| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 125998 | 2012-08-01 02:32:00 | Smartphone Radiation? | Geek4414 (12000) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1292054 | 2012-08-02 12:14:00 | I have to agree with Erayd that the thermographic jpeg posted is misleading. The left half tosses in the word "harmful" in a very unnecessary and unscientific manner. The second one doesn't subtract the natural heating from the DC current powering the phone, let alone the heating from preventing the skin from shedding blood heat. The author wants us to believe it's all caused by RF Surely the sun is a worse candidate. Think of the thermal gradient from having the sun on one side of your face. If the sun causes 1 kW per sq-m, a 100mm square of face would intercept 10 watts? Two points: (1) There are sham thermographs from people wishing to sell plastic patches to glue on phones, and then there are the genuine thermographs that show internal heating in the brain. You can find genuine examples of the latter if you look for them. (2) You make Erayd's mistake of confusing thermal radiation with RF (Microwave) radiation (despite his protestations). The deeper warming occurs internally due to RF heating and is not conducted in from the surface skin. Temperature is not the primary problem, that is mainly an indicator, it is the excitation of brain tissue by the microwave radiation that is the key issue. Sunstroke, however, is thermal energy conducted from the outside in, and that is why it takes time to take effect and is so dangerous once it has reached that point and the brain is overheated, causing sunstroke. Desert dwellers know to protect their head and body from thermal radiation and only mad dogs and englishmen go out in the midday sun! I've already pointed out that there is virtually zero heating from the dc current powering the phone, though a prolonged call in a poor signal area might see the battery warm up a little, but that is at the back of the phone, not the front, so it would warm your hand not your head. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 1292055 | 2012-08-02 12:40:00 | As for Erayd's piece by piece dissection, which I have just seen, best you read my background in radio frequency matters before you try to dissect my comments. I wrote in a form suitable for laypersons, but the same message can be translated to a full technical description without difficulty.This is a complete cop-out on your part, and implies that I should simply take it on faith that you're correct. If your response to my post is simply "trust me, I'm an expert" (which is exactly what your statement above implies), all this means is that you're refusing to engage with the facts. I don't doubt your background, but I also refuse to simply take your word for it - I would prefer to see the facts for myself, so I can logically evaluate them within the context of what I already know. Your opinion on its own doesn't hold much weight. You have publicly challenged me, have said that I am several fathoms out of my depth, and have implied that something in one or more of my posts in this thread is factually incorrect. You have also misinterpreted one of my points (if you re-read it you'll find it's fairly unambiguously phrased), and informed me that I am confused. After I replied asking you where I was wrong, you completely avoided the question and simply said, "trust me". I have no issue with being called out - if I am wrong, then I would definitely prefer to know that I am wrong, and correct whatever erroneous belief I may happen to hold - however if you're going to do so, then you'll need to be specific.. Noting the above, I think it's fairly reasonable to expect a factual reply from you rather than simply being dismissed out of hand. If you want to challenge me in public, then be prepared to back up your position with salient facts. To do otherwise does not reflect well on you. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 1292056 | 2012-08-02 22:29:00 | You make some good points BillyT. I guess my main objection is people's wild statements over the years Actually, you could be accused of falling into that trap yourself :) - a vague association between cellphone purveyors and cigarette barons. Your argument amounts to saying that Witness A is lying therefore we can't trust Witness B To me, the cellphone-causes-cancer crusade has a lot in common with US Christians saying that the world is 6000 years old. When confronted with evidence against it, the Christians come up with designed-for-the-purpose arguments in favour of their position. eg, if the light reaching us from distant stars started its journey millions of years ago, the Christians say that God created the world 6000 years ago but with light already on its way! ("Designed-for-the-purpose" means that truth is not the object, rescuing a favoured position is) In a similar way, when the anti-cellphone brigade is confronted by "absence of mechanism" they came up with heating. When people raise the objection "what about natural heating" they respond with "thermal gradient". When confronted by natural thermal gradient, they respond by "Ah yes, but it's the unnatural way the thermal gradient is generated!" and so on It would be alright to argue that way if everyone could see that cellphones cause cancer and we were desperate to find a mechanism. But that is not the case. The overwhelming evidence is that cellphones are not a huge hazard |
BBCmicro (15761) | ||
| 1292057 | 2012-08-02 22:46:00 | You make some good points BillyT . I guess my main objection is people's wild statements over the years Actually, you could be accused of falling into that trap yourself :) - a vague association between cellphone purveyors and cigarette barons . Your argument amounts to saying that Witness A is lying therefore we can't trust Witness B To me, the cellphone-causes-cancer crusade has a lot in common with US Christians saying that the world is 6000 years old . When confronted with evidence against it, the Christians come up with designed-for-the-purpose arguments in favour of their position . eg, if the light reaching us from distant stars started its journey millions of years ago, the Christians say that God created the world 6000 years ago but with light already on its way! ("Designed-for-the-purpose" means that truth is not the object, rescuing a favoured position is) In a similar way, when the anti-cellphone brigade is confronted by "absence of mechanism" they came up with heating . When people raise the objection "what about natural heating" they respond with "thermal gradient" . When confronted by natural thermal gradient, they respond by "Ah yes, but it's the unnatural way the thermal gradient is generated!" and so on It would be alright to argue that way if everyone could see that cellphones cause cancer and we were desperate to find a mechanism . But that is not the case . The overwhelming evidence is that cellphones are not a huge hazard Well put! |
CliveM (6007) | ||
| 1292058 | 2012-08-03 05:49:00 | Get the tinfoil hats out. | pctek (84) | ||
| 1292059 | 2012-08-03 07:40:00 | Get the popcorn out. :devil :p | Jen (38) | ||
| 1292060 | 2012-08-03 09:28:00 | I always figured the day would come when Erayd and Billy T would disagree. Though I also expected the universe to shatter when it happened. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1292061 | 2012-08-03 09:39:00 | This is a complete cop-out on your part, and implies that I should simply take it on faith that you're correct. If your response to my post is simply "trust me, I'm an expert" (which is exactly what your statement above implies), all this means is that you're refusing to engage with the facts. I don't doubt your background, but I also refuse to simply take your word for it - I would prefer to see the facts for myself, so I can logically evaluate them within the context of what I already know. Your opinion on its own doesn't hold much weight. You have publicly challenged me, have said that I am several fathoms out of my depth, and have implied that something in one or more of my posts in this thread is factually incorrect. You have also misinterpreted one of my points (if you re-read it you'll find it's fairly unambiguously phrased), and informed me that I am confused. After I replied asking you where I was wrong, you completely avoided the question and simply said, "trust me". I have no issue with being called out - if I am wrong, then I would definitely prefer to know that I am wrong, and correct whatever erroneous belief I may happen to hold - however if you're going to do so, then you'll need to be specific.. Noting the above, I think it's fairly reasonable to expect a factual reply from you rather than simply being dismissed out of hand. If you want to challenge me in public, then be prepared to back up your position with salient facts. To do otherwise does not reflect well on you.Be fair Erayd, billy T is the man that says it good practice to coast down a hill with your clutch in. And he has probably 20 plus years driving experience on us |
plod (107) | ||
| 1292062 | 2012-08-06 05:21:00 | Can we presume from a lack of reply from BillyT, that Erayd was correct as usual | plod (107) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||