at the frequencies
>>> and power levels involved over an extended period of time

>> Thats been done by all those individuals using those, fool.

>>> all of your "evidence" is just anecdotal.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
>> ever had a ****ing clue about what epidemeology is about.

> Geez, isn't that remarkably similar to your:

> "Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you only ever get to crash cars."

You get to like that or lump it.

> Nothing substansive or pithy,

Your puerile **** in spades.

> just the ruminations of an old cow.

Corse you never ever resort to insults when you've got done
like a ****ing dinner, time after time after time, do you ****wit ?

>>> Now, it may well be true that cellphone use poses no health risk at
>>> all, but without adequate testing, over an extended period of time,
>>> how would one know?

>> Pity about the epidemeology.

> LOL, what would you know about that?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> Even if you were in the field your duties would more than likely
> be nothing more than issuing protective clothing to your betters.

> Push come to shove, when you finally realize that you're ****,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> what're you gonna do?

Take a dump on you, just like everyone else does with your mindless ****.