1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

cell phone use in hospitals

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by maryann, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. "Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message news:04pgo0l6luh07pb0td9ggai1grhe4k0rj0@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:22:26 -0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
    > said in alt.cellular:
    >
    >>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:04:33 -0800, "Richard Ness"
    >><richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

    >
    >>>I say to them.... get a life. I'm gonna top post, so deal with it.

    >
    >>There's nothing inherintly wrong with it

    >
    > Other than the fact that one has to read from the bottom up.


    That would be true only if you were new to the newsgroup and had
    not read the previously quoted text before. Most of us regulars have
    read the quoted text already before, and we just want to read the
    new reply without having to scroll through several screens of old
    quoted text.

    To be sure, if one trims old quoted text judiciously, it doesn't
    matter if you bottom-post like this because the whole thing fits
    on one screen.

    --
    John Richards



    › See More: cell phone use in hospitals
  2. Quick

    Quick Guest

    Richard Ness wrote:
    > I concur..... and have argued for it more than once.
    > Does anyone, normal anyway, post replies to e-mail on the bottom?
    > I actually have had people argue that they do. I doubt their
    > credibility.
    > And, they also tend to be quite vocal (and rabid).
    >
    > I say to them.... get a life. I'm gonna top post, so deal with it.


    (I'm not a fanatic) Just wanted to point out that e-mail is
    quite different from usnet group posts (unless you are refering
    only to e-mail "forums/groups/lists"). E-mail is usually
    directed to a 1 or few people and when replied to it's back
    to the sender.

    -Quick
  3. Mike Riddle

    Mike Riddle Guest

    (Pete Cresswell) wrote:

    >>Top posting again y'all.

    >
    >
    > Just for the record... I *prefer* to read top posts... maybe I'm the
    > only one, but still...


    RFC1855, Netiquette Guidelines, section 3.1.1 addresses this very issue:

    "If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
    summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
    text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
    understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
    especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host
    to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing
    the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the
    entire original!"


    (Unfortunately, those who need to know this will not even know what an
    RFC is, and we're back to square one! :)
  4. DevilsPGD

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <mw9id.16469$8K.12677@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> "John
    Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

    >The problem with the old convention (bottom posting) is that too many
    >posters nowadays don't trim the quoted material. I, for one, don't like to
    >scroll through screen after screen of old quoted text before I get to the
    >one-liner reply at the bottom.


    Sure. But it's a lot easier to educate trimming then reading top to
    bottom. We've been trying to teach some folks to read since
    kindergarten and they apparently still can't caught on to the
    fundamentals.


    --
    Boom. Boom boom boom. Boom boom. BOOM. Have a nice day.
    -- Susan Ivanova, B5
  5. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:39:17 GMT, "John Richards"
    <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:


    >That would be true only if you were new to the newsgroup and had
    >not read the previously quoted text before. Most of us regulars have
    >read the quoted text already before,


    Maybe. If the prior article has reached your news server yet.

    >and we just want to read the
    >new reply without having to scroll through several screens of old
    >quoted text.


    A) It is highly doubtful that "most of us" want top posting, since
    "most of us" don't do it and when others do it "most of us" say DON'T
    DO THAT.

    B) You shouldn't have to scroll through "several screens of old quoted
    text". Did you have to do that in *this* post? No. I'm only quoting
    the *relevant* bits of your prior post to put my comments in context.

    >To be sure, if one trims old quoted text judiciously, it doesn't
    >matter if you bottom-post like this because the whole thing fits
    >on one screen.


    It does matter, because we read top-to-bottom. See my next post for
    an illustration why this is important.

    jc
  6. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    Maybe. If the prior article has reached your news server yet.

    A) It is highly doubtful that "most of us" want top posting, since
    "most of us" don't do it and when others do it "most of us" say DON'T
    DO THAT.

    B) You shouldn't have to scroll through "several screens of old quoted
    text". Did you have to do that in *this* post? No. I'm only quoting
    the *relevant* bits of your prior post to put my comments in context.

    It does matter, because we read top-to-bottom.



    (Was that really easier to read than my prior post?)

    jc

    On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:39:17 GMT, "John Richards"
    <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

    >"Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message news:04pgo0l6luh07pb0td9ggai1grhe4k0rj0@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:22:26 -0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
    >> said in alt.cellular:
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:04:33 -0800, "Richard Ness"
    >>><richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>I say to them.... get a life. I'm gonna top post, so deal with it.

    >>
    >>>There's nothing inherintly wrong with it

    >>
    >> Other than the fact that one has to read from the bottom up.

    >
    >That would be true only if you were new to the newsgroup and had
    >not read the previously quoted text before. Most of us regulars have
    >read the quoted text already before, and we just want to read the
    >new reply without having to scroll through several screens of old
    >quoted text.
    >
    >To be sure, if one trims old quoted text judiciously, it doesn't
    >matter if you bottom-post like this because the whole thing fits
    >on one screen.
  7. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:33:54 GMT, "John Richards"
    <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:

    >The problem with the old convention (bottom posting) is that too many
    >posters nowadays don't trim the quoted material. I, for one, don't like to
    >scroll through screen after screen of old quoted text before I get to the
    >one-liner reply at the bottom.


    Both top posting AND failing to properly snip prior posted material
    are bad practices. Claiming you prefer top posting because some
    posters participate in another bad practice is stupid. The solution
    is not to replace one bad practice with another, the solution is to
    utilize the proper practice:

    A) Snip away all irrelevant quoted material, leaving just enough to
    put your reply in context.

    B) Put your reply below the text it is responding to, because we read
    top to bottom.

    jc
  8. Much so. Thanks for being considerate.

    "JC Dill" <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote in message news:79cio0h5oht8lgnl5e083k1jk8aek56418@4ax.com...
    >
    > - snip -
    >
    > (Was that really easier to read than my prior post?)
    >
    > jc
    >
  9. AJ

    AJ Guest

    JC Dill wrote:

    > Both top posting AND failing to properly snip prior posted material
    > are bad practices. Claiming you prefer top posting because some
    > posters participate in another bad practice is stupid.


    If you would just post your qualifications for net nanny I would
    enjoy viewing them. Bottom posting is a idea that started when we
    used teletype machines and simple terminals. Today with discussions
    having many replies bottom posting is not stupid but it is a pain.

    Jim
  10. REgulations are issued by a government( ie the FCC). Regulations
    don't vary across the good ole US of A. Policy is like an opinion.
    It does change from nose to nose.

    jaj

    On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 03:02:03 GMT, "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote:

    >>
    >> Also, I just came from spending most of the day in Jefferson Hospital in
    >> the
    >> center of Philadelphia. Beeeeg place...so I can't comment globally, but
    >> the
    >> areas I was in had no visible cell phone prohibitions and people were
    >> using cell
    >> phones in plain view of the staff.
    >> --

    >
    >I work in hospitals. As I posted before, cell-phone regulations vary from
    >place to place. The concern isn't really about monitoring modalities such
    >as EKG's or EEG's, but the possibility of reprogramming therapeutic
    >equipment like infusion pumps and ventilators. My personal opinion is that
    >cell-phone use has no significant interference with medical equipment -
    >unless perhaps someone opens up a machine and places a call next to the
    >motherboard.
    >
    >However, hospitals have non-technical reasons for restricting cell-phone
    >use. Employees are there to do their jobs, and cell-phones would distract
    >by facilitating personal calls on company time. I assume other industries
    >(non-sales) also restrict cell-phone use on the job.
    >
    >
    >Bill T
    >
    >
    >
  11. Quick

    Quick Guest

    AJ wrote:
    > JC Dill wrote:
    >
    >> Both top posting AND failing to properly snip prior posted material
    >> are bad practices. Claiming you prefer top posting because some
    >> posters participate in another bad practice is stupid.

    >
    > If you would just post your qualifications for net nanny I would
    > enjoy viewing them. Bottom posting is a idea that started when we
    > used teletype machines and simple terminals. Today with discussions
    > having many replies bottom posting is not stupid but it is a pain.


    Possibly. OE and some automatically put the cursor at the top.
    So it does take some effort and time for the sender to snip and
    bottom post while replying. You and a very few readers save
    time by top posting. *Many* others spend more time going
    back and forth reading the reply, going down for the context,
    back to the reply, etc. (It's the way this scales that makes usenet
    very different from e-mail). So from a purely selfish perspective
    it is easier/better to top post.

    -Quick
  12. RE/
    >Claiming you prefer top posting because some
    >posters participate in another bad practice is stupid.


    In my case, I wouldn't characterize it as a "Claim"...It's fact,
    pure-and-simple. I prefer to read top posted messages. I bottom post because
    other people seem to prefer it....but there's no "claim" about my
    preference...it's a matter of inarguable fact.
    --
    PeteCresswell
  13. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:29:53 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
    <dannyb@panix.com> said in alt.cellular:

    >In <67nho0lhig26o2s46l3ei0lchlqk8du2o8@4ax.com> "(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> writes:


    >>RE/
    >>>(and vampires...


    >the blood drawing technicians. Commonly nurses, but quite a few facilities
    >(when permitted by State laws) use lesser trained (and lower paid...)
    >folk.


    Hematologists are differently trained. Granted, they don't need to
    know any pharmacology, medicine, etc.

    And a lot of nurses aren't that good at drawing blood, bandaging, etc.
  14. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:30:51 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
    <dannyb@panix.com> said in alt.cellular:

    >In <k9mgo01ls62p2jt67228b3741l62l8vtp0@4ax.com> Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> writes:


    >>>And if you add in lots of mini base stations throughout the facility so
    >>>the phone powers down to bare minimum on transmit...


    >>The hospital in question has repeaters, but no mini bases.


    >Don't know what definitions you're using so I won't comment further.


    Repeaters - broad-band RF-to-RF devices.
  15. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:10:01 -0700, DevilsPGD <devilspgd@crazyhat.net>
    said in alt.cellular:

    >In message <mw9id.16469$8K.12677@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> "John
    >Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:


    >>The problem with the old convention (bottom posting) is that too many
    >>posters nowadays don't trim the quoted material. I, for one, don't like to
    >>scroll through screen after screen of old quoted text before I get to the
    >>one-liner reply at the bottom.


    >Sure. But it's a lot easier to educate trimming then reading top to
    >bottom.


    Written human languages *ARE* read top to bottom.

    >We've been trying to teach some folks to read since
    >kindergarten and they apparently still can't caught on to the
    >fundamentals.


    Illiteracy and innumrancy *are* problems.
  16. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:28:12 GMT, JC Dill <jcdill04@sonic.net> said in
    alt.cellular:

    >Maybe. If the prior article has reached your news server yet.
    >
    >A) It is highly doubtful that "most of us" want top posting, since
    >"most of us" don't do it and when others do it "most of us" say DON'T
    >DO THAT.
    >
    >B) You shouldn't have to scroll through "several screens of old quoted
    >text". Did you have to do that in *this* post? No. I'm only quoting
    >the *relevant* bits of your prior post to put my comments in context.
    >
    >It does matter, because we read top-to-bottom.
    >
    >
    >
    >(Was that really easier to read than my prior post?)


    Yes. Was it in the least understandable? No.
  17. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:58:08 -0600, Mike Riddle
    <nospam@ivgate.omahug.org> said in alt.cellular:

    >RFC1855, Netiquette Guidelines, section 3.1.1 addresses this very issue:


    Thank you for posting that.

    <snippage>

    >(Unfortunately, those who need to know this will not even know what an
    >RFC is, and we're back to square one! :)


    How true. How sad.
  18. DevilsPGD

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <pg7jo01mvmon16r73vo1uodmiepmvh1790@4ax.com> Al Klein
    <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote:

    >>>The problem with the old convention (bottom posting) is that too many
    >>>posters nowadays don't trim the quoted material. I, for one, don't like to
    >>>scroll through screen after screen of old quoted text before I get to the
    >>>one-liner reply at the bottom.

    >
    >>Sure. But it's a lot easier to educate trimming then reading top to
    >>bottom.

    >
    >Written human languages *ARE* read top to bottom.


    Yeah, you'd think. My point was that it's easier to teach someone that
    posts at the bottom but doesn't trim to start trimming then to teach
    someone that reads from the bottom up (And probably doesn't trim either)


    --
    Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed frequently,
    and for the very same reason.
  19. Sasha

    Sasha Guest

    My late husband was hospitalized many times and I was always told to turn
    off my phone when I was in the hospital building. But six months ago a
    friend had bypass surgery and no one said anything about both of using our
    cell phones all the time in his room. I even took my computer there and used
    my aircard. I was surprised... don't know if the technology has changed or
    if the hospitals are finally 'fessing up that there is no problem. Back when
    I was told NOT to use my phone, the doctors were ALWAYS using theirs...


    <jaj001@iglou.com> wrote in message
    news:417cce70.108162734@nntp.iglou.com...
    > Kurt,
    > You got me. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I had not seen this
    > article. However, it is a only a literature review, not empirical,
    > double blind research.
    >
    > I have been looking for research that could be reproduced in the
    > research setting. Have you seen anything of that nature?
    >
    > jaj.
    >
    > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:27:55 GMT, kurtullman@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
    > wrote:
    >
    >>In article <417b944d.27743921@nntp.iglou.com>, jaj001@iglou.com
    >>wrote:
    >>>The whole issue is fit to flush.
    >>>
    >>>There is NO empirical research on wireless telephony of any type
    >>>causing interference to FDA approved medical equipment. The only leg
    >>>the health care industry can stand on is a few manufacturers of either
    >>>wireless telephone products or FDA approved medical equipment have
    >>>stated "wireless telephones MAY cause problems."

    >>
    >> If interested, I would send you to: Mobile phone interference with
    >>medical equipment and its clinical relevance: a systematic review.
    >>Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. Med J Aust. 2004 Aug 2;181(3):145-9.
    >> DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and SUMSEARCH were searched for the period
    >>1966-2004. The Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews
    >>of Effects were also searched for systematic reviews. STUDY
    >>SELECTION: Studies were eligible if published in a peer-reviewed
    >>journal in English, and if they included testing of digital mobile
    >>phones for clinically relevant interference with medical equipment
    >>used to monitor or treat patients, but not implantable medical
    >>devices.
    >>
    >>RESULTS: Clinically relevant electromagnetic interference (EMI)
    >>secondary to mobile phones potentially endangering patients occurred
    >>in 45 of 479 devices tested at 900 MHz and 14 of 457 devices tested
    >>at 1800 MHz. However, in the largest studies, the prevalence of
    >>clinically relevant EMI was low. Most clinically relevant EMI
    >>occurred when mobile phones were used within 1 m of medical
    >>equipment.
    >>
    >> CONCLUSIONS: Although testing was not standardised between studies
    >>and equipment tested was not identical, ** it is of concern that at
    >>least 4% of devices tested in any study were susceptible to
    >>clinically relevant EMI ***. All studies recommend some type of
    >>restriction of mobile phone use in hospitals, with use greater than
    >>1 m from equipment and restrictions in clinical areas being the most
    >>common. (emphasis mine)
    >>
    >>>
    >>>It is the same as a person in a house with electrical service dies, it
    >>>must have been the electricity that killed the individual.
    >>>

    >> A few people woudl tend to disagree. Although the 1 m area
    >>seems most important.
    >>
    >>--
    >>
    >> "Jesus was provided for by his Father.
    >>I suspect the same is the case with many of those writing on the web."
    >> -- Michael Mendelsohn on alt.journalism.freelance

    >
  20. On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:12:11 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote:

    >Repeaters - broad-band RF-to-RF devices.


    When I hear repeater, I think about a more frequency-specific device
    which traditionally bringing a signal down to baseband audio or to
    data where it could be re-clocked and retransmitted.

    Are you talking about bi-directional active re-radiators? If so, are
    they channelized (heterodyned down to an IF where they are filtered
    and then back up to the same or another "channel")? Are they
    blocked-out in subbands (nothing more than amplifiers and filters...
    noise in, noise out)? Is this in a free-space or contained
    environment? What is the isolation between the donor antenna and the
    rest of the system (be that Radiax or an antenna somewhere)? Who
    installed it? (they are ONLY legal if the licensee of the system being
    re-transmitted has installed it - yet there are hundreds of gypsy
    installations that contribute to a high noise environment)

    Finally, is the system well-engineered and maintained, or did a dealer
    (read: third party) buy it out of a Tessco catalog and just bolt it on
    the wall? Is there adequate isolation so as not to send the system
    into oscillation (and emission of broadband noise within the response
    of the filters and amplifiers)?

    Or, is this a fiberoptic system where RF is converted to light and
    then transported to a point where it is reconverted to RF?

    What is the modulation method, frequency range and ERP?

    There are too many permutations to make sweeping generalizations. A
    poorly engineered "booster" system (BDA) can create not only RFI
    within its own intentional band of operation, but also within the ISM
    bands.

    Steve

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?