> 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
