> -----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 approximation....not 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 signal....ignoring 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 cancers....and sometimes the same cancers they
caused....from 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

Reply via email to