Congratulations!

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> In our modern society, we are not allowed to escape from a 24-hour
> pulsing, all-pervading dangerous, disruptive radiation.

Do you ever go out in the sunshine? I hope not, as that would be quite
hypocritical of you.
--
Regards
Jon

---

› See More: Congratulations!

On 7 Jul 2006 03:44:57 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Congratulations, everybody!
>
>In the space of ten short years, you've villified and outmoded a fine
>landline system which served this country well for many years. You've
>made it so that most rooms you move into don't have landline access,
>but need them put in separately.
>
>You've called microwave pollution, which destroys memory and creates
>mental imbalance, and many forms of sickness, obligatory. You've made
>it so that microwave pollution is EVERYWHERE, and nobody has the least
>choice to avoid it. You call it a "good reception". You have
>conversations about it in terms of how necessary it is. You've made it
>so that people who want to avoid mobile masts are sneered at, and are
>not allowed to do so. There's talk about rejecting these masts on
>health grounds being not allowed. For all people's impotent,
>meaningless protests, there are 6466 mobile masts in Greater London
>ALONE!People everywhere are sick, especially the old, but they "go
>along" with it in order to protect this malodorous technology. I could
>go on, but what's the point? You don't have the brains to listen! Just
>try and read a difficult book in your microwave-filled front room.
>Listen through radio-recieving equipment, a walkman or something, if
>you still want to pretend it's not there. Old people with pale faces go
>stumbling around like they never did before, everybody is more
>miserable, and you're all it a state of permanent denial.
>
>Go on, laugh! It wasn't like this ten years ago. Stupidity can only
>laugh at itself. Thanks a bunch!!! And no, I don't own a frigging
>mobile. Never have.
>
>Paul
Whilst I think that some of your arguments are flawed I can draw a
parallel with some of my own beliefs. For example I don't see why
smoke should be inflicted on me in public places.
Here, though , it can't really be claimed that the smoking helps
anyone.

I don't believe that I should be forced to drink flouride in my
water. Here it might be claimed that children whose parents can't
supervise brushing of teeth with a flouride toothpaste might benefit
but I don't think that is a good reason to force flouride on me.

In regard to mobile phone masts etc. I really don't believe that old
people are any different now to 10 years ago. I think that you may
want to believe that to confirm your own beliefs. It may be, that
under certain circumstances that the 'jury is out' on radiation. I
certainly keep an open mind on that one.
However, look at how many lives have been saved and criminals caught
by the use of mobile phones. They have improved the social lives of
millions of people. They give a feeling of security to many vunerable
people who may only use them when they are in need of help.
In some developing countries the mobile phone is the norm as many
don't have a wired phone.
On balance, until someone comes up with some positive proof that my
life or health is in danger, due to microwaves, I can only see the
benefits that mobile phones have brought to so many.

You obviously have a strong anxiety over this. Some things you can
control - so you can deal with that - other things, and this is one of
them, you can't control because there are millions of people, and too
much money tied up in it, for you to have any influence. For you own
health I would advise, kindly, that you try to cool it. Get out
more, find a girlfriend/boyfriend and enjoy your life - otherwise the
anxiety will eat you up.

Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.

On 7 Jul 2006 03:44:57 -0700, [email protected] wrote:


>
>Go on, laugh! It wasn't like this ten years ago. Stupidity can only
>laugh at itself. Thanks a bunch!!! And no, I don't own a frigging
>mobile. Never have.
>
>Paul

Dear Paul/****wit

1. Do you watch television?
2. Does anyone ring you FROM a mobile phone ? (I'm prepared to accept
that nobody at all rings you, but it's still a valid question)
3. How many people do you think are laughing at you, ardehole of the
week, at the moment?
--
Cheers

Peter

Please remove the invalid to reply

[email protected] wrote:
> Congratulations, everybody!
>
> In the space of ten short years, you've villified and outmoded a fine
> landline system which served this country well for many years. You've
> made it so that most rooms you move into don't have landline access,
> but need them put in separately.
....
> there are 6466 mobile masts in Greater London ALONE!

Sorry, but you don't seem to be able to count.

I wouldn't dream of arguing with your pedantic figure for masts in
London, except to point out that the large number is itself evidence of
how weak the signals are.

But when were mobile phones invented? I first borrowed one to call the
UK from Caen in 1989, and used one in 1990 to call home after a back
injury. Even then they were not so new; cellular radio was being talked
of as a mobile phone network in the early eighties.

And by the way the emergency services have been using portable radios
on the way to and from the scene of accidents and emergencies for at
least 40 years. The fact that some firemen threatened to go on strike
if a mobile phone site was put on their station merely proves that
exposure has no effect whatsoever on intelligence.

I am typing this in the first room I've ever moved into with its own
phone socket.

The strongest source of electromagnetic radiation is associated with
all kinds of detrimental conditions, but we couldn't live without it.
Ten minutes of sunlight is probably more powerful than a year's mobile
phone exposure

On 7 Jul 2006 03:44:57 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Go on, laugh! It wasn't like this ten years ago.

Clearly you missed: http://www.urlcut.com/congratulations

--
Benedict

And don't forget the email address [email protected] if you're not happy
with the preaching and name calling.

Pete ;o)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 7 Jul 2006 03:44:57 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Go on, laugh! It wasn't like this ten years ago.
>
> Clearly you missed: http://www.urlcut.com/congratulations
>
> --
> Benedict

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[snip]

> Microwaves cook food. Microwaves carry speech signals. Is
> there anything in between?

Yes, a considerable difference in power level.

Google for "inverse square law" and see.

Now do go away, you're becoming boring.

Ivor

"andy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Congratulations, everybody!
>>
>
> But when were mobile phones invented?

In the UK

Public radio telephone service 1959 (Lancashire)
Direct dial band 4 (Storno) ~1980
Cellular - 1985
Hand portable (Technophone 1) - 1986
I bought one 3/86. Some say the Motorola 8000, but this wasn't
pocketable.
GSM (and PCS 1900MHz waveband) 1992


As a mibole fone usr 4 twenti yeres, I wud hav thort that mi brain? wud bee
curdled lyk scrambled egg bi now...

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Go on, laugh! It wasn't like this ten years ago. Stupidity can only
> laugh at itself. Thanks a bunch!!! And no, I don't own a frigging
> mobile. Never have.

It certainly wasn't like this 10 years ago. Reception in those days was
terrible. I get a full 5 bars pretty much everywhere now.

Your arguments are noted, but they could be applied to many things. Cars
spring to mind; they're all over, cause more proved deaths than enough..
but would you want to be without yours?

"Simon Dobson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Go on, laugh! It wasn't like this ten years ago. Stupidity can only
> > laugh at itself. Thanks a bunch!!! And no, I don't own a frigging
> > mobile. Never have.
>
> It certainly wasn't like this 10 years ago. Reception in those days was
> terrible. I get a full 5 bars pretty much everywhere now.

Although we have far more masts now, they don't have to cover such a big area. The
more masts, the lower the average radiation needs to be.

> Your arguments are noted, but they could be applied to many things. Cars
> spring to mind; they're all over, cause more proved deaths than enough..
> but would you want to be without yours?

Exactly. Virtually no form of technology is risk free .

--
Andy

zacnici" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All those fat mothers protesting about mobile phone masts affecting
> their snotty nosed kids have probably got mobiles themsleves and no
> doubt their ASBO kids have one as well. Also they don't object to
> satellite and terrestial tv signals pumping out all over the place.
>
> Has the OP ever looked about and seen microwave telecommunication
> towers that have been around for 30 years plus. Our landlines don't
> only squirt down copper cable. Oh yes and for good measure, what do you
> think powers the landlines, electricity. Does he also object to the
> electromagnetic radiation given off from not only the high tension grid
> but also domestic cabling.

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.

It's much the same with many other things in life - the technological boom
has allowed us all to have a very different life than was experienced 20 to
40 years ago. Those people are still very much alive. Let's see how old they
all reach, and let's see how the current generation of teens fair with life.

It really is possible a 13 year old alive right now will live until 85, but
there's a couple of worrying studies lurking about, of course conducted in
the ol' USA, which show people could die around 50-55, due to the effect
technology can have on our tissue, our social lives, and a whole host of
other problems.

Most things are inter-related, but just don't worry about it, because at the
end of the dya, if you're not up to mischief, then hopefully you'll be okay!
I'm not a fan of jumping down peoples' throats because of the very basic
problematic studies that have been conducted on mobiles and their associated
potential issues. Relax everyone! :-)

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.

--

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

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.

--

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

On 7 Jul 2006 14:59:38 -0700, "andy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ten minutes of sunlight is probably more powerful than a year's mobile
>phone exposure

Not a fair comparison. Sunshine is known to cause damage to people,
but there is no serious evidence that mobile phone signal does
anything at all.

--

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:
> On 7 Jul 2006 14:59:38 -0700, "andy" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Ten minutes of sunlight is probably more powerful than a year's mobile
> >phone exposure
>
> Not a fair comparison. Sunshine is known to cause damage to people,
> but there is no serious evidence that mobile phone signal does
> anything at all.

True enough.

I'm waiting for the OP to come back and suggest that weather satellite
signals affect the weather