Do you let your kids use mobiles(cell phones)?

[Lord Nibbo]

perhaps this will make you think....

Three different languages all doing the same thing :shock:

http://www.vivre-a-chalon.com/print.php ... b734f79b00

 

[christoph clark]

Thats so cool. I'm going to try it tonight

 

[Blister]

Is that why my ear burns ? :lol:

 

[TrimTheKing]

That is quite frightening! And the authorities tell us that there is nothing to worry about.....

Mark

 

[davegw]

That is quite frightening! And the authorities tell us that there is nothing to worry about.....

Mark

Why is it frightening? do you often point three mobiles at your head for an extended period?

 

[Raggy]

Read this

 

[gidon]

http://www.cardowireless.com/buzz/

 

[TrimTheKing]

Why is it frightening? do you often point three mobiles at your head for an extended period?

Come on fella, that's a ridiculous thing to say. That was 3 mobiles for a maximum of 10 seconds to cause enough water agitation in the corn kernels to pop them. You are telling me that you never make 5, 10 or 15 minute calls on your single mobile, which would equate to much more exposure over the time period.

Microwaves work by agitating water molecules until they create massive heat by friction. Your body is around 80% water, so it's daft to think that it isn't doing some kind of damage to your ear/head/brain.

Just my opinion.

Mark

 

[TrimTheKing]

Read this

LOL, fair play

I do remember watching a program a while ago where they did a similar thing with 2 mobiles, one each side of an egg, and rang one from the other. They left them for about 10 mins and when they stopped and cracked the egg open it had started to cook.

Obviously I have no proof that it wasn't faked, but it was one of those kids sciency programs so I have no reason to see why they would have faked it.

Cheers

Mark

 

[davegw]

Just my opinion.

Mark

Which you are of course entitled to.

IMHO
The power given out by mobiles is dependant on several factors, not least of which is what they are doing at the time.

I'm not an expert but I would guess that the intensity of the recieved microwave energy is related to the pattern (i.e. three at 90 degrees to each other- taking note how carefully they arrange the phones in the videos) I believe that it's unlikely 1 mobile would be unable to create that pattern alone.

finally i'm fairly certain the phone companies have already been taken to court a couple of times in different countries and no case has been proven? if there has been a case can someone let me know - coul dhelp me through the credit crunch

 

[TrimTheKing]

I guess it is one of those things that we won't really know the full extent of for another 30-40 years or so.

By then we will probably have other stuff to worry about the way things are going at the moment....

:?

Cheers

Mark

 

[davegw]

By then we will probably have other stuff to worry about the way things are going at the moment....

:?

Cheers

Mark

True enough Mark, :roll:

Cheers

Dave

 

[brianhabby]

So, I suppose we are all waiting on christoph clark to tell us whether it worked or not.

regards

Brian

 

[Argee]

[rant]

Your body is around 80% water ...

The largest component of the body is water. Water makes up between 45 and 75% of body weight, with the variability due primarily to differences in body fat. While most tissues including muscle, skin, and visceral organs are over 70% water, adipose tissue contains less than 10% water. The percentage of body weight that is water therefore varies inversely with body fat. In the average lean adult male around 60% of the body weight is water.

... so it's daft to think that it isn't doing some kind of damage to your ear/head/brain.

Prior to the change-over of the emergency services' radio network from VHF/UHF to "Airwave" (essentially a better cellular telephone - actually another form of radio), vast amounts of research were done into both the network transmitter masts and the handsets themselves. The work was both international and globally-accepted by the services, but there's always someone who "has an opinion" to the contrary, usually gleaned from popular myth or sweeping generalisations. I'd prefer it so much if these "opinions" has some basis in fact. The facts won't change, even over 30 to 40 years.

Even currently-respected very famous people are guilty of gilding the lily on occasion. Remember David Attenborough kneeling down alongside a rare spieces of flower in a desert several years ago, saying that it had "evolved it's flower so that it looked exactly like the female of one specific wasp, the male of which it relied on totally for its pollenation"? I immediately wrote and asked the great man how the plant knew what the wasp looked like in the first place. My query was not acknowledged.

I accept that a co-incidental formation of a flower that did look like a wasp, was what kept the species of flower alive when other species around it perished. I do not appreciate other better-sounding "facts" being trotted out instead. You Tube is not a respected reference in any field I know of.

BTW, don't bother waiting for christoph clark to report - it will not work.

[/rant]

Ah, that feels better!

Ray.

 

[Digit]

We have something in common there Ray, I wrote to him once when he was pontificating about Pterosaurs being unable to fly.
I suggested that nature had not endowed one species with a forty foot wingspan then told to it walk. No reply to me either.

Roy.

 

[Anonymous]

[rant]
Prior to the change-over of the emergency services' radio network from VHF/UHF to "Airwave" (essentially a better cellular telephone - actually another form of radio), vast amounts of research were done into both the network transmitter masts and the handsets themselves. The work was both international and globally-accepted by the services, but there's always someone who "has an opinion" to the contrary, usually gleaned from popular myth or sweeping generalisations. I'd prefer it so much if these "opinions" has some basis in fact. The facts won't change, even over 30 to 40 years.
Ray.

No the facts won't change but, were the results of this research established as fact or were, as is usually the case, conclusions and assumptions made based on the results?

 

[davegw]

[rant]

Your body is around 80% water ...

The largest component of the body is water. Water makes up between 45 and 75% of body weight, with the variability due primarily to differences in body fat. While most tissues including muscle, skin, and visceral organs are over 70% water, adipose tissue contains less than 10% water. The percentage of body weight that is water therefore varies inversely with body fat. In the average lean adult male around 60% of the body weight is water.

... so it's daft to think that it isn't doing some kind of damage to your ear/head/brain.

Prior to the change-over of the emergency services' radio network from VHF/UHF to "Airwave" (essentially a better cellular telephone - actually another form of radio), vast amounts of research were done into both the network transmitter masts and the handsets themselves. The work was both international and globally-accepted by the services, but there's always someone who "has an opinion" to the contrary, usually gleaned from popular myth or sweeping generalisations. I'd prefer it so much if these "opinions" has some basis in fact. The facts won't change, even over 30 to 40 years.

Even currently-respected very famous people are guilty of gilding the lily on occasion. Remember David Attenborough kneeling down alongside a rare spieces of flower in a desert several years ago, saying that it had "evolved it's flower so that it looked exactly like the female of one specific wasp, the male of which it relied on totally for its pollenation"? I immediately wrote and asked the great man how the plant knew what the wasp looked like in the first place. My query was not acknowledged.

I accept that a co-incidental formation of a flower that did look like a wasp, was what kept the species of flower alive when other species around it perished. I do not appreciate other better-sounding "facts" being trotted out instead. You Tube is not a respected reference in any field I know of.

BTW, don't bother waiting for christoph clark to report - it will not work.

[/rant]

Ah, that feels better!

Ray.

Ray, whilst I agree with the premise of your post - Attenborough was describing the process of evolution - a fact that has now been demonstrated several times - the flower doesn't need to know what the wasp looks like because the wasp does

As to the flightless dinosaur, there are quite a few examples of evolution taken it too far, in the case of bird - emu and ostrich?

 

[Argee]

Ray, whilst I agree with the premise of your post - Attenborough was describing the process of evolution - a fact that has now been demonstrated several times - the flower doesn't need to know what the wasp looks like because the wasp does.

Exactly my point, Dave! The flower didn't evolve as he stated, rather the others were eliminated through lack of attention - evolution process.

Ray.

 

[davegw]

Ray, whilst I agree with the premise of your post - Attenborough was describing the process of evolution - a fact that has now been demonstrated several times - the flower doesn't need to know what the wasp looks like because the wasp does.

Exactly my point, Dave! The flower didn't evolve as he stated, rather the others were eliminated through lack of attention - evolution process.

Ray.

Ray,

The process of evolution happens to thing that survives (by definition), not the things that died - so the flower evolves?

Dave

 

[Argee]

The process of evolution happens to thing that survives (by definition), not the things that died - so the flower evolves?

Agreed, but the spin put on the story by D.A. was that the flower "evolved" to look like the wasp in order to survive, which could not have been the case.

Apologies for veering the thread off course.

Ray.