 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / General / GSM / October 2003Eur: 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache -Study
If true the implications for the 2.1 GHz band are not good... http://tinyurl.com/p873 > 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. Hopper > X-No-Archive:Yes > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of significance? What was the test method? These can only be answered by the > original report, not halfassed Reuters reporting. Agreed. What a load of BS! Gosh, did they also report that living is a terminal illness? I am jumping off a cliff right now! I once ran the numbers... no way... cellular radiation is a few orders of magnitude too small to break even among the weakest chemical bonds in the human body... (much less cause DNA damage thus cancer...) RF heating from the milliwatt levels of a handheld phone is ridiculous as well... I did some research for a psuedo-science project (actually a seminar for physicists), and could not find a shred of credible evidence to support ANY negative health effects caused by cell phones... It's purely unfounded paranoia compounded by the media's idiotic portrayals.. and as far as I can determine has already cost US tax payers millions of research dollars. (If I remember correctly, there's a department somewhere invetigating this and powerline radiation. . . sheesh... idiots...) That's the end of the debate as far as I'm concerned. grab a modern physics textbook and a basic bio book... run the numbers... it'll take like 3 min if you know what you're doing. convince yourself. -Tom > I once ran the numbers... no way... cellular radiation is a few > orders of magnitude too small to break even among the weakest chemical [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > -Tom Denial from the Sprint apologists who obfuscate and distort the study by a disinterested Government group. 3G Mobile Signals Can Cause Nausea, Headache likely worse over the long term. Would you stick your head in a microwave oven? Phillipe2004 <phil2004@sprent.com> wrote in article <phil2004-F140DB.04391607102003@news04.east.earthlink.net>: > > I once ran the numbers... no way... cellular radiation is a few > > orders of magnitude too small to break even among the weakest chemical [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > likely worse over the long term. Would you stick your head in a > microwave oven? Here is something related to that...total nonsense! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ============================================================================== IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION Rachel and Rebecca Baiman, John Davis, and Jonah and Maya Cabral, by their Fathers and next Friends, individually and on behalf of all other people similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oak Park Elementary School District 97, John C. Fagan, Dan Burke, Adekunle Onayemi, Marcia Frank, Sharon Patchak- Layman, Carolyn Newberry Schwartz, Michelle Harton and Bob Walsh, Defendants. Case No. Judge CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, Rachel and Rebecca Baiman, John Davis, and Jonah and Maya Cabral, by their Fathers and next Friends, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by their attorneys, Buehler Reed & Williams, complain of Defendants Oak Park Elementary School District 97, John C. Fagan, Dan Burke, Adekunle Onayemi, Marcia Frank, Sharon Patchak- Layman, Carolyn Newberry Schwartz, Michelle Harton and Bob Walsh, as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiffs are all minors and residents of Oak Park Illinois, all of whom attend school in the Oak Park Elementary School District 97. District 97 serves the Oak Park community by providing elementary school education to thousands of students in eight schools serving Kindergarten through Fifth Grade students and in two middle schools for Sixth through Eighth grade students. Plaintiffs bring this action because District 97, its Board, and its Superintendent have recently implemented wireless local area network technology in the classrooms. Specifically, the Defendants have installed wireless networks in each of the school buildings under its jurisdiction. In so doing, the Defendants have ignored the substantial body of evidence that high frequency electro-magnetic radiation poses substantial and serious health risks, particularly to growing children. The Defendants have thereby breached their duties of care to the children of District 97. 2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/101. All of the Defendants are residents of this county, and all of the acts giving rise to this cause of action occurred in this county. PARTIES 3. Plaintiffs are all minor children enrolled in the District 97 School System and they are all residents of Oak Park, Illinois. Guess they won't be riding to school in cars or busses, because of the EM fields caused by the rotating tires... > Phillipe2004 <phil2004@sprent.com> wrote in article > <phil2004-F140DB.04391607102003@news04.east.earthlink.net>: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > this seems > to be the first most people have heard of such evidence. ============================================================================ == > IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS > COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > [posted via phonescoop.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 > 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. > 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" >> What really hurts is that the relevant members of society >> (Judges/Juries/Lawyers, etc.) are very ill equipped to pick out the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pseudo science is "SprintPCS is getting better" I thought you sounded familiar. <plonk 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 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > this seems > > to be the first most people have heard of such evidence. Specifically, the story was about di-hydrogen monoxide. Scary stuff, no? It actually can kill people! ---JRC--- > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > everyone avoided everything that the studies told us to avoid we would > live in a white padded room with nothing to eat or drink. 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 > Specifically, the story was about di-hydrogen monoxide. > Scary stuff, no? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > everyone avoided everything that the studies told us to avoid we would > > live in a white padded room with nothing to eat or drink. > Yeah... drowning... severe steam burns... floods... dihydrogen > monoxide (or HOH) is pretty damn serious if you ask me! We should [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -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..... > Denial from the Sprint apologists who obfuscate and distort the study by > a disinterested Government group. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > likely worse over the long term. Would you stick your head in a > microwave oven? Have you ever noticed the door has to be closed before the oven will go on... it's probably to protect the type of twits that do these cellular studies. My questions is do you know how a microwave works, or are you just running your mouth off on a newsgroup? Let me point you towards the crucial difference. Compare the few milliwatt power output of a phone to the HUNDREDS (of) WATT output from a Microwave! Even then, the energy of each individual photon is not ionizing nor anywhere nearly strong enough to break a wimpy hydrogen bond. High wattage microwaves cause RF heating ("molecular friction" caused by rotation of dipoles... namely water) and the resulting thermal buildup is what does the trick as far as cooking food goes. Your phone exhibits this effect on a ultra teensy tiny scale, nowhere near enough to do any damage to human tissue (any excess heat (negligeable) is promptly and efficiently shuttled out by your extensive vascular network) The ONLY instance in which I have heard of RF radiation in this range causing damage was if you LOOKED at a DIRECTIONAL AMPLIFIED 2.4GHz beam (aplified Wifi with a cantenna, for instance). Your eye has a lot less net blood flow to deal with the heat buildup. BELIEVE ME! I'm really 100% OK with you not using a cell phone because you believe some pseudo-scientists who write a paper once in a while, and a media that goes crazy over such things... but please don't waste millions of this countries tax dollars on such quackery! -Tom PS. you should also avoid the sun... I can guarantee you that it's much more dangerous than any cellular phone yet to be made by man! The apologists are now apologizing for microwaves in general. > 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 > > X-No-Archive:Yes > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 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 OOPS! Correction below: > > > X-No-Archive:Yes > > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > jwill@AstraGate.net > John Michael Williams > X-No-Archive:Yes > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Hopper Careful. Expecting to see specifics in order to discuss something is considered unreasonable by at least poster over here in alt.cellular.sprintpcs.  Signature-+- RØß O/Siris I work for SprintPCS I *don't* speak for them. > X-No-Archive:Yes > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > complete lack of reference to any information about the study, short it > involving the Netherlands. It said lots of things that makes one want to take it seriously. It was a double blind study. Not a collection of anecdotal stories. It used lower levels of radiation such as might be received from a base station. > 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. It was conducted by angencies of the Dutch Government, likely to be unbiased. A 30 second Google search located http://www.tno.nl.homepage.html; with an email address of pressinfo@tno.nl Don't like the result, start nit-picking. And on no basis. > Hopper >It used lower levels of radiation such as might be received from > a base station. If you're a technician working on one, not if you're a civilian walking down the street. >If true the implications for the 2.1 GHz band are not good... >http://tinyurl.com/p873 1) GSM is pulsed. That may have an effect that non-pulsed modes may not have. 2) Most people never come close enough to an antenna to receive much radiation from a base station. > >If true the implications for the 2.1 GHz band are not good... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 2) Most people never come close enough to an antenna to receive much > radiation from a base station. The test was at that lower "base station" level. Read the link. >> >If true the implications for the 2.1 GHz band are not good... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >The test was at that lower "base station" level. Read the link. I read it. Most people don't get close enough to a base station antenna to receive any more radiation than they do with no base station in the area. Remember the inverse square law. > I read it. Most people don't get close enough to a base station > antenna to receive any more radiation than they do with no base > station in the area. Remember the inverse square law. Nice try. The study was conducted at the low levels people will receive. >> I read it. Most people don't get close enough to a base station >> antenna to receive any more radiation than they do with no base >> station in the area. Remember the inverse square law. >Nice try. The study was conducted at the low levels people will receive. Sorry, no. You're talking to someone trained as an RF engineer. The "low levels" are a few orders of magnitude lower than the levels they get from their handsets. They're lower than the radiation they get from a standing under a ringing door bell. >>>I read it. Most people don't get close enough to a base station >>>antenna to receive any more radiation than they do with no base [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > get from their handsets. They're lower than the radiation they get > from a standing under a ringing door bell. Medical College of Wisconsin - General Clinical Research Center http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop.html I found this site when selling my home. We had high tension wires in our back yard. One lady actually asked me if anyone on our street had gotten cancer. The power lines were atleast 300' from the house. I felt like saying, yea, there's a guy down the street with an arm growing out of his neck. I printed out the power line section and put it on the table next to the information pamphlet. 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. > Medical College of Wisconsin - General Clinical Research Center > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Read and learn. 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... -Tom >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. > 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 >> 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 Signature"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 >>> 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." >>>> Because science, even the simplest science, is a mystery to >>>> most people. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>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 Signature"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 >>"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. >> 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. >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. >>If true the implications for the 2.1 GHz band are not good... > >>http://tinyurl.com/p873 > >1) GSM is pulsed. That may have an effect that non-pulsed modes may >not have. This is wideband CDMA (W-CDMA), there's continuous emission from the base station. An interesting question for the Dutch testers, what happens if the radiation is only over 1.25 MHz instead of a 5 MHz bandwidth. Any difference in effect? (KDDI in Japan is offering cdma2000 1xEV-DO @ 2.1 GHz, but that's only 1.25 MHz in bandwidth.) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.