It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

S. Florida Attorney Dies From Cell Phone Induced Cancer

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
Ok if you think the bodies with very low level of radiation is the same as much much higher levels of radiation from cell phones then I don't know what else to tell you..


Just remember...the ones you emit are higher frequency than the cell phone by about 10x, and most of them are re-absorbed inside you. Only the very shallowest surface emissions can leave your body, so the measurement of them will not be something you can do with your little EM meter.

Mwa ha ha ha!

Moreover, your internal emissions are right there BY YOUR DNA! In fact, your DNA itself is emitting evil microwaves!
edit on 14-2-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah i figured the radiation from a body would not register on the meter..Still comparing cell phone radiation to the bodies natural radiation...Come on now give me a break...Ill still post the results from the meter just to see how high it goes with the cell phone on...



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah i figured the radiation from a body would not register on the meter..Still comparing cell phone radiation to the bodies natural radiation...Come on now give me a break...Ill still post the results from the meter just to see how high it goes with the cell phone on...


See if you can measure the internal levels inside the skull.


eta: you can see it on a very good spectrum analyzer. Not on your little EM meter. It's how weather satellites can image seawater and rain - by their microwave emissions. It's very measureable, but you need real instruments.
edit on 14-2-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah I would love one of those but I am on a limited budget..I spent 200 bucks on the one that is coming and supposedly for the price its the most accurate one on the market..



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah I would love one of those but I am on a limited budget...


They're real instructive. Not only is it fun to tune into all sorts of stuff flying around you didn't know was there, but so many things around you emit really amazing amounts of EM in the microwave bands.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah I would love one of those but I am on a limited budget...


They're real instructive. Not only is it fun to tune into all sorts of stuff flying around you didn't know was there, but so many things around you emit really amazing amounts of EM in the microwave bands.



Yeah that's what got me interested in buying one..



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah i figured the radiation from a body would not register on the meter..


Read the abstracts from the paper I posted. IEEE speaks about the difficulties seeing it with low-end instruments. Accounting for internal emissions that are reabsorbed is a major problem.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Will do.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

Yeah that's what got me interested in buying one..


I used to try to track down what was emitting and why, but then I settled down and used the spectrum analyzer for what it's really good for...snooping on other people's transmissions.

In the old days of analog, you could tap into some really wild unscrambled stuff. Endless fun. I think my first "internet porn experience" was listening to ship-to-shore phone links from oil rigs.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

Yeah that's what got me interested in buying one..


I used to try to track down what was emitting and why, but then I settled down and used the spectrum analyzer for what it's really good for...snooping on other people's transmissions.

In the old days of analog, you could tap into some really wild unscrambled stuff. Endless fun. I think my first "internet porn experience" was listening to ship-to-shore phone links from oil rigs.


Sounds like allot of fun..



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
Sounds like allot of fun..


They'd start off about bills and Junior's grades. About six weeks in to the tour, it started getting wild. Ah, the old days.



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam



Yeah everything is digital now.. So let me ask you something you don't think that we should take precautions to minimize emf exposure from cell phones? Like using airtube headsets? Also keeping it away from your body like it says in your cell phone manual isn't it better to be safe then sorry? I have a moto G and here is the pdf on the distance the phone needs to be from the body:

Radio Frequency (RF) Energy
RF Energy Exposure to RF Energy & Device Operation
Your mobile device contains a transmitter and receiver of RF energy. It is designed to comply
with regulatory requirements concerning human RF exposure.
For optimal device performance, and to stay within the RF exposure guidelines:
• Hold your mobile phone like a landline when talking on it.
• When using the mobile phone next to your body (other than in your hand or against your
head), maintain a distance of 1.5 cm (3/4 inch) from your body to be consistent with how
the mobile phone is tested for compliance with RF exposure requirements.
• If you use your mobile phone with an accessory case or holder, make sure the accessory is
free of metal.

edit on pmqupmSat, 14 Feb 2015 22:47:01 -060047u0114u by Aquariusdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Going to bed..Ill check up on the thread tomorrow.Good night



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
So let me ask you something you don't think that we should take precautions to minimize emf exposure from cell phones?


The level of emission from a small phone isn't that great, even if it's at maximum output.

I don't use them a lot. I can't at work, typically, and off work I toss mine in the car bin and use the BT handsfree link in the car, because they're pesky to hold onto and drive.

I sure don't sleep with one, because I hate phones of any type.

But then again, I am exposed to a lot more microwave radiation than you are (probably) because I work around radio transmitters and radar equipment in the lab and on prototypes. We generally don't have the rig buttoned up nearly as tight as it has to be in the field, because we're in and out of the plumbing all day.

eta: And again, there's nothing magic about microwaves or 2.45GHz. The local sawmill uses 27MHz to dry wood by the same effect, your physical therapist, if equipped with one, can heat YOU inside and out with a diathermy machine in the same range. To be consistent, you're going to have to be worried about the whole range of HF to microwave...
edit on 14-2-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

It is very well known that the discovery was accidental...It doesn't take much heat to melt a candy bar last I checked...


The story about the candy is very well known, but again, it's considered apocryphal. And you'd heat up faster than the candy.

There are lots of more accurate stories about microwaves and cooking. Try googling "microwave candy bar spencer apocryphal", there are a number of nice articles, "handout 2" from Rutgers is a good one.

Linky...warning: pdf



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
The reasoning seen by members on the first page alone is absolutely ridiculous. Did anyone bother to watch the video? He mentioned in the first few minutes, 10 years doubles the risk of cancer. That's an average. Do keep in mind that people's risk of cancer is dependent on their genes and environment. That means this doubling is overall for large numbers, but in susceptible people, means they are pretty well certain to get it if they have similar habits as this man.

My guess is it's a small percentage of people who are at high risk, likely the same low percentage of people who are sensitive to fluorescent lights, or EMI in general. Not sure why people jump to ridiculous reasoning of people should be dying left and right, kids heads should be exploding? seriously ppl? That's retarded. As if you think since some people are allergic to foods, everyone should be? Or since some people can smoke all their lives and not get cancer, nobody should get cancer from smoking? Very poor reasoning!



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I watched a video from a professor somewhere in South America years ago. He said it wasn't the power within the phone that was the cause for concern, rather the connection between the cell tower and your phone, combined with the fact that the power is being asorbed by the brain, from a device which is millimeters away from the brain. That small distance, combined with the power emitting from the tower catching to your phone's device was supposed to be the cause for concern. He said you could solve the issue by having a parabolic antenna, and cell industry must know of this, but it would make the centralized equipment less sensitive, so would require upgrades... more monies, and they would rather fund studies to disprove the radiation's harm than upgrade the equipment. Seemed like an informed, and level headed guy.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: hounddoghowlie


Yeah I read about Dr George Carlo in the book Zapped why cell phones shouldn't be your alarm clock(great book)..I read that as soon as Dr Carlo found out cell phones caused cancer the cell phone industry pulled his funding and they blocked him from publishing his results!

Wow amazing case! And people are still in denial amazing..I guess its like the denial you get from cigarette smokers ...Good info! Thanks!




It's really not all that amazing that people are still in denial. It's been said that denial is the safest place for the brain to be.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Bedlam

I watched a video from a professor somewhere in South America years ago. He said it wasn't the power within the phone that was the cause for concern, rather the connection between the cell tower and your phone, combined with the fact that the power is being asorbed by the brain, from a device which is millimeters away from the brain.


Then, hearing this, you should have reached down there and clicked another video. There IS no 'connection' between the cell tower and the phone. Note that I said nothing about "the power within the phone", which I'm having trouble actually understanding what he might have meant by that, but this - "The level of emission from a small phone isn't that great, even if it's at maximum output." This actually makes sense - the level of emission. It isn't that great. Generally half a Watt. And, as I said upthread, radio does things that don't make sense to people who haven't done radio physics. Your head is reflective to radio. Because it's a different impedance than air. Your skull is reflective to radio, because it's a different impedance than scalp. The spinal fluid around your brain is reflective to radio, because it's a different impedance than skull. And at each of these transitions, the signal will be reflected, refracted, and shot in different directions. So what you start with doesn't all get there, by far.

And when it does, it's dissipated as heat. And not very much heat. Your body gets rid of that much all the time in the course of normal operation.



That small distance, combined with the power emitting from the tower catching to your phone's device was supposed to be the cause for concern. He said you could solve the issue by having a parabolic antenna, and cell industry must know of this, but it would make the centralized equipment less sensitive, so would require upgrades... more monies, and they would rather fund studies to disprove the radiation's harm than upgrade the equipment. Seemed like an informed, and level headed guy.


I hope he didn't really say that, because if he did and you're not just misremembering it, it's a lot of piffle.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Ok, I just had an idea....

Bare with Me.

How many people use cell phones ??? 99%

So roughly everyone.

Now, cancer can appear everywhere, so of all the cancer locations what percentage appears on the right side of the head ?

Lets say .5 %

Now there are alot of people who die from cancer, but since im too lazy to get the stats lets go with a ridiculously low number, 100,000.

So, out of those about 500 people would develop cancer on their " cell phone side "

I dont believe cancer may have changed, only a reason to attribute getting cancer at a certain location.

Summary, the cancers have always been there, but now there is a reason to claim it came from an outside stimuli.

Im not saying cell phones havent or cant caused cancer, im just saying in most cases its just coincidence.


Paid advertisement by proctor & gamble



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join