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

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

The apologists are now apologizing for microwaves in general.

 

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]

 

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>

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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

 

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.
> >

 

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

 

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.....

 

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.

 

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."

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.