Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing microwavetechnology.

[Ext User(HeadRush)]

"lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:12snghh9avnmhb3@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.
>>>
>>
>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>
> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that
> I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically'
> impossible?

I get a "warm" ear when I use my DECT and GSM phone. But I don't think it's
caused by the radio waves, it's caused by the movement and pressure of the
phone rubbing against my ear and surrounds. The tell-tale sign that I've
been gas-bagging on the phone is my one glowing red ear.

I bet if you walked around with a TV remote control pressed against your ear
for 10 minutes you'd feel a heating sensation. Your head and ears have a lot
of nerves, blood vessels and pressure points that can trigger various
sensations. I know of a few tradesman who idiotically will not wear ear
protection because they get headaches from the pressure of the headband and
ear cups.

HR

[Ext User(lynx)]

HeadRush wrote:

> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12snghh9avnmhb3@news.supernews.com...
>
>>>>>
>>>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.
>>>>
>>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>>>
>> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that
>> I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically'
>> impossible?
>>
>
> I get a "warm" ear when I use my DECT and GSM phone. But I don't think it's
> caused by the radio waves, it's caused by the movement and pressure of the
> phone rubbing against my ear and surrounds. The tell-tale sign that I've
> been gas-bagging on the phone is my one glowing red ear.
>

I had considered that possibility. There are however two considerations.
One, I don't press the phone against my ear, I hold it very lightly, and
two, in my case the pain effect was in the area behind the ear and
extending into the cheek and jaw. I do experience the effect that you
describe when using a corded phone, but without the associated
discomfort of the surrounding area of the ear, and the headache. If I
have to use a mobile to my ear, I just turn the volume full on, and hold
it several centimetres away.

> I bet if you walked around with a TV remote control pressed against your ear
> for 10 minutes you'd feel a heating sensation. Your head and ears have a lot
> of nerves, blood vessels and pressure points that can trigger various
> sensations. I know of a few tradesman who idiotically will not wear ear
> protection because they get headaches from the pressure of the headband and
> ear cups.
>

Interesting.

> HR
>


--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I lose my weight, but it keeps finding me again!'

[Ext User(Mr.T)]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:45ca461f$0$16371$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> **Yep. The statistics show that smokers die earlier and by a range of
> interesting diseases.

Yep, and people smoking 200 years ago didn't know that. I wonder how many
would NOT have dismissed any risks?

>Asbestos has been a known carcinogen for at leat 100 years.

Yep, and people were still disputing it 40 years ago. Just like you are
doing now, they claimed there was no proof. At least none they would accept.
Fortunately James Hardie has now learnt an expensive lesson why that is not
necessarily the best policy.

>Despite several trials, there is no proven link between DECT 'phones
> and any harmful effects.

Ah, there's the rub, "several trials" do not PROVE a negative. Simply that
no one has conclusively proven the positive, YET.

> Trials need to be CAREFULLY performed. Anecdotes don't count.

Exactly, they don't prove anything is safe either, just because the dangers
are not yet understood (if indeed there are any)
A real scientist remains open minded when there is insufficient proof one
way or the other.

MrT.

[Ext User(Brendon)]

Dave wrote:
> Their DECT and WDECT phones
> do not constantly emit full power when on Standby, instead the base and
> handsets periodically poll for each other to make sure they are in
range,
> etc.

Relevant point: The base unit of DECT phones continuously transmit a
beacon signal. The interval varies depending on whether it's DECT or
WDECT from memory.

[Ext User(Mr.T)]

"Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
news:45cb99b2$0$9775$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz

And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would actually mean
*different* in most cases wouldn't it?

MrT.

[Ext User(Mr.T)]

"PeterD" <peter2@hipson.net> wrote in message
news:ovcms2henhbgohaa21ev9kso7ua4q44k4m@4ax.com...
> One doesn't get that much heat from a watt of power... Say the phone
> puts out 2 watts of power (I'd be surprised if it is even close to a
> watt, myself). Say 1 watt is absorbed by the head, over a hemisphere
> with a radius of 2 inches. That results in a volume of about 15 cubic
> inches.
>
> Now put a watt into 15 cubic inches of water, and what heating effects
> do you get? You can, I suppose, assume it is perfectly insulated, so
> there is no heat loss, but that's not going to be true. In fact, the
> head is liquid cooled (fairly efficiently at these rates), so maybe
> just take that 15 cubic inches of water and put it on a table.
>
> In the end, you'll notice no appreciable heat buildup in the water
> from that one watt of power.

And you KNOW that is the only POSSIBLE cause for ANY possible biological
effects, HOW exactly?

MrT.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
> PeterD wrote
>> lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
>>> PeterD wrote
>>>> imorf <imorf@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote
>>>>> PeterD wrote

>>>>>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
>>>>>> evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect,
>>>>>> and in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is
>>>>>> responsible for us!

>>>>> you see no difference between the natural background radiation &
>>>>> UV radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak
>>>>> but close range EM radiation?

>>>> If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing
>>>> and non-ionizing radiation... <g>

>>>> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
>>>> phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a
>>>> simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out
>>>> than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the
>>>> extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort and a three day
>>>> headache) would require many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100
>>>> watts (realize that over 50% would be lost since it is radiated
>>>> omnidirectionally.)

>>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.

>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?

> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that I and others experience
> when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically' impossible?

Your imagination. Same thing that produced sightings of unicorns,
leprechauns, yetis, werewolves, angels, gods, etc etc etc.

>> One doesn't get that much heat from a watt of power... Say the phone
>> puts out 2 watts of power (I'd be surprised if it is even close to a
>> watt, myself). Say 1 watt is absorbed by the head, over a hemisphere
>> with a radius of 2 inches. That results in a volume of about 15 cubic inches.

>> Now put a watt into 15 cubic inches of water, and what heating
>> effects do you get? You can, I suppose, assume it is perfectly
>> insulated, so there is no heat loss, but that's not going to be
>> true. In fact, the head is liquid cooled (fairly efficiently at
>> these rates), so maybe just take that 15 cubic inches of water and
>> put it on a table.

>> In the end, you'll notice no appreciable heat buildup in the water
>> from that one watt of power.

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:531rv7F1qpit5U1@mid.individual.net...
> Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
>>>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> When switching it off, the headache effect and
>>>>>> light headedness diminishes almost immediately.
>
>>> So it cant be due to the DECT phone.
>
>>>>>> (There are other effects that I'm reluctant to
>>>>>> mention for fear of being considered crazy!)
>
>>> Yeah, those voices in the head can be a tad of a giveaway.
>
>>>>> Rubbish, its just your psychologic condition
>
>>>> In your "well researched" opinion.
>
>>> Nope. No one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper
>>> double blind trial.
>
>>> No opinion involved what so ever.
>
>>>> Fact is that WDECT phones operate at much the same frequency as
>>>> microwave ovens, and DO emit radiation an inch or two from the brain.
>
>>> Pity no one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double
>>> blind trial.
>
>> Though I agree, where are the results of the trials that back up your
>> assertion?
>
> Even a stupid car crashing fuckwit should be able to do better than that
> pathetic effort, child.

Why the insult? So you have nothing to back up the assertion that no one
has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial?

It's a genuine question

[Ext User(Justin)]

"Clockmeister" <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote in message
news:12sogk7rhsmv6d2@corp.supernews.com...
|
| "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message

| >
| > Even a stupid car crashing fuckwit should be able to do better than that
| > pathetic effort, child.
|
| Why the insult? So you have nothing to back up the assertion that no one
| has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial?
|
| It's a genuine question
|
|
|
|


Because that's all our beloved Roddles knows, don't take it personally,
you're not alone...

[Ext User(lynx)]

Mr.T wrote:

> "Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
> news:45cb99b2$0$9775$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
>> 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz
>>
>
> And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would actually mean
> *different* in most cases wouldn't it?
>

And now 5.8 Ghz, which is what mine is.

> MrT.
>
>


--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I don't have a solution but I admire the problem'

[Ext User(HeadRush)]

"lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:12sonaqq0mc0va7@news.supernews.com...
> Mr.T wrote:
>
>> "Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
>> news:45cb99b2$0$9775$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>
>>> 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz
>>>
>>
>> And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would actually
>> mean
>> *different* in most cases wouldn't it?
>>
>
> And now 5.8 Ghz, which is what mine is.

If you have these concerns and have felt the symptoms with mobile phones,
why did you buy a 5.8GHz cordless phone?

HR

[Ext User(lynx)]

HeadRush wrote:

> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:12sonaqq0mc0va7@news.supernews.com...
>
>> Mr.T wrote:
>>
>>> "Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
>>> news:45cb99b2$0$9775$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>>
>>>> 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz
>>>>
>>> And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would actually
>>> mean *different* in most cases wouldn't it?
>>>
>> And now 5.8 Ghz, which is what mine is.
>>
>
> If you have these concerns and have felt the symptoms with mobile phones,
> why did you buy a 5.8GHz cordless phone?
>

Simply didn't occur to me that there could be a problem with it. I
didn't realise the similarities between DECT and mobiles, and had been
using an analogue cordless, although I have had some effect from that,
but only after about an hour or so. I really think the problem has to do
with digital technology and the frequency.

> HR
>
>


--

rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Proverb: A short sentence based on long experience'

[Ext User(John Fields)]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:51:30 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
>> PeterD wrote
>>> lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
>>>> PeterD wrote
>>>>> imorf <imorf@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> PeterD wrote
>
>>>>>>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
>>>>>>> evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect,
>>>>>>> and in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is
>>>>>>> responsible for us!
>
>>>>>> you see no difference between the natural background radiation &
>>>>>> UV radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak
>>>>>> but close range EM radiation?
>
>>>>> If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to ionizing
>>>>> and non-ionizing radiation... <g>
>
>>>>> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with the
>>>>> phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There is a
>>>>> simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more energy out
>>>>> than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his head' to the
>>>>> extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort and a three day
>>>>> headache) would require many watts of power, perhaps 50 to 100
>>>>> watts (realize that over 50% would be lost since it is radiated
>>>>> omnidirectionally.)
>
>>>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.
>
>>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>
>> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect that I and others experience
>> when using a mobile phone, if it's 'physically' impossible?
>
>Your imagination. Same thing that produced sightings of unicorns,
>leprechauns, yetis, werewolves, angels, gods, etc etc etc.

---
So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your
stance?


--
JF

[Ext User(PeterD)]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:37:03 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:

>PeterD wrote:
>

>>
>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>>
>
>I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
>that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
>'physically' impossible?
>

Other than it is immaginary? You've shown no proof of heating, only a
statement 'that I get heating'. That feeling of 'heating' could be
anything... What steps have you taken to measure the heating?

[Ext User(Nick)]

"Jim P Sharma" <jps@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:45ca6534$0$1155$61c65585@un-2park-reader->> You know, you really ought
to read a book, Mr. Speed. ;o)
>
> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, ****** child.

And yet you, apparently, can't.

Have to say, I agree with Jim and PeterD - you are, quite obviously, a 12
year old suffering from a lack of a decent upbringing. I think I'll
killfilter you as well.

I was going to say that you could always post something intelligent and
informative but then again - you can't, can you?

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:51:30 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
>>> PeterD wrote
>>>> lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote
>>>>> PeterD wrote
>>>>>> imorf <imorf@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> PeterD wrote
>>
>>>>>>>> Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first
>>>>>>>> evolved as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect,
>>>>>>>> and in fact that sea of radiation may well be what is
>>>>>>>> responsible for us!
>>
>>>>>>> you see no difference between the natural background radiation &
>>>>>>> UV radiation that we have evolved with, and modern man made weak
>>>>>>> but close range EM radiation?
>>
>>>>>> If you want to go there, we'll have to break this down to
>>>>>> ionizing and non-ionizing radiation... <g>
>>
>>>>>> I'm surprised that no one caught on the OP's comment that with
>>>>>> the phone near his head he felt considerable RF heating! There
>>>>>> is a simple matter of physics involved--you can't get more
>>>>>> energy out than you put in. The amount of power to 'heat his
>>>>>> head' to the extent he indicates (causing physical discomfort
>>>>>> and a three day headache) would require many watts of power,
>>>>>> perhaps 50 to 100 watts (realize that over 50% would be lost
>>>>>> since it is radiated omnidirectionally.)
>>
>>>>> What explanation do you have then? This is a known phenomenon.
>>
>>>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>>
>>> I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating
>>> effect that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if
>>> it's 'physically' impossible?
>>
>> Your imagination. Same thing that produced sightings of unicorns,
>> leprechauns, yetis, werewolves, angels, gods, etc etc etc.

> So you believe that in the absence of rigorous scientific evidence
> to the contrary, your opinion should be considered "The Truth" even
> though you have no rigorous scientific evidence to support your stance?

Yep, when its something as commonly used as mobile phones, it needs
rigorous scientific evidence to substantiate the claim of any health effect.
PARTICULARLY when its so completely trivial to do a proper double
blind trial on the stuff like headaches and lightheadedness etc.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Clockmeister <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
>>>>> Michael <michael@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>>>> When switching it off, the headache effect and
>>>>>>> light headedness diminishes almost immediately.

>>>> So it cant be due to the DECT phone.

>>>>>>> (There are other effects that I'm reluctant to
>>>>>>> mention for fear of being considered crazy!)

>>>> Yeah, those voices in the head can be a tad of a giveaway.

>>>>>> Rubbish, its just your psychologic condition

>>>>> In your "well researched" opinion.

>>>> Nope. No one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper double blind trial.

>>>> No opinion involved what so ever.

>>>>> Fact is that WDECT phones operate at much the same frequency as
>>>>> microwave ovens, and DO emit radiation an inch or two from the brain.

>>>> Pity no one has ever established ANY health effects with a proper
>>>> double blind trial.

>>> Though I agree, where are the results of the trials that back up
>>> your assertion?

>> Even a stupid car crashing fuckwit should be able to do better than
>> that pathetic effort, child.

> Why the insult?

No insult, just the facts, child.

> So you have nothing to back up the assertion that no one has ever established ANY health effects
> with a proper double blind trial?

It isnt an assertion, its a fact, child.

> It's a genuine question

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

No surprise that you only ever get to crash cars.

Lets go thru this very very slowly for those who are as thick as a brick.

If any health effect had been established using a proper double blind trial, the
results of that trial would be cited by those who claim that there are health effects.

They dont, so there arent any.

[Ext User(John Fields)]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:27:42 -0500, PeterD <peter2@hipson.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:37:03 +1100, lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>>PeterD wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> Like in a 700 watt microwave oven?
>>>
>>
>>I meant actually what explanation do you have for the heating effect
>>that I and others experience when using a mobile phone, if it's
>>'physically' impossible?
>>
>
>Other than it is immaginary? You've shown no proof of heating, only a
>statement 'that I get heating'. That feeling of 'heating' could be
>anything... What steps have you taken to measure the heating?

---
Whether he's taken any steps or not, it's entirely possible that he
could feel the heating just through absorption of the RF energy into
the skin and its transformation into heat, much like a cup of water
can be heated in a microwave oven because of the RF output from the
magnetron being converted into heat after being absorbed by the
water.

For example, let's assume that the phone is putting out an average
power of 3 watts, that it's resting against someone's ear, and that
the head the ear is attached to is an ellipsoid with equatorial
radii of 3.5" and a polar radius of 5.5".

If we further assume that the flesh affected by the RF signal covers
half the head, that it's 1/8" thick and that it's axis is normal to
the equator, then its volume will be:


V = V1 - V2, where:


4pi r1 r2 r3 12.56 * 3.5" * 3.5" * 5.5"
V1 = -------------- = ---------------------------- ~ 141"^3,
6 6



4pi r1 r2 r3 12.56 * 3.25" * 3.25" * 5.25"
V2 = -------------- = ------------------------------- ~ 116"^3,
6 6


so,


V = V1 - V2 = 141"^3 - 116"^3 = 25 cubic inches


Now, since that flesh is going to be 90% water, let's err on the
conservative side (more water means it takes more power to heat it
to a given temperatrure in a given time) and say it's _all_ water.

Further, since the phone's antenna puts out an omnidirectional
radiation pattern, let's say that half the power leaving the phone
will be absorbed by the 25 cubic inches of water. It won't be,
(look at the geometry) but again, we err on the side of caution.

Half of the phone's output power is 1.5 watts, which is about 5 BTU.

Salt water weighs about 64 pounds per cubic foot, and a cubic foot
is 1728 cubic inches, so our 25 cubic inches weighs:


25"^3
F = --------- * 64lb = 0.925lb
1728"^3


Therefore, since 1 BTU is the amount of power required to raise the
temperature of 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit in one hour, 5
BTUs will raise the temperature of 25 cubic inches of water 1F in 12
minutes, or about 0.1F per minute. Some people might be able to
detect that rate of rise in their skin temperature over ambient, and
remember that the power density won't be the same throughout the 25
cubic inches, so the temperature rise in the skin closest to the
antenna will be considerably greater than 0.1F per minute.


--
JF

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

lynx <none@nothere.com> wrote:
> HeadRush wrote:
>
>> "lynx" <none@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:12sonaqq0mc0va7@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Matt2 - Amstereo" <amstereo@ToptusDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
>>>> news:45cb99b2$0$9775$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>>>
>>>>> 1.8 - 1.9 Ghz in both cases, except when a gsm phone is on 900 Mhz
>>>>>
>>>> And the fact that WDECT is usually 2.4GHz. But then that would
>>>> actually mean *different* in most cases wouldn't it?
>>>>
>>> And now 5.8 Ghz, which is what mine is.
>>>
>>
>> If you have these concerns and have felt the symptoms with mobile
>> phones, why did you buy a 5.8GHz cordless phone?
>>
>
> Simply didn't occur to me that there could be a problem with it. I
> didn't realise the similarities between DECT and mobiles, and had been
> using an analogue cordless, although I have had some effect from that,
> but only after about an hour or so.

Nothing like what you said previously.

> I really think the problem has to do with digital technology

More fool you. Fools like you made the same stupid claims about AMPS mobile phones.

> and the frequency.

Easy to claim.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind Nick <nick@you.com>
wrote just the puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.