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!

Eur: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by paul@wren.cc.kux.edu, Sep 30, 2003.

  1. Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    The apologists are now apologizing for microwaves in general.



    › See More: Eur: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study
  2. 3G Geek

    3G Geek Guest

    Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    This is somewhat off subject but this reminds me of a funny story I
    read... There was an article written as a joke in a small towns local
    newspaper that there was this extremely harmful chemical that had been
    showing up HOH... (better known as H20 or water.) The whole town took
    it for truth and started freaking out. It's just kind of funny, if
    everyone avoided everything that the studies told us to avoid we would
    live in a white padded room with nothing to eat or drink.

    junk@oddbite.com (Thomas Zielinski) wrote in article
    <4af581c2.0310070702.2969fe0f@posting.google.com>:
    > What really hurts is that the relevant members of society
    > (Judges/Juries/Lawyers, etc.) are very ill equipped to pick out the
    > psuedo-science from the real science.
    >
    > -Tom
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > askme@askme.com (Mark F) wrote in message news:<vo53ophr6pntea@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > WiFi Network News is reporting that a school district has been sued for
    > > planning a WiFi network, because parents say that the WiFi networks emit
    > > harmful electro-magnetic radiation. The lawsuit claims that there is a
    > > "substantial body of evidence" that WiFi emits harmful EMR - though,
    > > this seems
    > > to be the first most people have heard of such evidence.


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  3. Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    Camile Cardenas wrote:

    > In article <4af581c2.0310070702.2969fe0f@posting.google.com>,
    > junk@oddbite.com (Thomas Zielinski) wrote:
    >
    >> What really hurts is that the relevant members of society
    >> (Judges/Juries/Lawyers, etc.) are very ill equipped to pick out the
    >> psuedo-science from the real science.
    >>
    >> -Tom
    >>

    >
    > This was a double blind scientific study. Sounds good to me.
    >
    > Pseudo science is "SprintPCS is getting better"



    I thought you sounded familiar.
    <plonk>
  4. Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    Specifically, the story was about di-hydrogen monoxide.
    Scary stuff, no?
    It actually can kill people!
    ---JRC---

    "3G Geek" <rolling@stones.com> wrote in message =
    news:vo5mbe14bnk64d@corp.supernews.com...
    > This is somewhat off subject but this reminds me of a funny story I
    > read... There was an article written as a joke in a small towns local
    > newspaper that there was this extremely harmful chemical that had been
    > showing up HOH... (better known as H20 or water.) The whole town took
    > it for truth and started freaking out. It's just kind of funny, if
    > everyone avoided everything that the studies told us to avoid we would
    > live in a white padded room with nothing to eat or drink.
    >=20
  5. Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    Camile Cardenas <cccardenas@netscape.com> wrote in message news:<cccardenas-
    > This was a double blind scientific study. Sounds good to me.



    Want to buy a bridge?

    Your standards for acceptance are rather low... (ie. you are convinced
    very easily).

    Have you seen the original published report? Or did you just read
    Yahoo's/Reuter's watered down take on it? Is it peer reviewed? Where
    is this article published? Respectable researchers/Publication?


    Most likely the article was written by someone (an english major) way
    underqualified who just read the abstract of some draft of the study
    and perhaps a few selected sentences in the conclusion that supported
    his thesis statement. I've done a fair amount of comparison on these
    types of "articles" with the original published documents for a class
    project a while back. The things that reporters get away with
    "reporting" to the public on science are absurd!

    What is worse is that in my research, there was a band of "scientists"
    that kept popping up everywhere... They were doing such studies,
    getting positive results, and causing a rukus. Their work was shabby,
    ill-founded, interpretted with extreme prejudice, and full of gaping
    holes. In short, their work was the laughing stock of the scientific
    community, and not accepted by any reputable journals nor peers, but
    repeatedly receieved renewed funding (cha ching!!!!). It was double
    blind... it was done by people in lab coats. it was written about,
    and given credibility by almost every major news agency out there!
    but it was still very bad science. I can look up the references for
    you if you really really need them.

    If you've taken a high school science class, you know how easy it is
    to make ANY data look ANY way you want it to!

    -Tom
  6. Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    Camile Cardenas <cccardenas@netscape.com> wrote in message news:<cccardenas-A5DB20.10112207102003@news04.east.earthlink.net>...
    > The apologists are now apologizing for microwaves in general.


    You just say that cuz you didn't understand my post... sorry about
    that... I'll have to limit the number of syllabels per word, i
    suppose.

    -Tom
  7. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:20:25 -0400, Quark <none@none.com> posted in
    alt.cellular.verizon:


    >Our real estate agent told us a story of someone else who had the same
    >problem. They had the power company come out with a magnetic field
    >detector and walk around there house. Guess were the highest magnetic
    >field was. 4' or less from the TV set. Were most kids sit and watch the
    >thing.


    >Read and learn.


    There's also a bit of X-Radiation (yup - X-Rays) coming from the front
    of most color TVs.
  8. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On 7 Oct 2003 08:06:31 -0700, junk@oddbite.com (Thomas Zielinski)
    posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >I once did those numbers too... the Earth's natural magnetic field
    >SWAMPS the magnetic field induced by even the highest tension power
    >lines..


    >Why don't people stop to consider these things before believing such
    >foolishness...


    Because science, even the simplest science, is a mystery to most
    people.
  9. "Al Klein" wrote:

    > Because science, even the simplest science, is a mystery to
    > most people.


    Arthur C Clark once noted that science and technology are
    indistinguishable from magic to those who don't understand them.

    John
  10. Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    Yeah... drowning... severe steam burns... floods... dihydrogen
    monoxide (or HOH) is pretty damn serious if you ask me! We should
    spend more money studying it... in double blind studies... by people
    in lab coats... the media would love that.. the people would
    believe...

    What a circus... Science education standards in this country are
    extremely poor, to say the least.

    -Tom



    "John R. Copeland" <jcopelan@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<W9Fgb.59330$uJ2.30843@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
    > Specifically, the story was about di-hydrogen monoxide.
    > Scary stuff, no?
    > It actually can kill people!
    > ---JRC---
    >
    > "3G Geek" <rolling@stones.com> wrote in message
    > news:vo5mbe14bnk64d@corp.supernews.com...
    > > This is somewhat off subject but this reminds me of a funny story I
    > > read... There was an article written as a joke in a small towns local
    > > newspaper that there was this extremely harmful chemical that had been
    > > showing up HOH... (better known as H20 or water.) The whole town took
    > > it for truth and started freaking out. It's just kind of funny, if
    > > everyone avoided everything that the studies told us to avoid we would
    > > live in a white padded room with nothing to eat or drink.
    > >
  11. RDT

    RDT Guest

    In article <blvsoo$h74qo$1@ID-83062.news.uni-berlin.de>,
    John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote:
    >"Al Klein" wrote:
    >> Because science, even the simplest science, is a mystery to
    >> most people.

    >Arthur C Clark once noted that science and technology are
    >indistinguishable from magic to those who don't understand them.


    Not quite. It was something more like any sufficiently developed
    technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    RDT
    --
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
    inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
    --- Sir Winston Churchill
  12. Quark

    Quark Guest

    Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    Thomas Zielinski wrote:
    > Yeah... drowning... severe steam burns... floods... dihydrogen
    > monoxide (or HOH) is pretty damn serious if you ask me! We should
    > spend more money studying it... in double blind studies... by people
    > in lab coats... the media would love that.. the people would
    > believe...
    >
    > What a circus... Science education standards in this country are
    > extremely poor, to say the least.
    >
    > -Tom


    And so are government standards for handing out millions for stupid
    studies that prove nothing. Except fill the pockets of the people who
    get the money to do these type of things.

    I should try to get a grant to see if sticking raisons up my nose causes
    cancer :)

    Hamburgers cooked on a grill cause cancer.
    Wait now it doesn't cause cancer.

    Eggs are bad for you.
    Wait now there not.

    etc. etc. etc.....
  13. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:28:37 +1000, "John Henderson"
    <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >"Al Klein" wrote:


    >> Because science, even the simplest science, is a mystery to
    >> most people.


    >Arthur C Clark once noted that science and technology are
    >indistinguishable from magic to those who don't understand them.


    Exactly. And everyday science is sufficiently advanced to be magic to
    most.
  14. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On 8 Oct 2003 14:13:52 -0400, taite@panix.com ("RDT") posted in
    alt.cellular.verizon:

    >In article <blvsoo$h74qo$1@ID-83062.news.uni-berlin.de>,
    >John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote:
    >>"Al Klein" wrote:


    >>> Because science, even the simplest science, is a mystery to
    >>> most people.

    >>Arthur C Clark once noted that science and technology are
    >>indistinguishable from magic to those who don't understand them.


    > Not quite. It was something more like any sufficiently developed
    >technology is indistinguishable from magic.


    "Any science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."

    The corollary being:

    "Any science distinguishable from magic isn't sufficiently advanced."
  15. Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    Whytoi <whytoi@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<011020031307517477%whytoi@hotmail.com>...
    > In article <Mjqeb.640414$YN5.490491@sccrnsc01>, Hopper
    > <crapfromusenet@meetmyattorney.com> wrote:
    >
    > > X-No-Archive:Yes
    > >
    > > <paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
    > > news:71qjnvshoha7nuvna3qkocoa8aqp5ter7q@4ax.com...
    > > > If true the implications for the 2.1 GHz band are not good...
    > > >
    > > > http://tinyurl.com/p873

    > >
    > > The thing that pisses me off about news stories of this kind are the
    > > complete lack of reference to any information about the study, short it
    > > involving the Netherlands.
    > >
    > > Where was this report published? Where can a person find the original
    > > report? What was the title?
    > >
    > > There's just too many questions. Like what sampling did they do? What level
    > > of significance? What was the test method? These can only be answered by the
    > > original report, not halfassed Reuters reporting.

    >


    You can download a PDF of the study at http://www.tno.nl/en/news/article_6265.html

    The first few pages are a Dutch summary, but the rest is English.

    It was a double-blind study done by I think physicists and
    electrical engineers. Their degrees are given, but not
    the courses they studied in school; I doubt they studied
    WCDMA effects on humans in school, so I don't think their
    schoolwork matters (except that they passed, of course).

    The pulse heights were 1 V/m, which is very low. Cell
    phones produce hundreds of V/m at the head. Assuming a
    5000 V/m transmitter and square-law nondirectionality,
    at 1 m the height would be about 400 V/m. I don't know
    much about PCS base stations, so I am pretty much guessing
    at the 5000 V/m.

    Anyway, adding a little directionality, the pulse E fields
    would be comparable to those at about 20 m (65 ft) from
    the antenna.

    John
    jwill@AstraGate.net
    John Michael Williams
  16. Re: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study

    OOPS! Correction below:

    jwill@AstraGate.net (John Michael Williams) wrote in message news:<4032bf27.0310090919.6d08346c@posting.google.com>...
    > Whytoi <whytoi@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<011020031307517477%whytoi@hotmail.com>...
    > > In article <Mjqeb.640414$YN5.490491@sccrnsc01>, Hopper
    > > <crapfromusenet@meetmyattorney.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > X-No-Archive:Yes
    > > >
    > > > <paul@wren.cc.kux.edu> wrote in message
    > > > news:71qjnvshoha7nuvna3qkocoa8aqp5ter7q@4ax.com...
    > > > > If true the implications for the 2.1 GHz band are not good...
    > > > >
    > > > > http://tinyurl.com/p873
    > > >
    > > > The thing that pisses me off about news stories of this kind are the
    > > > complete lack of reference to any information about the study, short it
    > > > involving the Netherlands.
    > > >
    > > > Where was this report published? Where can a person find the original
    > > > report? What was the title?
    > > >
    > > > There's just too many questions. Like what sampling did they do? What level
    > > > of significance? What was the test method? These can only be answered by the
    > > > original report, not halfassed Reuters reporting.

    > >

    >
    > You can download a PDF of the study at http://www.tno.nl/en/news/article_6265.html
    >
    > The first few pages are a Dutch summary, but the rest is English.
    >
    > It was a double-blind study done by I think physicists and
    > electrical engineers. Their degrees are given, but not
    > the courses they studied in school; I doubt they studied
    > WCDMA effects on humans in school, so I don't think their
    > schoolwork matters (except that they passed, of course).
    >
    > The pulse heights were 1 V/m, which is very low. Cell
    > phones produce hundreds of V/m at the head. Assuming a
    > 5000 V/m transmitter and square-law nondirectionality,
    > at 1 m the height would be about 400 V/m. I don't know
    > much about PCS base stations, so I am pretty much guessing
    > at the 5000 V/m.


    I usually work with power (watts/cm^2) rather than voltage.
    I used the wrong approach to calculate voltage at a distance:
    Voltage V of the EM field drops off as 1/r, not 1/r^2; the
    square applies when the power (~V^2/Z) is relevant.

    Let's try it again:

    Broadcasting at 100 W, the field at 1 m would be
    about 100/(4*Pi*r^2) or about 8 W/m^2. The impedance of
    free space is Z = 377 ohms, so V^2/377 = 8, making
    V = about 55 V/m.

    So, with a PCS transmitter at 100 W, the Dutch study would be
    at about the same level as would be found over 50 m from the PCS
    transmitter.

    This is quite a long distance and should raise some considerable
    concern.

    A 1000 W transmitter would produce the same effect as the Dutch
    study out to about 180 m, and a 10 W transmitter out to less
    than 20 m, which was about what I got the wrong way above.

    John
    jwill@AstraGate.net
    John Michael Williams

    >
    > Anyway, adding a little directionality, the pulse E fields
    > would be comparable to those at about 20 m (65 ft) from
    > the antenna.
    >
    > John
    > jwill@AstraGate.net
    > John Michael Williams
  17. RDT

    RDT Guest

    In article <dla9ovsdq7et7u72m6m9jrsu4h7c6smg0j@Pern.rk>,
    Al Klein <ehxong@bcgbayvar.arg> wrote:
    >On 8 Oct 2003 14:13:52 -0400, taite@panix.com ("RDT") posted in
    >alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>In article <blvsoo$h74qo$1@ID-83062.news.uni-berlin.de>,
    >>John Henderson <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote:
    >>>"Al Klein" wrote:

    >
    >>>> Because science, even the simplest science, is a mystery to
    >>>> most people.
    >>>Arthur C Clark once noted that science and technology are
    >>>indistinguishable from magic to those who don't understand them.

    >> Not quite. It was something more like any sufficiently developed
    >>technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    >"Any science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."


    Nope, but close. Here is the correct quote, within one word of what
    I remembered:

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    -- Arthur C. Clarke. "Technology and the Future". Report on Planet
    Three, 1972

    RDT

    --
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
    inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
    --- Sir Winston Churchill
  18. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On 13 Oct 2003 15:20:17 -0400, taite@panix.com ("RDT") posted in
    alt.cellular.verizon:

    >In article <dla9ovsdq7et7u72m6m9jrsu4h7c6smg0j@Pern.rk>,
    >Al Klein <ehxong@bcgbayvar.arg> wrote:


    >>"Any science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."


    > Nope, but close. Here is the correct quote, within one word of what
    >I remembered:


    >"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    > -- Arthur C. Clarke. "Technology and the Future". Report on Planet
    > Three, 1972


    I was quoting, IIRC, Don Martin's quip on Clarke's statement.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?