Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:52 AM Friday 6/30/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:20 PM Wednesday 6/28/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Klaus Stock wrote: What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? Gee. Smoking is harmful, alcolhol is harmful, cell phones are harmful... ...what will come next? Something really stupid like buring mineral oil products is harmful? Doing fun things with fire has the potential to be harmful, but the likelihood of harm isn't as high as you might think. (Even with a flamethrower.) And the potential for fun is usually judged to be greater than the potential for harm. Even if the judger is sober. -- Ronn! :) If you have a handle on basic fire safety, you're usually OK. Of the 500+ people I know were playing with fire last month, only one really got burned. You want a spotter with a wet towel around, and you want to be sure you're doing it in a space that is not, itself, going to combust. Once you have those covered, you're probably OK. I wouldn't mess with it drunk. And if I were doing anything with fire, I'd put my hair up and make sure my shirt were tight-fitting. Which in itself might cause a safety problem for some. -- Ronn! :) Trust me, if I'm playing with fire, I'm doing so in the presence of women who are hotter, pardon the pun, than I am. Really. Or not around anyone who'd find the tight shirt distracting. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:20 PM Wednesday 6/28/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Klaus Stock wrote: What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? Gee. Smoking is harmful, alcolhol is harmful, cell phones are harmful... ...what will come next? Something really stupid like buring mineral oil products is harmful? Doing fun things with fire has the potential to be harmful, but the likelihood of harm isn't as high as you might think. (Even with a flamethrower.) And the potential for fun is usually judged to be greater than the potential for harm. Even if the judger is sober. -- Ronn! :) If you have a handle on basic fire safety, you're usually OK. Of the 500+ people I know were playing with fire last month, only one really got burned. You want a spotter with a wet towel around, and you want to be sure you're doing it in a space that is not, itself, going to combust. Once you have those covered, you're probably OK. I wouldn't mess with it drunk. And if I were doing anything with fire, I'd put my hair up and make sure my shirt were tight-fitting. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:12 PM Wednesday 6/28/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: And what parts of the brain are used during conversation? Given many of the conversations I have witnessed and, yes, participated in, it would seem that the parts associated with cognition and higher brain functions are not necessary during conversation. Else foot-in-mouth disease would not be a pandemic . . . -- Ronn! :) :D Still, you need to use your brain for the motor control. There's a lot goes into speech production, and it's interesting what can go wrong where and what effect it has on speech. Julia Brains R Us ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
At 09:52 AM Friday 6/30/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:20 PM Wednesday 6/28/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Klaus Stock wrote: What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? Gee. Smoking is harmful, alcolhol is harmful, cell phones are harmful... ...what will come next? Something really stupid like buring mineral oil products is harmful? Doing fun things with fire has the potential to be harmful, but the likelihood of harm isn't as high as you might think. (Even with a flamethrower.) And the potential for fun is usually judged to be greater than the potential for harm. Even if the judger is sober. -- Ronn! :) If you have a handle on basic fire safety, you're usually OK. Of the 500+ people I know were playing with fire last month, only one really got burned. You want a spotter with a wet towel around, and you want to be sure you're doing it in a space that is not, itself, going to combust. Once you have those covered, you're probably OK. I wouldn't mess with it drunk. And if I were doing anything with fire, I'd put my hair up and make sure my shirt were tight-fitting. Which in itself might cause a safety problem for some. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: EM radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and physical trauma. Go lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll see. snippage ... I'm certainly far more worried about skin cancer than I am about brain tumours. Once again the key has to be whether the em radiation from cell phones is powerful enough to cause DNA damage in the brain. My point is that the brain is bathed in em all the time and unless the cell phones produce a different or more powerful type of radiation the brain should have no trouble dealing with this. By the way there is no evidence of increased cancer risks in adults who have undergone CT scan even multiple scans where the radiation exposure is orders of magnitudes greater than that from a cell phone. Even radiation therapy to the brain does not cause a significant increase in additional cancers... Fetal and childhood exposure is another matter, however. I have previously cited the small but detectable increase in leukemia with fetal exposure to imaging X-rays; here are a few more [note that theoretical risks are typically calculated, b/c one cannot deliberately irradiate a thousand pregnant women and follow the babies born]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmedcmd=Retrievedopt=Abstractlist_uids=16498123query_hl=2itool=pubmed_docsum ...CONCLUSION: Radiation doses to the fetus from institutional MDCT protocols that may be used during pregnancy (for pulmonary embolus, appendicitis, and renal colic) are below the level thought to induce neurologic detriment to the fetus. Imaging the mother for appendicitis theoretically may double the fetal risk for developing a childhood cancer. Radiation doses to the fetus from pulmonary embolus chest CT angiography are of the same magnitude as ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scanning. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmedcmd=Retrievedopt=Abstractlist_uids=11159059query_hl=8itool=pubmed_docsum ...CONCLUSION: The best available risk estimates suggest that pediatric CT will result in significantly increased lifetime radiation risk over adult CT, both because of the increased dose per milliampere-second, and the increased lifetime risk per unit dose. Lower milliampere-second settings can be used for children without significant loss of information. Although the risk-benefit balance is still strongly tilted toward benefit, because the frequency of pediatric CT examinations is rapidly increasing, estimates that quantitative lifetime radiation risks for children undergoing CT are not negligible may stimulate more active reduction of CT exposure settings in pediatric patients. WRT adults: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmedcmd=Retrievedopt=Abstractlist_uids=15128988query_hl=8itool=pubmed_docsum PURPOSE: To estimate the radiation-related lung cancer risks associated with annual low-dose computed tomographic (CT) lung screening in adult smokers and former smokers, and to establish a baseline risk that the potential benefits of such screening should exceed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The estimated lung radiation dose from low-dose CT lung examinations corresponds to a dose range for which there is direct evidence of increased cancer risk in atomic bomb survivors. Estimated dose-, sex-, and smoking status-dependent excess relative risks of lung cancer were derived from cancer incidence data for atomic bomb survivors and used to calculate the excess lung cancer risks associated with a single CT lung examination at a given age in a U.S. population. From these, the overall radiation risks associated with annual CT lung screening were estimated. RESULTS: A 50-year-old female smoker who undergoes annual CT lung screening until age 75 would incur an estimated radiation-related lung cancer risk of 0.85%, in addition to her otherwise expected lung cancer risk of approximately 17%. The radiation-associated cancer risk to other organs would be far lower. If 50% of all current and former smokers in the U.S. population aged 50-75 years received annual CT screening, the estimated number of lung cancers associated with radiation from screening would be approximately 36,000, a 1.8% (95% credibility interval: 0.5%, 5.5%) increase over the otherwise expected number. CONCLUSION: Given the estimated upper limit of a 5.5% increase in lung cancer risk attributable to annual CT-related radiation exposure, a mortality benefit of considerably more than 5% may be necessary to outweigh the potential radiation risks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmedcmd=Retrievedopt=Abstractlist_uids=1527query_hl=8itool=pubmed_docsum PURPOSE: To estimate the radiation-related cancer mortality risks associated with single or repeated full-body computed tomographic (CT) examinations by using standard radiation risk estimation methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The estimated dose to the lung or stomach from a single full-body CT
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
And what parts of the brain are used during conversation? I'd be wanting to know that before I drew any conclusions about anything. (Sorry if someone has already covered this, I'm way behind) Julia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the energy of the penetrating em signal and where the penetration occurs. The study does not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the brain; the TMS signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em signal may alter superficial processes such as blood flow. In any event the energy necessary to affect the electrical activity of neurons is very different than the energy necessary to induce cancer. The neurons are always exposed to chemical and em signals - EEGs are recordings of the electrical activity of the brain. These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers (come to think of it there would be no we all in any sense if low level em caused cancer). -Original Message- From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:28:15 -0600 Subject: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13550265/ Cell phone signal excites brain品s it harmful? Repeated exposure could have possible effect on certain people, study finds WASHINGTON - Cell phone emissions excite the part of the brain cortex nearest to the phone, but it is not clear if these effects are harmful, Italian researchers reported Monday. Their study, published in the Annals of Neurology, adds to a growing body of research about mobile phones, their possible effects on the brain, and whether there is any link to cancer. About 730 million cell phones are expected to be sold this year, according to industry estimates, and nearly 2 billion people around the world already use them. Of these, more than 500 million use a type that emits electromagnetic fields known as Global System for Mobile communications or GSM radio phones. Their possible effects on the brain are controversial and not well understood. Dr. Paolo Rossini of Fatebenefratelli hospital in Milan and colleagues used Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation or TMS to check brain function while people used these phones. They had 15 young male volunteers use a GSM 900 cell phone for 45 minutes. In 12 of the 15, the cells in the motor cortex adjacent to the cell phone showed excitability during phone use but returned to normal within an hour. The cortex is the outside layer of the brain and the motor cortex is known as the excitable area because magnetic stimulation has been shown to cause a muscle twitch. Mixed results The researchers stressed that they had not shown that using a cell phone is bad for the brain in any way, but people with conditions such as epilepsy, linked with brain cell excitability, could potentially be affected. It should be argued that long-lasting and repeated exposure to EMFs (electromagnetic frequencies) linked with intense use of cellular phones in daily life might be harmful or beneficial in brain-diseased subjects, they wrote. Further studies are needed to better circumstantiate these conditions and to provide safe rules for the use of this increasingly more widespread device. Medical studies on cell phone use have provided mixed results. Swedish researchers found last year that using cell phones over time can raise the risk of brain tumors. But a study by Japan's _four mobile telephone operators_ found no evidence that radio waves from the phones harmed cells or DNA. The Dutch Health Council analyzed several studies and found no evidence that radiation from mobile phones was harmful. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:49 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*. Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. Is it anything to worry about? Probably not, but keep phone use short anyway to be on the safe side. But is it more probable that you will die of a cell-phone-induced brain tumor or that you will have a wreck while gabbing on the cell phone while driving (or be run over by some idiot who is gabbing on the cell phone while driving) or that you will die of asphyxiation in a public place due to having your cell phone stuffed down your throat by someone who is sick and tired of the noise? Hang Up And Drive Already Maru -- Ronn! :) Number one would be the wreck, definitely. Not sure between the cancer and the asphyxiation. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
Klaus Stock wrote: What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? Gee. Smoking is harmful, alcolhol is harmful, cell phones are harmful... ...what will come next? Something really stupid like buring mineral oil products is harmful? Doing fun things with fire has the potential to be harmful, but the likelihood of harm isn't as high as you might think. (Even with a flamethrower.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
I do tech support on Blackberries. I get calls like that... Damon. --Original Message-- From: Ronn!Blankenship Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion ReplyTo: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Jun 27, 2006 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone At 01:05 PM Tuesday 6/27/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that jello immersion usually voids the warranty on your phone, and would not be eligible for a warranty exchange! :) You know this from experience? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:28 AM, The Fool wrote: What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? No one seriously has said so, to my knowledge. The 900 MHz signal is definitely powerful enough to radiate into tissue, but its signal falloff (inverse square law) is significant and most of its intensity drops to nil within about six inches of the antenna. That's at peak radiation levels -- when the phone is connecting to a network or receiving an incoming call. Standard transmission levels are low enough to be well within safety levels for wireless devices. Don't tweak a ham; we know this stuff. Cellular phones' radiation can and does penetrate the brain. What it doesn't do is cause cancer. If it was dangerous, you'd burn your fingers whenever you touched the antenna. Really. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
At 12:20 PM Wednesday 6/28/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Klaus Stock wrote: What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? Gee. Smoking is harmful, alcolhol is harmful, cell phones are harmful... ...what will come next? Something really stupid like buring mineral oil products is harmful? Doing fun things with fire has the potential to be harmful, but the likelihood of harm isn't as high as you might think. (Even with a flamethrower.) And the potential for fun is usually judged to be greater than the potential for harm. Even if the judger is sober. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
At 12:12 PM Wednesday 6/28/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: And what parts of the brain are used during conversation? Given many of the conversations I have witnessed and, yes, participated in, it would seem that the parts associated with cognition and higher brain functions are not necessary during conversation. Else foot-in-mouth disease would not be a pandemic . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/26/2006 3:45:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level. But the effect is completely different than the effect needed to produce cancer. Remember the brain produces em radiation and responds to it so there is no reason that the brain would not respond to an external source of em. I would propose another test. Yell really loud into someone's ear. This is a sound wave. Measure the electromagnetic response in the brain with an MR scan (actually you don't have to yell all that loud). The fact that sound causes a brain response would mean by this logic that sound can cause cancer. Please get me some earmuffs. Would earplugs work for you? You can get those at the drugstore year 'round. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On Jun 27, 2006, at 11:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship At 01:05 PM Tuesday 6/27/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that jello immersion usually voids the warranty on your phone, and would not be eligible for a warranty exchange! :) You know this from experience? I do tech support on Blackberries. I get calls like that... Ha! A Jello Blackberry surprise. Haven't tried that one yet. In my experience, Blackberries are practically indestructible. My old 6710 was dropped on concrete more times than I care to admit, and always came up smiling. A few months ago, I doused it with hot coffee (four-shot Americano, cream and one sugar). I very quickly removed the battery, then disassembled it (the Blackberry, not the battery) and soaked it in distilled water for an hour or two. I blew it dry with compressed air, reassembled it, and it worked just fine. Another time, I was at the park with my son, on the swings. I jumped off the swing and into the sand-pit, but on the way, my BBerry slipped out of its holster and ended up under my foot. It went face-down into the sand, and because Murphy was in effect, I landed right on it. My heel slid the battery door off and drove the whole thing a couple of inches into the sand. A little judicial use of dry air and some gentle tapping on a table-top to dislodge grains that got into the keyboard and it was almost as good as new. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/28/2006 1:13:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what parts of the brain are used during conversation? I'd be wanting to know that before I drew any conclusions about anything. (Sorry if someone has already covered this, I'm way behind) Language is predominantly controlled by two regions of the brain. Wernicke's area is in the parietal lobe (back half) near the primary auditory cortex (temporal lobes) is the region where language is understood. Broca's area is in the inferior frontal lobe (lateral part of the brain about in the middle). Broca's is more involved with speech generation. This is a simplified view of course. Damage to Wernicke's region leads to receptive aphasia (an inability to understand language - person can still speak but can't understand). Damage to Broca's area (much less common) leads to expressive aphasia - can understand but not speak. Several variants - Fluent aphasia: Can speak but what comes out is word salad; Non-fluent - patient can't speak. Language is localized mostly to the left hemisphere but it can be right sided in rare individuals and it is more or less bilateral in some individuals (women more than men). Of course this is very simplified. The prefrontal portions of the brain are where volition occurs and the medial temporal lobe is the locus for much memory. Damage to any of these areas can also effect speech. Individuals with Alzheimer's Disease develop transcortical aphasia due to severe diffuse brain damage (my dad is currently nearing the end of his life - His AD is so bad that he can neither speak or eat). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/28/2006 5:48:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would earplugs work for you? You can get those at the drugstore year 'round. anything to protect me from cancer. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
Note that jello immersion usually voids the warranty on your phone, and would not be eligible for a warranty exchange! :) Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Fool Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 5:08 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone I realize that you think that, but it raises an obvious question. What do you do when different studies produce different results? How do you think the results of the studies should be weighed against each other? First who funds the respective studies? OK, I'll agree that studies funded by someone with a clear financial interest, such as cell phone companies funding a cell phone safety study, are suspect. Studies funded by groups with political interests should also be taken with a grain of salt. Second, which study has a larger correlation? (Isn't that the n value?) I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If there isn't a correlation, then studies which show the largest correlations are the most wrong. Maybe you are talking about ones with the smallest backgrounds against which to measure results. Thus, looking at a subset of tumors that occur close to the cell phone's location would be a good idea. Third, size and time scale of the study. That's fine Fouth, additional related studies that show simmilar / dissimmilar findings. In the case of cell phones, there are a number of studies, by various groups, most of which do not show an effect. Indeed, the variation is larger than what expects from statistics. Methodology comes into question. The Swedish study which reported a large effect involved self selection because it was a mailed survey. This opens up the possibility of generating a false positive. Other long term studies did not have this methodology and did not report such a result. From the FDA, we have: quote Several studies have been recently published on the risk of long term cell phone use ( 10 years) and brain cancer1. The results reported by Hardell et al. are not in agreement with results obtained in other long term studies. Also, the use of mailed questionnaire for exposure assessment and lack of adjustments for possible confounding factors makes the Hardell et al. study design significantly different from other studies. These facts along with the lack of an established mechanism of action and absence of supporting animal data make it difficult to interpret Hardell et al. findings. end quote I've seen discussions of the problems with the methodology on websites from European researches that confirm this, so it's not just the FDA. Another point is how directly one can relate the results of a study to the question at hand. For example, simply because a rat fed with an amount of X equal to X times it's body weight develops problems doesn't mean that a human who eats 0.001 X it's body weight of the same substance will also develop problems. Or, we cannot assume, because blood cells on a slide exposed to a flux density of X coagulate, that a flux density of X/A in the brain will cause any problems. Not all molecules are stationary. Some are more fixed in place than others. Sure, a lattice structure, such as seen in salt, is much more fixed than water. But, there is thermal conductivity between the atoms in salt. The interactions on the molecular level are very fast, because they are very small. Transient cells and fluids would probably be less likely to have such localized heating. But, when we are talking about cells, we are talking about sizes many orders of magnitude greater than molecular sizes...a human cell's mass is ~ 2*10^-9 g, while a molecule of water's mass is ~ 3*10^-20 g. Not all molecular bonds are at angles that resonate well with those frequencies. The reason microwave ovens use those particular frequencies is because they tend to resonate the bonds of water molecules in particular. By superheated, I don't mean millions of degrees, but enough of a differential to have an effect (which could in fact be positive in some cases). I think your analysis is ignoring both scales and the Maxwell distribution of energies at a given temperature. At the molecular scale, water molecules collide many times a second. They don't have time to become significantly more energetic than their neighbors at a different angle before they interact. By significant, I mean noticeable compared with the normal distribution of energies of moleculesif the Maxwellean spread goes from 1 to 1.01, that's not noticeable. I'm doing just back of the envelope calculations, but I don't think it's even close to that large of a difference. Second if we consider molecules that are fixed, they are fixed only by their connection to a chain of molecules...which offers a means of transmitting energy. So, the idea of a superheated molecule is inconsistent with the basic physics of heating molecules. One way to look at this is to consider the temperature difference between adjacent molecules. Let's assume we
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
At 01:05 PM Tuesday 6/27/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that jello immersion usually voids the warranty on your phone, and would not be eligible for a warranty exchange! :) You know this from experience? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
I remember a similar argument with power lines. Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level. Last I heard, the argument was that some electric power lines, perhaps only poorly built ones, create corona discharges of a type that causes particles in the ambient air to coagulate into aerosols that poison a few humans. (I used the term ambient air, suggesting that it constituency might depend in part on what what was released into that air; the release could be a thousand kilometers away. The release may be human-made or it may be `natural' but geographically localized, as the `smoke' in the south eastern US Great Smokey Mountains, or it may be `natural' but not geographically localized. Also, the effect may be more pronounced downwind of the source, which is not necessary downwind of the average direction of the wind.) I have driven under many power lines over the past four decades; I only remember one that I could hear snapping when I was driving. It was loud! That clearly was a power line that wasted electricity. The effect, if there is one, may exist; but if it does exist, it is hidden in a low signal-to-noise ratio, sufficiently hidden that housing prices below power lines are not reduced (at least, that is what I remember reading once somewhere in a source that I have forgot, like the source about power lines' aerosol creation.) Has the aeosol argument been disposed of or is it now accepted or is it not discussed? I don't know. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
Well, I know from personal experience that sudden unplanned immersion in the commode voids the warranty on a PDA which was in your jeans pocket! Pat http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:27:15 -0500 At 01:05 PM Tuesday 6/27/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note that jello immersion usually voids the warranty on your phone, and would not be eligible for a warranty exchange! :) You know this from experience? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On I realize that you think that, but it raises an obvious question. What do you do when different studies produce different results? How do you think the results of the studies should be weighed against each other? First who funds the respective studies? OK, I'll agree that studies funded by someone with a clear financial interest, such as cell phone companies funding a cell phone safety study, are suspect. Studies funded by groups with political interests should also be taken with a grain of salt. Second, which study has a larger correlation? (Isn't that the n value?) I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If there isn't a correlation, then studies which show the largest correlations are the most wrong. Maybe you are talking about ones with the smallest backgrounds against which to measure results. Thus, looking at a subset of tumors that occur close to the cell phone's location would be a good idea. I think, I meant the p-value. Third, size and time scale of the study. That's fine Fouth, additional related studies that show simmilar / dissimmilar findings. In the case of cell phones, there are a number of studies, by various groups, most of which do not show an effect. Indeed, the variation is larger than what expects from statistics. Methodology comes into question. The Swedish study which reported a large effect involved self selection because it was a mailed survey. This opens up the possibility of generating a false positive. Other long term studies did not have this methodology and did not report such a result. From the FDA, we have: quote Several studies have been recently published on the risk of long term cell phone use ( 10 years) and brain cancer1. The results reported by Hardell et al. are not in agreement with results obtained in other long term studies. Also, the use of mailed questionnaire for exposure assessment and lack of adjustments for possible confounding factors makes the Hardell et al. study design significantly different from other studies. These facts along with the lack of an established mechanism of action and absence of supporting animal data make it difficult to interpret Hardell et al. findings. end quote I've seen discussions of the problems with the methodology on websites from European researches that confirm this, so it's not just the FDA. Another point is how directly one can relate the results of a study to the question at hand. For example, simply because a rat fed with an amount of X equal to X times it's body weight develops problems doesn't mean that a human who eats 0.001 X it's body weight of the same substance will also develop problems. Or, we cannot assume, because blood cells on a slide exposed to a flux density of X coagulate, that a flux density of X/A in the brain will cause any problems. I rember there being rat studies that showed the exact kind of effect as this study shows, but on rats. Doesn't that strengthen the results of this study? Also another study showed decreased sperm counts from hip cell phones: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/the_effect_of_porn_on_male_fer.ph p ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On 28/06/2006, at 2:09 AM, The Fool wrote: Also another study showed decreased sperm counts from hip cell phones: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/ the_effect_of_porn_on_male_fer.ph p I already mentioned it. It does not show decreased sperm counts from hip cell phones, it shows a correlation between hip or pocket phones and low sperm counts. That might sound like a trivial difference, but I think it could be argued that jeans wearers are more likely to use a hip holster or stick it in a pocket, whereas a suit wearer sticks the phone in the inside jacket pocket. The low sperm count is caused by the tight trousers, not the proximity of the phone. More tests required! Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13550265/ Cell phone signal excites brainis it harmful? Repeated exposure could have possible effect on certain people, study finds WASHINGTON - Cell phone emissions excite the part of the brain cortex nearest to the phone, but it is not clear if these effects are harmful, Italian researchers reported Monday. Their study, published in the Annals of Neurology, adds to a growing body of research about mobile phones, their possible effects on the brain, and whether there is any link to cancer. About 730 million cell phones are expected to be sold this year, according to industry estimates, and nearly 2 billion people around the world already use them. Of these, more than 500 million use a type that emits electromagnetic fields known as Global System for Mobile communications or GSM radio phones. Their possible effects on the brain are controversial and not well understood. Dr. Paolo Rossini of Fatebenefratelli hospital in Milan and colleagues used Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation or TMS to check brain function while people used these phones. They had 15 young male volunteers use a GSM 900 cell phone for 45 minutes. In 12 of the 15, the cells in the motor cortex adjacent to the cell phone showed excitability during phone use but returned to normal within an hour. The cortex is the outside layer of the brain and the motor cortex is known as the excitable area because magnetic stimulation has been shown to cause a muscle twitch. Mixed results The researchers stressed that they had not shown that using a cell phone is bad for the brain in any way, but people with conditions such as epilepsy, linked with brain cell excitability, could potentially be affected. It should be argued that long-lasting and repeated exposure to EMFs (electromagnetic frequencies) linked with intense use of cellular phones in daily life might be harmful or beneficial in brain-diseased subjects, they wrote. Further studies are needed to better circumstantiate these conditions and to provide safe rules for the use of this increasingly more widespread device. Medical studies on cell phone use have provided mixed results. Swedish researchers found last year that using cell phones over time can raise the risk of brain tumors. But a study by Japan's _four mobile telephone operators_ found no evidence that radio waves from the phones harmed cells or DNA. The Dutch Health Council analyzed several studies and found no evidence that radiation from mobile phones was harmful. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? Gee. Smoking is harmful, alcolhol is harmful, cell phones are harmful... ...what will come next? Something really stupid like buring mineral oil products is harmful? - Klaus _ This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the energy of the penetrating em signal and where the penetration occurs. The study does not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the brain; the TMS signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em signal may alter superficial processes such as blood flow. In any event the energy necessary to affect the electrical activity of neurons is very different than the energy necessary to induce cancer. The neurons are always exposed to chemical and em signals - EEGs are recordings of the electrical activity of the brain. These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers (come to think of it there would be no we all in any sense if low level em caused cancer). -Original Message- From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:28:15 -0600 Subject: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the skull again? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13550265/ Cell phone signal excites brain品s it harmful? Repeated exposure could have possible effect on certain people, study finds WASHINGTON - Cell phone emissions excite the part of the brain cortex nearest to the phone, but it is not clear if these effects are harmful, Italian researchers reported Monday. Their study, published in the Annals of Neurology, adds to a growing body of research about mobile phones, their possible effects on the brain, and whether there is any link to cancer. About 730 million cell phones are expected to be sold this year, according to industry estimates, and nearly 2 billion people around the world already use them. Of these, more than 500 million use a type that emits electromagnetic fields known as Global System for Mobile communications or GSM radio phones. Their possible effects on the brain are controversial and not well understood. Dr. Paolo Rossini of Fatebenefratelli hospital in Milan and colleagues used Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation or TMS to check brain function while people used these phones. They had 15 young male volunteers use a GSM 900 cell phone for 45 minutes. In 12 of the 15, the cells in the motor cortex adjacent to the cell phone showed excitability during phone use but returned to normal within an hour. The cortex is the outside layer of the brain and the motor cortex is known as the excitable area because magnetic stimulation has been shown to cause a muscle twitch. Mixed results The researchers stressed that they had not shown that using a cell phone is bad for the brain in any way, but people with conditions such as epilepsy, linked with brain cell excitability, could potentially be affected. It should be argued that long-lasting and repeated exposure to EMFs (electromagnetic frequencies) linked with intense use of cellular phones in daily life might be harmful or beneficial in brain-diseased subjects, they wrote. Further studies are needed to better circumstantiate these conditions and to provide safe rules for the use of this increasingly more widespread device. Medical studies on cell phone use have provided mixed results. Swedish researchers found last year that using cell phones over time can raise the risk of brain tumors. But a study by Japan's _four mobile telephone operators_ found no evidence that radio waves from the phones harmed cells or DNA. The Dutch Health Council analyzed several studies and found no evidence that radiation from mobile phones was harmful. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*. Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. Is it anything to worry about? Probably not, but keep phone use short anyway to be on the safe side. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On 26/06/2006, at 9:49 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers That's a classic straw man. Sorry, no it wasn't, but it's a logical fallacy of some sort - had a beer too many at the pub. :) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
At 01:49 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*. Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. Is it anything to worry about? Probably not, but keep phone use short anyway to be on the safe side. But is it more probable that you will die of a cell-phone-induced brain tumor or that you will have a wreck while gabbing on the cell phone while driving (or be run over by some idiot who is gabbing on the cell phone while driving) or that you will die of asphyxiation in a public place due to having your cell phone stuffed down your throat by someone who is sick and tired of the noise? Hang Up And Drive Already Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:49 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*. Actually, it's a first order approximationnot a straw man. First, we know that the rate of cancer caused by the EM fields within the brain is, at most, the total rate of brain cancer. I think Zimmy's point is that the exposure of the brain to EM from cell phones is a fraction of the exposure from within the brain itself. Part of this is the absorption in the skull, part of it is the good old fashion inverse square law. Local fields from synapse firing can be seen as strong fields over a very small volume. We know that we can pick up signals from inside the brain through our thick skulls with EEGs. Thus, Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Not ruled out, but a fairly low upper limit has been set. It has to be small enough to not be seen against a relatively low rate of primary brain tumors...7 to 10 per 100k. Further, if you look at penetrating power, these tumors should be relatively shallowwhich results in a further lowering of the backgroundsince only a subset of tumors are shallow...Zimmy can give some numbers on this, I'd bet. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. That's a true statement, but a tad misleading. Proponents of a mechanism need to demonstrate how low levels of RF signals cause cancer, while there is a significant upper limit on higher levels. I remember a similar argument with power lines. My friend, who had worked in RF modeling for over a decade at the time, pointed out that the fields that supposedly cause cancer are significantly smaller than fields that exist at the cellular levels in the body. And, since the energy is non-ionizing, comparison of fields strengths should be valid. Finally, if RF fields cause cancer, shouldn't we see a large increase in cancers caused by the use of NMR machines? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On 26/06/2006, at 10:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Actually, it's a first order approximationnot a straw man. That's the boy. Still fallacial. Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Not ruled out, but a fairly low upper limit has been set. Yep. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. That's a true statement, but a tad misleading. Proponents of a mechanism need to demonstrate how low levels of RF signals cause cancer, while there is a significant upper limit on higher levels. I remember a similar argument with power lines. Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level. My friend, who had worked in RF modeling for over a decade at the time, pointed out that the fields that supposedly cause cancer are significantly smaller than fields that exist at the cellular levels in the body. And, since the energy is non-ionizing, comparison of fields strengths should be valid. That's just it - it doesn't need to be ionising. Heat at very low levels can cause damage to cells - spot heating effects could cause denaturing of proteins. That's not to say they do at the frequencies that mobile phones emit, it' s conjecture. Finally, if RF fields cause cancer, shouldn't we see a large increase in cancers caused by the use of NMR machines? Dunno. Depends on the frequencies, doesn't it. A low-intesity field can have a strong effect if it hits transients and resonant frequencies of proteins or molecules. Recent studies did show correlation between a cell phone on the hip or in a trouser pocket and lowered sperm counts. Of course, correlation does not mean causation, but it's interesting anyway (and watching porn increases sperm production, so if you're trying for a kid, watch porn an hour or two before you plan to ejaculate...). Interesting that you saw fit to extensively fisk my post, but not the original article. For the record, I think that the risks of moderate mobile phone use have been shown to be negligable. I'm still open to the possibility that there may be an effect, but I'm not worried about it. As Rob rightly pointed out, mobile phone use leads to other risks far greater than the using of a phone itself. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the energy of the penetrating em signal and where the penetration occurs. The study does not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the brain; the TMS signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em signal may alter superficial processes such as blood flow. A study I posted to this list last year showed that red blood cells could probably clump together from cell phone radiation. Another study I posted showed damage to corneas from cell phone radiation, and one I posted a long time ago show a correlation between corneal cancers and cell phone radiation. So that is obviously something that has been repeatedly shown to occur. In any event the energy necessary to affect the electrical activity of neurons is very different than the energy necessary to induce cancer. The neurons are always exposed to chemical and em signals - EEGs are recordings of the electrical activity of the brain. These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers (come to think of it there would be no we all in any sense if low level em caused cancer). Individual molecules would resonate fairly well (cell phone use similar frequencies to microwaves). Wheras Dan has argued that in agregate the temperature change is small to negliable, I have argued that individual molecules may become super-heated and changed/damaged OR possibly change/damage other molecules / strucures / DNA. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 2:45 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone On 26/06/2006, at 10:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Actually, it's a first order approximationnot a straw man. That's the boy. Still fallacial. Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Not ruled out, but a fairly low upper limit has been set. Yep. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. That's a true statement, but a tad misleading. Proponents of a mechanism need to demonstrate how low levels of RF signals cause cancer, while there is a significant upper limit on higher levels. I remember a similar argument with power lines. Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level. The US national institute of health's website states at: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter5.html quote The predominant evaluations of the various health end-points covered in this report are 'limited' and 'inadequate' evidence. end quote That's about the state of things I remembered from when I talked to my friend...there were some studies that indicated some health effects. The problem with using these studies is that, in their compilation, erroneous statistical techniques were employed. In particular, subsets of cancers were used to find a signal...since there was no signal seen in the overall numbers. That, by itself, is OK, one just has to include the number of places one looks in calculating the chi-squared/DOF. This was not done. Further, compilations combined a + 2.5 sigma signal in cancer A in study 1, with a +2.2 sigma signal in cancer B in study 2, to arrive at a combined 3 sigma signalignoring the fact that study 1 showed a negative correlation with cancer B and study 2 showed a negative correlation with cancer A. The API did a study of the technique, and used the same technique to show that that power lines prevented cancersand sometimes the same cancers they causedfrom the same data. That's just it - it doesn't need to be ionising. Heat at very low levels can cause damage to cells - spot heating effects could cause denaturing of proteins. That's not to say they do at the frequencies that mobile phones emit, it' s conjecture. It's possible for spot heating to do this...but it does depend on the change in temperature. We do spot heating all the time. When we wash dishes in hot water, we do spot heating on our hands. I'd argue that, for a total 3 watt signal from a cell phone, the heating rate is rather low. Further, the heating should fall off as exp(-a*r)/r^2, where a is the attenuation coefficient in the head. Maybe Zimmy knows what the attenuation in the skull is. We can also assume that it's the attenuation that does the heating, so we could use similar numbers to look at the heating of the brain. How about this for a test? Put a cell phone next to a few cc's of water. Place a thermostat in the water. See how much it warms. This should be greater than the warming of any spot in the brain, unless one is wearing the wrong tin foil hat, causing a focus at one point. :-) Recent studies did show correlation between a cell phone on the hip or in a trouser pocket and lowered sperm counts. Of course, correlation does not mean causation, but it's interesting anyway (and watching porn increases sperm production, so if you're trying for a kid, watch porn an hour or two before you plan to ejaculate...). Interesting that you saw fit to extensively fisk my post, but not the original article. I thought about it, but Zimmy got to it first. Then, when you responded to him, I thought I'd give it a whirl. Also, I've had much more luck discussing science with you than I have discussing it with the Fool. He has a rather personalized technique for evaluating research. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Fool Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:56 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the energy of the penetrating em signal and where the penetration occurs. The study does not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the brain; the TMS signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em signal may alter superficial processes such as blood flow. A study I posted to this list last year showed that red blood cells could probably clump together from cell phone radiation. Another study I posted showed damage to corneas from cell phone radiation, and one I posted a long time ago show a correlation between corneal cancers and cell phone radiation. So that is obviously something that has been repeatedly shown to occur. I realize that you think that, but it raises an obvious question. What do you do when different studies produce different results? How do you think the results of the studies should be weighed against each other? Individual molecules would resonate fairly well (cell phone use similar frequencies to microwaves). Wheras Dan has argued that in agregate the temperature change is small to negliable, I have argued that individual molecules may become super-heated and changed/damaged OR possibly change/damage other molecules / strucures / DNA. I'd very much appreciate it if you'd walk through the physics to show how this is done. In particular, it would be worth showing how one molecule in a constant EM field (a darn good approximation when considering sizes comprising tens of thousands of molecules) becomes superheated, while its companions don't. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On 26/06/2006, at 11:28 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level. The US national institute of health's website states at: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter5.html quote The predominant evaluations of the various health end-points covered in this report are 'limited' and 'inadequate' evidence. end quote Fair enough. I was thinking of something from the Lancet a while ago, but ICBA to go look. It was very low level at best (worst). That's just it - it doesn't need to be ionising. Heat at very low levels can cause damage to cells - spot heating effects could cause denaturing of proteins. That's not to say they do at the frequencies that mobile phones emit, it' s conjecture. It's possible for spot heating to do this...but it does depend on the change in temperature. We do spot heating all the time. When we wash dishes in hot water, we do spot heating on our hands. I'd argue that, for a total 3 watt signal from a cell phone, the heating rate is rather low. Sure. It's like microwave ovens though - the heating is not at all uniform. Further, the heating should fall off as exp(-a*r)/r^2, where a is the attenuation coefficient in the head. Maybe Zimmy knows what the attenuation in the skull is. We can also assume that it's the attenuation that does the heating, so we could use similar numbers to look at the heating of the brain. How about this for a test? Put a cell phone next to a few cc's of water. Place a thermostat in the water. See how much it warms. This should be greater than the warming of any spot in the brain, unless one is wearing the wrong tin foil hat, causing a focus at one point. :-) I'd use jelly (jello to you), which melts about the same temperature as protein denaturing (50 degrees) and see if there's localised effects, convection in water would negate those. Or better, use a jelly with a protein (say egg albumin) in, and another with a specific nucleic acids in, with some sort of marker, and see both if phones can cause spot damage, and what frequency and power *does* cause damage (obviously, somewhere between a phone and a microwave oven there's a danger line...). Recent studies did show correlation between a cell phone on the hip or in a trouser pocket and lowered sperm counts. Of course, correlation does not mean causation, but it's interesting anyway (and watching porn increases sperm production, so if you're trying for a kid, watch porn an hour or two before you plan to ejaculate...). Interesting that you saw fit to extensively fisk my post, but not the original article. I thought about it, but Zimmy got to it first. Then, when you responded to him, I thought I'd give it a whirl. Also, I've had much more luck discussing science with you than I have discussing it with the Fool. Maybe because I've got formal science training... He has a rather personalized technique for evaluating research. He does indeed. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:46 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone Also, I've had much more luck discussing science with you than I have discussing it with the Fool. Maybe because I've got formal science training... I've seen that correlation before. Maybe we're on to something and could publish a paper on the possibility of causation between formal science training and understanding science. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll let you be first author. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On 26/06/2006, at 11:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Also, I've had much more luck discussing science with you than I have discussing it with the Fool. Maybe because I've got formal science training... I've seen that correlation before. Maybe we're on to something and could publish a paper on the possibility of causation between formal science training and understanding science. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll let you be first author. :-) More interesting, the link between lack of formal science training (or even a decent schooling in science) and tendency to believe crank stuff (homeopathy and other altie medicine, free energy, ufos, occult, etc). It seems trivial that people who study science tend to get science. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the energy of the penetrating em signal and where the penetration occurs. The study does not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the brain; the TMS signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em signal may alter superficial processes such as blood flow. A study I posted to this list last year showed that red blood cells could probably clump together from cell phone radiation. Another study I posted showed damage to corneas from cell phone radiation, and one I posted a long time ago show a correlation between corneal cancers and cell phone radiation. So that is obviously something that has been repeatedly shown to occur. I realize that you think that, but it raises an obvious question. What do you do when different studies produce different results? How do you think the results of the studies should be weighed against each other? First who funds the respective studies? Second, which study has a larger correlation? (Isn't that the n value?) Third, size and time scale of the study. Fouth, additional related studies that show simmilar / dissimmilar findings. Individual molecules would resonate fairly well (cell phone use similar frequencies to microwaves). Wheras Dan has argued that in agregate the temperature change is small to negliable, I have argued that individual molecules may become super-heated and changed/damaged OR possibly change/damage other molecules / strucures / DNA. I'd very much appreciate it if you'd walk through the physics to show how this is done. In particular, it would be worth showing how one molecule in a constant EM field (a darn good approximation when considering sizes comprising tens of thousands of molecules) becomes superheated, while its companions don't. Not all molecules are stationary. Some are more fixed in place than others. Transient cells and fluids would probably be less likely to have such localized heating. Not all molecular bonds are at angles that resonate well with those frequencies. The reason microwave ovens use those particular frequencies is because they tend to resonate the bonds of water molecules in particular. By superheated, I don't mean millions of degrees, but enough of a differential to have an effect (which could in fact be positive in some cases). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
-Original Message- From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:10:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone At 01:49 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*. My point was that brain cells are subject to em effects all of the time. They live in a sea of em for their entire existence. If em radiation could cause DNA damage and cancer then these cells could simply not survive and neither could we; in fact we could never have evolved in the first place. Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. Is it anything to worry about? Probably not, but keep phone use short anyway to be on the safe side. But is it more probable that you will die of a cell-phone-induced brain tumor or that you will have a wreck while gabbing on the cell phone while driving (or be run over by some idiot who is gabbing on the cell phone while driving) or that you will die of asphyxiation in a public place due to having your cell phone stuffed down your throat by someone who is sick and tired of the noise? Hang Up And Drive Already Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*. My point was that brain cells are subject to em effects all of the time. They live in a sea of em for their entire existence. If em radiation could cause DNA damage and cancer then these cells could simply not survive and neither could we; in fact we could never have evolved in the first place. EM radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and physical trauma. Go lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll see. It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more worried about skin cancer than I am about brain tumours. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
At 04:55 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*. My point was that brain cells are subject to em effects all of the time. They live in a sea of em for their entire existence. If em radiation could cause DNA damage and cancer then these cells could simply not survive and neither could we; in fact we could never have evolved in the first place. EM radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and physical trauma. Go lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll see. It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more worried about skin cancer From your cell phone? than I am about brain tumours. Charlie -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On 27/06/2006, at 12:59 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more worried about skin cancer From your cell phone? No. From sunlight. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
At 05:01 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 27/06/2006, at 12:59 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more worried about skin cancer From your cell phone? No. From sunlight. Simple fix: Only use your phone at night. Besides, the rates are lower. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On 27/06/2006, at 1:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Simple fix: Only use your phone at night. Besides, the rates are lower. I'm in Cyprus. It's a pound an hour or something stupidly cheap like that. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
At 05:05 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 27/06/2006, at 1:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Simple fix: Only use your phone at night. Besides, the rates are lower. I'm in Cyprus. It's a pound an hour or something stupidly cheap like that. Would that the gym could promise rates like that . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
On 27/06/2006, at 1:08 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:05 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 27/06/2006, at 1:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Simple fix: Only use your phone at night. Besides, the rates are lower. I'm in Cyprus. It's a pound an hour or something stupidly cheap like that. Would that the gym could promise rates like that . . . Get on your bike. It's free. ;) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
One pound per minute (was: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone)
Ronn!Blankenship ]At 05:05 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: ] ]On 27/06/2006, at 1:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: ] ] ]Simple fix: Only use your phone at night. Besides, the rates are ]lower. ] ]I'm in Cyprus. It's a pound an hour or something stupidly cheap like ]that. ] ] ]Would that the gym could promise rates like that . . . They could only deliver by resorting to surgical methods. For Fight Club fans, whatever you do, don't buy that special soap at the department store... -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/26/2006 3:16:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, it's a first order approximationnot a straw man. First, we know that the rate of cancer caused by the EM fields within the brain is, at most, the total rate of brain cancer. I think Zimmy's point is that the exposure of the brain to EM from cell phones is a fraction of the exposure from within the brain itself. Part of this is the absorption in the skull, part of it is the good old fashion inverse square law. Local fields from synapse firing can be seen as strong fields over a very small volume. We know that we can pick up signals from inside the brain through our thick skulls with EEGs. Thus, Yes that is it Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? Not yet. Not ruled out, but a fairly low upper limit has been set. It has to be small enough to not be seen against a relatively low rate of primary brain tumors...7 to 10 per 100k. Further, if you look at penetrating power, these tumors should be relatively shallowwhich results in a further lowering of the backgroundsince only a subset of tumors are shallow...Zimmy can give some numbers on this, I'd bet. Primary brain tumors typically arise from the white matter that is not the superficial part of the brain. Some tumors are superficial; benign tumors - meningiomas arise from the linings of the brain. There is an increased incidence of meningiomas in individuals who have been previously irradiated. For instance in the mid 20th century in Europe lice infestations were treated with radiation (really). So we used to see an unusually high number of meningiomas in old polish immigrants. Otherwise I know of no predilection for brain tumor that is not based on the histologic tumor type. (Certain types of cells are more common in different parts of the brain so it is not surprising that the tumors that arise from these cells are common where the cells reside. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. That's a true statement, but a tad misleading. Proponents of a mechanism need to demonstrate how low levels of RF signals cause cancer, while there is a significant upper limit on higher levels. I remember a similar argument with power lines. My friend, who had worked in RF modeling for over a decade at the time, pointed out that the fields that supposedly cause cancer are significantly smaller than fields that exist at the cellular levels in the body. And, since the energy is non-ionizing, comparison of fields strengths should be valid. Finally, if RF fields cause cancer, shouldn't we see a large increase in cancers caused by the use of NMR machines? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/26/2006 3:45:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level. But the effect is completely different than the effect needed to produce cancer. Remember the brain produces em radiation and responds to it so there is no reason that the brain would not respond to an external source of em. I would propose another test. Yell really loud into someone's ear. This is a sound wave. Measure the electromagnetic response in the brain with an MR scan (actually you don't have to yell all that loud). The fact that sound causes a brain response would mean by this logic that sound can cause cancer. Please get me some earmuffs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
In a message dated 6/26/2006 5:56:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: EM radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and physical trauma. Go lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll see. It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more worried about skin cancer than I am about brain tumours. Once again the key has to be whether the em radiation from cell phones is powerful enough to cause DNA damage in the brain. My point is that the brain is bathed in em all the time and unless the cell phones produce a different or more powerful type of radiation the brain should have no trouble dealing with this. By the way there is no evidence of increased cancer risks in adults who have undergone CT scan even multiple scans where the radiation exposure is orders of magnitudes greater than that from a cell phone. Even radiation therapy to the brain does not cause a significant increase in additional cancers. Radiation at therapeutic doses is bad. it damages the blood vessels in the brain and leads to chronic ischemia but not to an increase in second primary tumors. By the way the reason that exposure to the sun leads to increase in cancer is not as far as I understand directly due to direct damage to DNA. Rather the sun causes tissue damage and the response to this damage is cellular proliferation. Proliferating cells are much more likely to undergo mutations leading to cancer. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
