Microwaving children

I became concerned about the dangers of cell phones when that industry
appeared to hire the Junk Science Propagandists to defend their
corporate science several years ago.

This is the same Disinformation Service the silicone industry and the
dioxin industry hired to turn real science into "junk" and call
industry "science" sound.

Since then ... I use cell phones only for the quickest of communiques
.... and recommend others I love do the same.

in brief--towards people, obviously. I am touched you have such faith in
them giving a toss, especially when they put them next to schools, and even
on top of schools

"CWatters" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...

"D. C. Sessions" wrote in message
...

What direction are cell phone panels pointing and radiating then?

It depends on where the mast is and the area the company needs that mast
to
cover. If you had a mast in the middle of a circular village then it might
need to radiate in all directions. If the mast was on the edge of the
village the signal might need to be stronger on one side. A mast next to a
freeway in the middle of a huge desert would be designed to radiate
radiate
in the two directions of the freeway on;y - no point in providing coverage
in other directions! That's all a gross simplification but you get the
idea.

In article ,
john wrote:
in brief--towards people, obviously. I am touched you have such faith in
them giving a toss, especially when they put them next to schools, and even
on top of schools

Of course, Dimwit John is oblivious to the idea that those putting up
the masts might well have children in the school, and may well be
users of the system. However, John thinks that cell phones are
involved in mind control. I'm not sure why this bothers him so much,
as he's perfectly safe, having no mind.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)






"CWatters" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...

"D. C. Sessions" wrote in message
...

What direction are cell phone panels pointing and radiating then?

It depends on where the mast is and the area the company needs that mast
to
cover. If you had a mast in the middle of a circular village then it might
need to radiate in all directions. If the mast was on the edge of the
village the signal might need to be stronger on one side. A mast next to a
freeway in the middle of a huge desert would be designed to radiate
radiate
in the two directions of the freeway on;y - no point in providing coverage
in other directions! That's all a gross simplification but you get the
idea.

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...

Since then ... I use cell phones only for the quickest of communiques
... and recommend others I love do the same.

Out of interest do you leave your phone switched on between making calls?

"CWatters" wrote in message
...

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...

Since then ... I use cell phones only for the quickest of communiques
... and recommend others I love do the same.

Out of interest do you leave your phone switched on between making calls?

You are bad...

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.whale.to/a/micro_children.h
Thanks for the laugh.

Actually, if the cell phone towers were a threat to kids, being under a
mast
would be the place to be. The radio signals are directed outward, and not
down. So there is almost no microwave energy reaching the poeple near the
towers.

The radio waves disperse in a 'cone' shape, so you are right in that sense
that standing right under the tower in theory would give the lowest
exposure.
You try taking a meter and measuring the field intensity as you walk along
the ground plane and you will find that it peaks close to the transmitter
then falls off, then peaks again. A kids playground might be inside these
peaks or houses or whatever.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/oran...sestations.htm

Of course, there is also no danger from the cell phone towers at all.

So we are told.

But, this lack of understanding of the technology and science involved is
consistant with the whaleto site, which is the laughing stock of the
internet. Clearly, the author has no clue about what he says or science or
medicine. No wonder she is too ashamed to put her name on it.

jeff

Anth

In article , "Anth"
wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.whale.to/a/micro_children.h
Thanks for the laugh.

Actually, if the cell phone towers were a threat to kids, being under a
mast
would be the place to be. The radio signals are directed outward, and not
down. So there is almost no microwave energy reaching the poeple near the
towers.

The radio waves disperse in a 'cone' shape, so you are right in that sense
that standing right under the tower in theory would give the lowest
exposure.
You try taking a meter and measuring the field intensity as you walk along
the ground plane and you will find that it peaks close to the transmitter
then falls off, then peaks again. A kids playground might be inside these
peaks or houses or whatever.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/oran...sestations.htm

Of course, there is also no danger from the cell phone towers at all.

So we are told.

But, this lack of understanding of the technology and science involved is
consistant with the whaleto site, which is the laughing stock of the
internet. Clearly, the author has no clue about what he says or science or
medicine. No wonder she is too ashamed to put her name on it.

jeff

Anth

Radio waves propagate in a circular fashion and fall off as the inverse
square of the distance from the source. That means 100 ft from the
source the RF is 1/100(squared) less or 1/10000 less at that distance.
to your notion of "peaks" those can easily be caused by interference,
sort of like when you were a kid and threw two stones in a calm pond.
The waves from both collide and in one place add to each other and
others, totally cancel out. It's just the laws of physics at work.

However, Cell towers have some 500 watts input to each antenna on the
mast. I wouldn't want kids within some 150-200 ft from them either.
There is some emperical evidence that RF from cell towers and phones
causes changes in the blood brain barrier. That said while there are
lots of studies, none replicate the results of any other so things, at
present, are unproven. And please don't talk about the salford study
which is flawed.

What it means is that more scientific study by independent researchers
is needed, that is not funded by any industry.

--
Thanks,
Ham

"Bob Brogan" wrote in message
...
In article , "Anth"
wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"john" wrote in message
...
http://www.whale.to/a/micro_children.h
Thanks for the laugh.

Actually, if the cell phone towers were a threat to kids, being under a
mast
would be the place to be. The radio signals are directed outward, and
not
down. So there is almost no microwave energy reaching the poeple near
the
towers.

The radio waves disperse in a 'cone' shape, so you are right in that
sense
that standing right under the tower in theory would give the lowest
exposure.
You try taking a meter and measuring the field intensity as you walk
along
the ground plane and you will find that it peaks close to the transmitter
then falls off, then peaks again. A kids playground might be inside these
peaks or houses or whatever.
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/oran...sestations.htm

Of course, there is also no danger from the cell phone towers at all.

So we are told.

But, this lack of understanding of the technology and science involved
is
consistant with the whaleto site, which is the laughing stock of the
internet. Clearly, the author has no clue about what he says or science
or
medicine. No wonder she is too ashamed to put her name on it.

jeff

Anth

Radio waves propagate in a circular fashion and fall off as the inverse
square of the distance from the source.

This is true, however you rarely have one source, usually it's an antenna
array, so the k/d^2 law applies loosely here as illustrated in the diagrams
I posted.. Also with additive ray interference you could 'troughs and
peaks'.

That means 100 ft from the source the RF is 1/100(squared) less or 1/10000
less at that distance.
to your notion of "peaks" those can easily be caused by interference,
sort of like when you were a kid and threw two stones in a calm pond.
The waves from both collide and in one place add to each other and
others, totally cancel out. It's just the laws of physics at work.

However, Cell towers have some 500 watts input to each antenna on the
mast. I wouldn't want kids within some 150-200 ft from them either.
There is some emperical evidence that RF from cell towers and phones
causes changes in the blood brain barrier. That said while there are
lots of studies, none replicate the results of any other so things, at
present, are unproven. And please don't talk about the salford study
which is flawed.

The article I posted there was references to possible health effects from EM
masts.
I find it interesting that there's articles on the effects of EM radiation
on nematode worms; the information is posted in a positive manner - it makes
them reproduce quicker, on the other hand the not so positive information
doesn't get such a favourable news slice..

What it means is that more scientific study by independent researchers is
needed, that is not funded by any industry.

Yup.

--
Thanks,
Ham

Would you not say the arguments posted here are an over simplification on
what happens in the real world?
(I see arguments for the k/d^2 rule when in fact this doesn't generally
apply.)

Anth

"Bob Brogan" wrote in message
...
(...)


Radio waves propagate in a circular fashion

Yes. And to be in this circle, you have to use a ladder. A big latter. The
energy is not dspersed with the same energy in all directions. More energy
is directed outward than downward.

There are also scrict limits on the strength of the signal on the ground.

http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#8