Cellular Phone Industry Just as Health-Harming as Big Tobacco?
http://twoday.net/static/omega/files/cellular_phone_industry_just_as_health.htm
http://twoday.net/static/omega/files/the_cell_phone_industry.htm
In Dr. Mercola's article, he claims knowledge which he seems not able to apply. Whereas I agree that cell phones are harmful and that they should be forbidden at least to children, bad science doesn't help advance this point of view.
Specifically, at http://twoday.net/static/omega/files/cellular_phone_industry_just_as_health.htm
Dr. Mercola writes,
"I previously advised complete abstinence from cell phones, but now I recommend cautious use to reduce your risk of damage. If you ever took physics there is a good chance that you understand that radiation decreases exponentially as you move away from an object... "
Anyone who understood even first-year physics knows that the average field intensity (the power transfer) declines as the INVERSE SQUARE of the distance. The field amplitude decreases INVERSELY with distance.
The intensity decrease with distance can be less than the inverse square, for example in a forward lobe of a directional transmitter, but it cannot be greater, and it certainly cannot be inverse exponential.
Unlike Dr. Mercola, I advocate complete "abstinance" from digital RF in the 0.3 GHz - 300 GHz range. Which is to say, I think people should be completely protected from radiation of this kind. They should be exposed only with foreknowledge and positive agreement.
If Dr. Mercola's recommendations depend on his physics, they should be accepted only with great circumspection.
John Michael Williams
The cell phone industry: Big Tobacco 2.0?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/663789/
http://twoday.net/static/omega/files/the_cell_phone_industry.htm
In Dr. Mercola's article, he claims knowledge which he seems not able to apply. Whereas I agree that cell phones are harmful and that they should be forbidden at least to children, bad science doesn't help advance this point of view.
Specifically, at http://twoday.net/static/omega/files/cellular_phone_industry_just_as_health.htm
Dr. Mercola writes,
"I previously advised complete abstinence from cell phones, but now I recommend cautious use to reduce your risk of damage. If you ever took physics there is a good chance that you understand that radiation decreases exponentially as you move away from an object... "
Anyone who understood even first-year physics knows that the average field intensity (the power transfer) declines as the INVERSE SQUARE of the distance. The field amplitude decreases INVERSELY with distance.
The intensity decrease with distance can be less than the inverse square, for example in a forward lobe of a directional transmitter, but it cannot be greater, and it certainly cannot be inverse exponential.
Unlike Dr. Mercola, I advocate complete "abstinance" from digital RF in the 0.3 GHz - 300 GHz range. Which is to say, I think people should be completely protected from radiation of this kind. They should be exposed only with foreknowledge and positive agreement.
If Dr. Mercola's recommendations depend on his physics, they should be accepted only with great circumspection.
John Michael Williams
The cell phone industry: Big Tobacco 2.0?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/663789/
Starmail - 26. Mrz, 10:09
