Groupies may be interested in this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175

However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Groupies may be interested in this:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>
> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
>

Anyone who has ever done RF measurements in free space knows you can get a
wide variation in results, depending on the test set up and measurement
facility. The alleged failure is a small amount and is quite probably well
within the error margins.

On 15/09/2023 14:55, Scott wrote:
>
> Groupies may be interested in this:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>
> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.

Indeed, but a report linked from the one above makes it clear that this
is early days, and that now other EU countries are looking to test the
phone against their own standards.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:55:32 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
> Groupies may be interested in this:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175

Superstitious science, although don't cook your head in a microwave.

>
> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.

Indeed, but the French suffer from the "yellow headlight" problem. They always think they know better and adopt difference standards, although the real reason is to promote domestic producers over imports. Lots of examples including SECAM.

The EU and ISO have done much to reduce this, but a strong French tendency to diverge just for the sake of it persists.

On 15/09/2023 16:20, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:55:32 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>
> Superstitious science, although don't cook your head in a microwave.
>
>>
>> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
>> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
>> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
>
> Indeed, but the French suffer from the "yellow headlight" problem. They always think they know better and adopt difference standards, although the real reason is to promote domestic producers over imports. Lots of examples including SECAM.
>
> The EU and ISO have done much to reduce this, but a strong French tendency to diverge just for the sake of it persists.

Certain other EU states do this as well, probably not just for the sake
of being different, but to protect domestic markets.

The European "single market" is not as single as you might think.

--
random signature text inserted here

On 2023-09-15 15:32, Tweed wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>>
>> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
>> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
>> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
>>
>
> Anyone who has ever done RF measurements in free space knows you can get a
> wide variation in results, depending on the test set up and measurement
> facility. The alleged failure is a small amount and is quite probably well
> within the error margins.
>
The figures reported measured by ANFR were 5.7W/kg localized SAR
(limbs), the EU regulation is 4W/kg

>40% higher is well outside the "margin of error"

Plootark <EternalSeptember@diffrient.org> wrote:
> On 2023-09-15 15:32, Tweed wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>>>
>>> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
>>> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
>>> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
>>>
>>
>> Anyone who has ever done RF measurements in free space knows you can get a
>> wide variation in results, depending on the test set up and measurement
>> facility. The alleged failure is a small amount and is quite probably well
>> within the error margins.
>>
> The figures reported measured by ANFR were 5.7W/kg localized SAR
> (limbs), the EU regulation is 4W/kg
>
>> 40% higher is well outside the "margin of error"
>

You’ve clearly never done rf free space measurement - 3dB is a 50%
difference in power measurement and is easily within the errors of a
measurement setup.

On 2023-09-15 21:53, Tweed wrote:
> Plootark <EternalSeptember@diffrient.org> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-15 15:32, Tweed wrote:
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>>>>
>>>> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
>>>> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
>>>> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone who has ever done RF measurements in free space knows you can get a
>>> wide variation in results, depending on the test set up and measurement
>>> facility. The alleged failure is a small amount and is quite probably well
>>> within the error margins.
>>>
>> The figures reported measured by ANFR were 5.7W/kg localized SAR
>> (limbs), the EU regulation is 4W/kg
>>
>>> 40% higher is well outside the "margin of error"
>>
>
> You’ve clearly never done rf free space measurement - 3dB is a 50%
> difference in power measurement and is easily within the errors of a
> measurement setup.
>
To be clear you're saying a (4W/kg EU regs) 5.7W/kg measurement reported
by ANFR is way way less than a 3dB gain if as you claim *is easily
within the errors of measurement setup* ?

Plootark <EternalSeptember@diffrient.org> wrote:
> On 2023-09-15 21:53, Tweed wrote:
>> Plootark <EternalSeptember@diffrient.org> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-15 15:32, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
>>>>> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
>>>>> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who has ever done RF measurements in free space knows you can get a
>>>> wide variation in results, depending on the test set up and measurement
>>>> facility. The alleged failure is a small amount and is quite probably well
>>>> within the error margins.
>>>>
>>> The figures reported measured by ANFR were 5.7W/kg localized SAR
>>> (limbs), the EU regulation is 4W/kg
>>>
>>>> 40% higher is well outside the "margin of error"
>>>
>>
>> You’ve clearly never done rf free space measurement - 3dB is a 50%
>> difference in power measurement and is easily within the errors of a
>> measurement setup.
>>
> To be clear you're saying a (4W/kg EU regs) 5.7W/kg measurement reported
> by ANFR is way way less than a 3dB gain if as you claim *is easily
> within the errors of measurement setup* ?
>

Yes. If I were Apple I’d be wanting to see the calibration records of every
bit of equipment involved in the French measurements and full details of
the setup. Absolute, as opposed to relative, measurements of RF systems
involving antennas are hard to do to that sort of accuracy. I suspect that
even the test specification is open to a degree of interpretation. We’ve
even found test houses run by major contractors have staff that don’t know
how to operate their test instrumentation properly. None of it is as cut
and dried as it might first appear.

On 2023-09-15 22:19, Tweed wrote:
> Plootark <EternalSeptember@diffrient.org> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-15 21:53, Tweed wrote:
>>> Plootark <EternalSeptember@diffrient.org> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-15 15:32, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
>>>>>> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
>>>>>> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who has ever done RF measurements in free space knows you can get a
>>>>> wide variation in results, depending on the test set up and measurement
>>>>> facility. The alleged failure is a small amount and is quite probably well
>>>>> within the error margins.
>>>>>
>>>> The figures reported measured by ANFR were 5.7W/kg localized SAR
>>>> (limbs), the EU regulation is 4W/kg
>>>>
>>>>> 40% higher is well outside the "margin of error"
>>>>
>>>
>>> You’ve clearly never done rf free space measurement - 3dB is a 50%
>>> difference in power measurement and is easily within the errors of a
>>> measurement setup.
>>>
>> To be clear you're saying a (4W/kg EU regs) 5.7W/kg measurement reported
>> by ANFR is way way less than a 3dB gain if as you claim *is easily
>> within the errors of measurement setup* ?
>>
>
> Yes. If I were Apple I’d be wanting to see the calibration records of every
> bit of equipment involved in the French measurements and full details of
> the setup. Absolute, as opposed to relative, measurements of RF systems
> involving antennas are hard to do to that sort of accuracy. I suspect that
> even the test specification is open to a degree of interpretation. We’ve
> even found test houses run by major contractors have staff that don’t know
> how to operate their test instrumentation properly. None of it is as cut
> and dried as it might first appear.

....and now you're claiming that an Internationally recognized French
Government regulatory agency is just making shit up (based on your
experience of course ;-) ..bless

You're not credible!

On 15/09/2023 22:19, Tweed wrote:
>
> Yes. If I were Apple I’d be wanting to see the calibration records of every
> bit of equipment involved in the French measurements and full details of
> the setup. Absolute, as opposed to relative, measurements of RF systems
> involving antennas are hard to do to that sort of accuracy. I suspect that
> even the test specification is open to a degree of interpretation. We’ve
> even found test houses run by major contractors have staff that don’t know
> how to operate their test instrumentation properly. None of it is as cut
> and dried as it might first appear.

In fact Apple are already claiming something pretty similar, as per the
article original linked by the OP, and that below. In that respect, it
will be interesting to see how their phones fare in other EU nations'
testing labs:
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/iphone-12-ban-europe-apple-b2411435.html

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 15/09/2023 22:19, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> Yes. If I were Apple I’d be wanting to see the calibration records of every
>> bit of equipment involved in the French measurements and full details of
>> the setup. Absolute, as opposed to relative, measurements of RF systems
>> involving antennas are hard to do to that sort of accuracy. I suspect that
>> even the test specification is open to a degree of interpretation. We’ve
>> even found test houses run by major contractors have staff that don’t know
>> how to operate their test instrumentation properly. None of it is as cut
>> and dried as it might first appear.
>
> In fact Apple are already claiming something pretty similar, as per the
> article original linked by the OP, and that below. In that respect, it
> will be interesting to see how their phones fare in other EU nations'
> testing labs:
> https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/iphone-12-ban-europe-apple-b2411435.html
>

A curious issue is why has this just surfaced now. It is a fairly old model
these days. It seems Apple don’t believe the results as the patch they have
issued only covers French users - it’s not Europe or world wide. I presume
they’ve just limited the maximum transmit power by 3dB.

It will be interesting to see if anyone independent of both the French
agency and Apple cares to repeat the testing.

On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 20:32:35 UTC+1, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
> On 15/09/2023 16:20, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:55:32 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
> >> Groupies may be interested in this:
> >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
> >
> > Superstitious science, although don't cook your head in a microwave.
> >
> >>
> >> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
> >> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
> >> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
> >
> > Indeed, but the French suffer from the "yellow headlight" problem. They always think they know better and adopt difference standards, although the real reason is to promote domestic producers over imports. Lots of examples including SECAM.
> >
> > The EU and ISO have done much to reduce this, but a strong French tendency to diverge just for the sake of it persists.
> Certain other EU states do this as well, probably not just for the sake
> of being different, but to protect domestic markets.
>
> The European "single market" is not as single as you might think.
>

Nor the UK one, just try selling something in Wales without Welsh documentation...

> random signature text inserted here

On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 22:05:12 UTC+1, Plootark wrote:
> On 2023-09-15 21:53, Tweed wrote:
> > Plootark <EternalS...@diffrient.org> wrote:
> >> On 2023-09-15 15:32, Tweed wrote:
> >>> Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Groupies may be interested in this:
> >>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
> >>>> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
> >>>> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Anyone who has ever done RF measurements in free space knows you can get a
> >>> wide variation in results, depending on the test set up and measurement
> >>> facility. The alleged failure is a small amount and is quite probably well
> >>> within the error margins.
> >>>
> >> The figures reported measured by ANFR were 5.7W/kg localized SAR
> >> (limbs), the EU regulation is 4W/kg
> >>
> >>> 40% higher is well outside the "margin of error"
> >>
> >
> > You’ve clearly never done rf free space measurement - 3dB is a 50%
> > difference in power measurement and is easily within the errors of a
> > measurement setup.
> >
> To be clear you're saying a (4W/kg EU regs) 5.7W/kg measurement reported
> by ANFR is way way less than a 3dB gain if as you claim *is easily
> within the errors of measurement setup* ?

Well seeing how a [hand held] mobile's output is max 0.6W then either the errors are huge, or the local absorption (e.g. in an ear lobe) is extremely localised indeed.

PS A human at rest runs at about 100W.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 15/09/2023 22:19, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes. If I were Apple I’d be wanting to see the calibration records of every
>>> bit of equipment involved in the French measurements and full details of
>>> the setup. Absolute, as opposed to relative, measurements of RF systems
>>> involving antennas are hard to do to that sort of accuracy. I suspect that
>>> even the test specification is open to a degree of interpretation. We’ve
>>> even found test houses run by major contractors have staff that don’t know
>>> how to operate their test instrumentation properly. None of it is as cut
>>> and dried as it might first appear.
>>
>> In fact Apple are already claiming something pretty similar, as per the
>> article original linked by the OP, and that below. In that respect, it
>> will be interesting to see how their phones fare in other EU nations'
>> testing labs:
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/iphone-12-ban-europe-apple-b2411435.html
>>
>
> A curious issue is why has this just surfaced now. It is a fairly old model
> these days. It seems Apple don’t believe the results as the patch they have
> issued only covers French users - it’s not Europe or world wide. I presume
> they’ve just limited the maximum transmit power by 3dB.
>
> It will be interesting to see if anyone independent of both the French
> agency and Apple cares to repeat the testing.
>
>

I got curious as to exactly how these tests are conducted and found this

https://verkotan.com/2020/specific-absorption-rate-sar-testing-process-5-things-for-companies-to-consider/

It’s fairly easy to see that there is scope for different results between
test facilities.

On 15/09/2023 20:32, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
> On 15/09/2023 16:20, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:55:32 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
>>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>>
>> Superstitious science, although don't cook your head in a microwave.
>>
>>>
>>> However, I don't see how it can happen. I thought the whole point of
>>> the single market was all the countries adopted the same standards and
>>> any product legal in one member state could be sold in any other.
>>
>> Indeed, but the French suffer from the "yellow headlight" problem.
>> They always think they know better and adopt difference standards,
>> although the real reason is to promote domestic producers over
>> imports.  Lots of examples including SECAM.
>>
>> The EU and ISO have done much to reduce this, but a strong French
>> tendency to diverge just for the sake of it persists.
>
>
> Certain other EU states do this as well, probably not just for the sake
> of being different, but to protect domestic markets.
>
> The European "single market" is not as single as you might think.
>

Dad was a member of the BSI and would go to EU meeting and discuss the
'standards' with the other country reps.

It was obvious that some countries were playing an active roles in the
discussions (this was lifting equipment) and other were not. Dad
approached some of those not 'playing' on the break and asked why. The
reply, 'We won't follow it whatever is agreed'.

On the whole radiation thing though, I found this very 'interesting' ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY

Cheers, T i m

On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 22:38:30 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
> On 15/09/2023 20:32, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
> > On 15/09/2023 16:20, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:55:32 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
> >>> Groupies may be interested in this:
> >>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
> >>
> >> Superstitious science, although don't cook your head in a microwave.
> >>
> >>>

snip

> Dad was a member of the BSI and would go to EU meeting and discuss the
> 'standards' with the other country reps.
>
> It was obvious that some countries were playing an active roles in the
> discussions (this was lifting equipment) and other were not. Dad
> approached some of those not 'playing' on the break and asked why. The
> reply, 'We won't follow it whatever is agreed'.
> -
> On the whole radiation thing though, I found this very 'interesting' ...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY
>
> Cheers, T i m

Mobile phone - milli-watts from your own phone, pico-watts from a mast, non-ionising.

Sunshine - ~1kWm**-2, ionising, causes cancer and genetic damage, fair skinned people can get second degree burns in ten to twenty minutes, anyone blinded by looking directly at it...

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2023 22:19, Tweed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes. If I were Apple I’d be wanting to see the calibration records of every
>>>> bit of equipment involved in the French measurements and full details of
>>>> the setup. Absolute, as opposed to relative, measurements of RF systems
>>>> involving antennas are hard to do to that sort of accuracy. I suspect that
>>>> even the test specification is open to a degree of interpretation. We’ve
>>>> even found test houses run by major contractors have staff that don’t know
>>>> how to operate their test instrumentation properly. None of it is as cut
>>>> and dried as it might first appear.
>>>
>>> In fact Apple are already claiming something pretty similar, as per the
>>> article original linked by the OP, and that below. In that respect, it
>>> will be interesting to see how their phones fare in other EU nations'
>>> testing labs:
>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/iphone-12-ban-europe-apple-b2411435.html
>>>
>>
>> A curious issue is why has this just surfaced now. It is a fairly old model
>> these days. It seems Apple don’t believe the results as the patch they have
>> issued only covers French users - it’s not Europe or world wide. I presume
>> they’ve just limited the maximum transmit power by 3dB.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if anyone independent of both the French
>> agency and Apple cares to repeat the testing.
>>
>>
>
> I got curious as to exactly how these tests are conducted and found this
>
> https://verkotan.com/2020/specific-absorption-rate-sar-testing-process-5-things-for-companies-to-consider/
>
> It’s fairly easy to see that there is scope for different results between
> test facilities.

I read elsewhere that there's also ambiguity in the requirement. The
distance can be upto 25 mm, most tests are done at 15 mm as it is
consistent with the FCC requirements. France tested at 0-5 mm. Unsurprising
that the radiation is higher.

On 17/09/2023 17:37, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 22:38:30 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
>> On 15/09/2023 20:32, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2023 16:20, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:55:32 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
>>>>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>>>>
>>>> Superstitious science, although don't cook your head in a microwave.
>>>>
>>>>>
>
> snip
>
>> Dad was a member of the BSI and would go to EU meeting and discuss the
>> 'standards' with the other country reps.
>>
>> It was obvious that some countries were playing an active roles in the
>> discussions (this was lifting equipment) and other were not. Dad
>> approached some of those not 'playing' on the break and asked why. The
>> reply, 'We won't follow it whatever is agreed'.
>> -
>> On the whole radiation thing though, I found this very 'interesting' ...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY
>>
>> Cheers, T i m
>
> Mobile phone - milli-watts from your own phone,

Sure but what about the people (women) who have developed phone shaped
cancers after keeping their phones in their bra? Coincidence?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789302/

Why the disclaimers from phone manufacturers if it was 100% known there
were no risks in their use?

> pico-watts from a mast,

Yup, it's all down to distance ...

> non-ionising.

See above.
>
> Sunshine - ~1kWm**-2, ionising, causes cancer and genetic damage, fair skinned people can get second degree burns in ten to twenty minutes, anyone blinded by looking directly at it...

Yup, all directly / specifically known and mostly (and intentionally
avoidable) with sun cream and shade and good practice but I'm not sure
why you mention that?

It's like saying I'll get arc-eye if I don't use a suitable mask when
MIG welding? <shrug>

Cheers, T i m

On 28/10/2023 10:38, T i m wrote:
> On 17/09/2023 17:37, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 22:38:30 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2023 20:32, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>>>> On 15/09/2023 16:20, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:55:32 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>>>>>
>>>>> Superstitious science, although don't cook your head in a microwave.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> Dad was a member of the BSI and would go to EU meeting and discuss the
>>> 'standards' with the other country reps.
>>>
>>> It was obvious that some countries were playing an active roles in the
>>> discussions (this was lifting equipment) and other were not. Dad
>>> approached some of those not 'playing' on the break and asked why. The
>>> reply, 'We won't follow it whatever is agreed'.
>>> -
>>> On the whole radiation thing though, I found this very 'interesting' ...
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY
>>>
>>> Cheers, T i m
>>
>> Mobile phone - milli-watts from your own phone,
>
> Sure but what about the people (women) who have developed phone shaped
> cancers after keeping their phones in their bra? Coincidence?
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789302/
>

crap article:-

I note from that web site :-

"As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion
in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the
contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health."

so despite it being a "gov" web site the article was simply published
on-line with no checking or reviews.

> Why the disclaimers from phone manufacturers if it was 100% known there
> were no risks in their use?
>
>> pico-watts from a mast,
>
> Yup, it's all down to distance ...
>
>> non-ionising.
>
> See above.
>>
>> Sunshine - ~1kWm**-2, ionising, causes cancer and genetic damage, fair
>> skinned people can get second degree burns in ten to twenty minutes,
>> anyone blinded by looking directly at it...
>
> Yup, all directly / specifically known and mostly (and intentionally
> avoidable) with sun cream and shade and good practice but I'm not sure
> why you mention that?
>
> It's like saying I'll get arc-eye if I don't use a suitable mask when
> MIG welding? <shrug>
>
> Cheers, T i m
>
>
>

On 28/10/2023 12:16, David Wade wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 10:38, T i m wrote:
>> On 17/09/2023 17:37, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 22:38:30 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
>>>> On 15/09/2023 20:32, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>>>>> On 15/09/2023 16:20, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 14:55:32 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
>>>>>>> Groupies may be interested in this:
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66795175
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Superstitious science, although don't cook your head in a microwave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> Dad was a member of the BSI and would go to EU meeting and discuss the
>>>> 'standards' with the other country reps.
>>>>
>>>> It was obvious that some countries were playing an active roles in the
>>>> discussions (this was lifting equipment) and other were not. Dad
>>>> approached some of those not 'playing' on the break and asked why. The
>>>> reply, 'We won't follow it whatever is agreed'.
>>>> -
>>>> On the whole radiation thing though, I found this very 'interesting'
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, T i m
>>>
>>> Mobile phone - milli-watts from your own phone,
>>
>> Sure but what about the people (women) who have developed phone shaped
>> cancers after keeping their phones in their bra? Coincidence?
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789302/
>>
>
> crap article:-
>
>
> I note from that web site :-
>
> "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion
> in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the
> contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health."
>
> so despite it being a "gov" web site the article was simply published
> on-line with no checking or reviews.
>

On checking further four cases in 2013, so if this was an issue wouldn't
we have had more cases? On a recent trip to Qatar I was very surprised
to see that many American women carried their their phones in their bra
so I would expect it to be endemic.

I think this article has it about right....

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/controversial-science-health-technology-you-asked/you-asked-it-true-keeping-cell-phone-bra-can-cause-breast-cancer

which says :-

If cell phone radiation caused cancer, it would almost certainly cause
skin cancers in the same area; yet we hear nothing of that. Why not lung
cancers as well? It just doesn't make sense."

and lastly I have carried my mobile in my shirt pocket almost since I
had one yet I don't have breast cancer. Of course you may say "men don't
get breast cancer" but they do...

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/breast-cancer-in-men/

.... I suspect many men carry their phone in their pockets, so why no
extra cases of male breast cancer...

>
>
>> Why the disclaimers from phone manufacturers if it was 100% known
>> there were no risks in their use?
>>
>>> pico-watts from a mast,
>>
>> Yup, it's all down to distance ...
>>
>>> non-ionising.
>>
>> See above.
>>>
>>> Sunshine - ~1kWm**-2, ionising, causes cancer and genetic damage,
>>> fair skinned people can get second degree burns in ten to twenty
>>> minutes, anyone blinded by looking directly at it...
>>
>> Yup, all directly / specifically known and mostly (and intentionally
>> avoidable) with sun cream and shade and good practice but I'm not sure
>> why you mention that?
>>
>> It's like saying I'll get arc-eye if I don't use a suitable mask when
>> MIG welding? <shrug>
>>
>> Cheers, T i m
>>
>>
>>
>
Dave

On 28/10/2023 10:38, T i m wrote:
> Sure but what about the people (women) who have developed phone shaped
> cancers after keeping their phones in their bra? Coincidence?

Cancers start with a single defective cell, so the origin is,
effectively, a point, not an area. To establish a correlation you'd
need to create a scatter plot of the point of origin, based on 1,000s of
cases. I'm not sure how practicable it is to establish the actual point
of origin.

How the cancer develops could, conceivably be influenced by sources of
heat, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't develop without them.

On 28/10/2023 13:39, David Wade wrote:
<snip>
>
>  If cell phone radiation caused cancer, it would almost certainly cause
> skin cancers in the same area; yet we hear nothing of that.

I thought we did in the thing I linked to?

> Why not lung
> cancers as well?

Why not indeed?

> It just doesn't make sense."

Till it does?

Why do the cell phone companies state what is the recommended maximum
talk time whilst holding your phone to your head (and that isn't 'very
long' per week)?
>
>
> and lastly I have carried my mobile in my shirt pocket almost since I
> had one yet I don't have breast cancer.

Same shirt, same pocket location, phone tight fit in that pocket, tight
shirt against your skin ... and you don't have it 'yet'?

> Of course you may say "men don't
> get breast cancer" but they do...
>
> https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/breast-cancer-in-men/

I know they do so I wouldn't say that. ;-)
>
> ... I suspect many men carry their phone in their pockets, so why no
> extra cases of male breast cancer...

How do we know there aren't? I don't know, I'm just asking etc.

Cheers, T i m

On 28/10/2023 22:25, T i m wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 13:39, David Wade wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>   If cell phone radiation caused cancer, it would almost certainly
>> cause skin cancers in the same area; yet we hear nothing of that.
>
> I thought we did in the thing I linked to?
>
>> Why not lung cancers as well?
>
> Why not indeed?
>
>> It just doesn't make sense."
>
> Till it does?
>
> Why do the cell phone companies state what is the recommended maximum
> talk time whilst holding your phone to your head (and that isn't 'very
> long' per week)?
>>
>>
>> and lastly I have carried my mobile in my shirt pocket almost since I
>> had one yet I don't have breast cancer.
>
> Same shirt, same pocket location, phone tight fit in that pocket, tight
> shirt against your skin ... and you don't have it 'yet'?
>
>> Of course you may say "men don't get breast cancer" but they do...
>>
>> https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/breast-cancer-in-men/
>
> I know they do so I wouldn't say that. ;-)
>>
>> ... I suspect many men carry their phone in their pockets, so why no
>> extra cases of male breast cancer...
>
> How do we know there aren't? I don't know, I'm just asking etc.

Simple, because if there were, I would have lots of no-win no-fee
ambulance chasers harassing me on my phone, trying to get me to sign up
to a class legal action against Marconi for inventing wireless, Bell for
inventing the telephone, and Mr ever ready inventing the battery which
have enabled Nokia to produce phones and for putting me at risk of
breast cancer....

..... at present all I get are diesel car claims, offers of replacement
boilers, and solar panels all of which are less likely to benefit me
than my chances of getting breast cancer...

also calls from Student Loans asking about my son who lives in the
middle east. Pointless as the chances of me getting breast cancer are
again higher than the odds of him return to the uk so pointless.....

... I am, like many of my friends and and relatives who have died from
cancer much more likely to sucum to

1. bowel cancer - family history - or
2. prostrate cancer - retired male
3. skin cancer - visited alps - forgot sun screen. UV is higher

but as I am going to continue eating dead cow, phosphated pig and lastly
Morecambe Bay shrimps, which given the location of the nuclear plants of
Heysham and Sellafield come from probably one of the most radioactive
seas in the world, a view endorsed by Greenpeace... (not sure this web
site is reliable, but there are others. )

https://www.blue-growth.org/Oceans_Rivers_Seas/Irish_Sea_The.htm

CONTAMINATION - The Irish Sea has been described by Greenpeace as the
most radioactively contaminated sea in the world with some "eight
million litres of nuclear waste" discharged into it each day from
Sellafield reprocessing plants, contaminating seawater, sediments and
marine life.

Just Saying

>
> Cheers, T i m

Dave

On 28/10/2023 23:12, David Wade wrote:
<snip>

>>> ... I suspect many men carry their phone in their pockets, so why no
>>> extra cases of male breast cancer...
>>
>> How do we know there aren't? I don't know, I'm just asking etc.
>
> Simple, because if there were, I would have lots of no-win no-fee
> ambulance chasers harassing me on my phone, trying to get me to sign up
> to a class legal action against Marconi for inventing wireless, Bell for
> inventing the telephone, and Mr ever ready inventing the battery which
> have enabled Nokia to produce phones and for putting me at risk of
> breast cancer....

But only if such a link has been made and I agree the awareness of those
stats could be in the noise compared with the other reasons you state?

And what actors are out there keeping any such information quiet, or
even actively spreading FUD (you don't need to counter the facts, you
just need to blur them), in the same way has happened with Big Oil, Big
Tobacco and Big Animal Ag.

Too many people making big money putting others at risk.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm no conspiracy theorist, I'm not stating
there *are* risks, just a Radio Amateur surrounded by mobile phones and
WiFi gear who is interested in such things.
>
> .... at present all I get are diesel car claims, offers of replacement
> boilers, and solar panels all of which are less likely to benefit me
> than my chances of getting breast cancer...
>
> also calls from Student Loans asking about my son who lives in the
> middle east. Pointless as the chances of me getting breast cancer are
> again higher than the odds of him return to the uk so pointless.....
>
> .. I am, like many of my friends and and relatives who have died from
> cancer much more likely to sucum to
>
> 1. bowel cancer - family history - or
> 2. prostrate cancer - retired male
> 3. skin cancer - visited alps - forgot sun screen. UV is higher
>
> but as I am going to continue eating dead cow, phosphated pig and lastly
> Morecambe Bay shrimps, which given the location of the nuclear plants of
> Heysham and Sellafield come from probably one of the most radioactive
> seas in the world, a view endorsed by Greenpeace... (not sure this web
> site is reliable, but there are others. )
>
> https://www.blue-growth.org/Oceans_Rivers_Seas/Irish_Sea_The.htm
>
> CONTAMINATION - The Irish Sea has been described by Greenpeace as the
> most radioactively contaminated sea in the world with some "eight
> million litres of nuclear waste" discharged into it each day from
> Sellafield reprocessing plants, contaminating seawater, sediments and
> marine life.
>
> Just Saying

Yeahbut all you are saying at the end there is that there are risks
associated with living, not dealing with the phone radiation issue?

Most of us will often choose to mitigate against known risks where
practicable and possible and some of us *will* avoid the animal based
foods you mention, partly for the reasons you mention. Just in the same
way I wore a seat belt before I was obliged to legally and have never
smoked.

But you can only do this if you are aware of the risks and the Youtube
video I linked to ... and this very thread seems to suggest the risks
are there?

Cheers, T i m