Alert: Environmental and Human Health Effects of Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation

[Mike Vandeman]

http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/action/index.htm:

Action Alert – April 19, 2007

Your time and effort is needed NOW to invite the staff members of your
U.S. Senators and Congressman to a public policy education briefing on
the inadequacy of U.S. federal policy regulating the environmental and
human health effects of Radiofrequency (RF) radiation.
The briefing is to be hosted by Vermont Congressman Peter Welch and
Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernard Sanders. It will take place on
Thursday, May 10, 2007 from 3:00-5:30 PM in the U.S. Capitol, Room
HC-5.

· The first step is for you to find out the names of the relevant
staff members. Go to:
Congress.org to find your U.S. Congressman and U.S. Senators. Look for
the 2 boxes in the center of the page in light blue.

If you know your ZIP + 4 information fill in the top box and click GO.

If you don’t know your ZIP+4, fill in the lower box that asks for your
complete street address and click GO.

· On the page that appears next, click in turn on the name of each of
your U.S. Senators and your Congressman. A page will appear as you
click each name that gives you the address and phone number for each
one’s Washington, DC office.

· Call those three offices in DC (your Congressman and your two
Senators) and ask for the names in each office of:


1. The staff person who works on telecommunications issues
2. The staff person who works on environmental health issues

· Ask for the FAX number for each staff person.

· Print out one copy of the Memo announcing the Congressional Staff
Briefing for each of the appropriate staff members. Be sure to include
your name and address so that they can verify that you are a
constituent in their electoral district. FAX a copy to each staff
person.

· Send an e-mail to: [email protected] with the staff members names
along with the names of your Senators and Congressman, their office
addresses in DC, and their phone numbers so that we can follow up and
visit them on the days preceding the briefing.

Many thanks for your willing participation to make this briefing a
success.

--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Jeff Strickland]

YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your entire
life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't going to harm
you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.

Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist wail
to come from the environmental lobby.

 

[Bill Z.]

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> writes:

> YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
> entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
> going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.
>
> Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
> wail to come from the environmental lobby.

Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
the estimate was off.

The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
was a lot of incentive).

What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
computing resources at the problem.

Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
your eggs are in one basket. From a risk management standpoint, that
is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is a
real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy. Meanwhile,
there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of greenhouse
gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
be nothing to fight over that need concern us.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
>> entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
>> going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.
>>
>> Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
>> wail to come from the environmental lobby.
>
>Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
>although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
>years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
>Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
>incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
>came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
>of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
>the estimate was off.
>
>The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
>we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
>transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
>but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
>We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
>properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
>radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
>it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
>was a lot of incentive).
>
>What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
>respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
>due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
>someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
>the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
>else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
>computing resources at the problem.
>
>Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
>ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
>nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
>your eggs are in one basket.

That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
radiation threats.

From a risk management standpoint, that
>is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is a
>real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy. Meanwhile,
>there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of greenhouse
>gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
>wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
>Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
>be nothing to fight over that need concern us.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Chris]

[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
>> entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
>> going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.
>>
>> Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
>> wail to come from the environmental lobby.
>
> Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
> although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
> years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
> Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
> incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
> came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
> of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
> the estimate was off.
>
> The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
> we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
> transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
> but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
> We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
> properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
> radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
> it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
> was a lot of incentive).
>
> What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
> respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
> due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
> someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
> the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
> else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
> computing resources at the problem.
>
> Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
> ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
> nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
> your eggs are in one basket. From a risk management standpoint, that
> is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is a
> real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy. Meanwhile,
> there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of greenhouse
> gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
> wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
> Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
> be nothing to fight over that need concern us.
>

I agree Bill. Otherwise this will be the first in the series of 'oils
wars'.

We (America) need to invest in renewable energy sources now (wind,
solar, hydro) and as a stop gap (I hate to say this, but ......) we need
to build breeder reactors. Breeder would ensure that we there would be
an unlimited amount of fuel for the future and as an added bonus we
could reduce the stores of highly radioactive waste from previously
wasteful reactors

The best part would that we could tell the Middle East 'Go eat sand"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 27 Apr 2007 14:13:07 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for your
>>> entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
>>> going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.
>>>
>>> Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next alarmist
>>> wail to come from the environmental lobby.
>>
>> Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
>> although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
>> years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
>> Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given the
>> incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
>> came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The properties
>> of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
>> the estimate was off.
>>
>> The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
>> we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
>> transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
>> but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000 K).
>> We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
>> properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
>> radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century (understanding
>> it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
>> was a lot of incentive).
>>
>> What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
>> respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
>> due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
>> someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y, check
>> the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
>> else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
>> computing resources at the problem.
>>
>> Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
>> ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that doing
>> nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
>> your eggs are in one basket. From a risk management standpoint, that
>> is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is a
>> real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy. Meanwhile,
>> there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of greenhouse
>> gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
>> wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
>> Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
>> be nothing to fight over that need concern us.
>>
>
>I agree Bill. Otherwise this will be the first in the series of 'oils
>wars'.
>
>We (America) need to invest in renewable energy sources now (wind,
>solar, hydro) and as a stop gap (I hate to say this, but ......) we need
>to build breeder reactors. Breeder would ensure that we there would be
>an unlimited amount of fuel for the future and as an added bonus we
>could reduce the stores of highly radioactive waste from previously
>wasteful reactors

That only shows how ignorant you are. The first priority is to reduce
energy use. There is no sustainable energy source large enough to
maintain current energy use, no matter how much research you do..

>The best part would that we could tell the Middle East 'Go eat sand"

Just like Bush: always the diplomat!
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:58:38 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >> That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
> >> radiation threats.
> >
> >What threat? And how does individual decisions regarding cell phone
> >use put all of our eggs in one basket? There's no plausible physical
> >mechanism that anyone has proposed to date for why electromagnetic
> >radiation at 1 or 2 gigahertz might be bad for you,
>
> Right Then you shouldn't have any hesitation to put your head in a
> microwave oven. Sure. I hope you are putting your money where your
> mouth is, and flooding yourself with radiation. Do you use a cell
> phone? WiFi?

Playing such silly games just makes you look like a fool.

I suggest you learn to read in context (but you do this enough that
everyone thinks you are just dishonest). You mentioned "cell phones
and similar radiation threats" (which is begging the question). Cell
phones put out a fraction of a watt of power, and are not designed to
cook meat. Anything similar would also put out similarly low levels
of non-ionizing radiation.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 27 Apr 2007 16:29:04 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:58:38 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 26 Apr 2007 19:59:04 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >> That's odd. That's exactly your approach to cell phones and similar
>> >> radiation threats.
>> >
>> >What threat? And how does individual decisions regarding cell phone
>> >use put all of our eggs in one basket? There's no plausible physical
>> >mechanism that anyone has proposed to date for why electromagnetic
>> >radiation at 1 or 2 gigahertz might be bad for you,
>>
>> Right Then you shouldn't have any hesitation to put your head in a
>> microwave oven. Sure. I hope you are putting your money where your
>> mouth is, and flooding yourself with radiation. Do you use a cell
>> phone? WiFi?

Why can't you ever answer a question? You're obviously hiding
something.

>Playing such silly games just makes you look like a fool.
>
>I suggest you learn to read in context (but you do this enough that
>everyone thinks you are just dishonest). You mentioned "cell phones
>and similar radiation threats" (which is begging the question). Cell
>phones put out a fraction of a watt of power, and are not designed to
>cook meat. Anything similar would also put out similarly low levels
>of non-ionizing radiation.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 27 Apr 2007 16:29:04 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> Right Then you shouldn't have any hesitation to put your head in a
> >> microwave oven. Sure. I hope you are putting your money where your
> >> mouth is, and flooding yourself with radiation. Do you use a cell
> >> phone? WiFi?
>
> Why can't you ever answer a question? You're obviously hiding
> something.

Because whether or not I use a cell phone or wifi is simply none of
your f___ing business. We went through this last year when you whined
about me not answering such questions. You should know the answer by
now. My personal purchasing decisions one way or the other are not
relevant to the discussion: those decisions would be based on my
personal needs.

If you want to "dis" cell phones, why don't you talk about the
*real* risks? For example:

1. Smashing into something at 60 mph because you were trying
to type in a text message instead of looking at the road.

2. Yapping away in a loud voice in a movie theater while the
film is playing and while sitting next to a bodybuilder who
is feeling very aggressive due to all the steroids he is
popping, and who is none too pleased at the noise you are
making. A few teeth go down your throat along with the
phone.

3. Leaving an explicit text message from your girlfriend on
the phone and then giving the phone to your wife for the day
(that has probably happened to someone). The only question is
what hits you first - the cell phone, the rolling pin, or the
frying pan.

> >Playing such silly games just makes you look like a fool.
> >
> >I suggest you learn to read in context (but you do this enough that
> >everyone thinks you are just dishonest). You mentioned "cell phones
> >and similar radiation threats" (which is begging the question). Cell
> >phones put out a fraction of a watt of power, and are not designed to
> >cook meat. Anything similar would also put out similarly low levels
> >of non-ionizing radiation.

(note the lack of a reply - he has none).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:02 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 27 Apr 2007 16:29:04 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Right Then you shouldn't have any hesitation to put your head in a
>> >> microwave oven. Sure. I hope you are putting your money where your
>> >> mouth is, and flooding yourself with radiation. Do you use a cell
>> >> phone? WiFi?
>>
>> Why can't you ever answer a question? You're obviously hiding
>> something.
>
>Because whether or not I use a cell phone or wifi is simply none of
>your f___ing business. We went through this last year when you whined
>about me not answering such questions. You should know the answer by
>now. My personal purchasing decisions one way or the other are not
>relevant to the discussion: those decisions would be based on my
>personal needs.

You are obviously afraid to reveal this information. The question is
WHY? Are you embarrassed to be using a cell phone? Or NOT to be using
a cell phone, after insisting that it is safe??? The world would like
to know.

>If you want to "dis" cell phones, why don't you talk about the
>*real* risks? For example:
>
> 1. Smashing into something at 60 mph because you were trying
> to type in a text message instead of looking at the road.
>
> 2. Yapping away in a loud voice in a movie theater while the
> film is playing and while sitting next to a bodybuilder who
> is feeling very aggressive due to all the steroids he is
> popping, and who is none too pleased at the noise you are
> making. A few teeth go down your throat along with the
> phone.
>
> 3. Leaving an explicit text message from your girlfriend on
> the phone and then giving the phone to your wife for the day
> (that has probably happened to someone). The only question is
> what hits you first - the cell phone, the rolling pin, or the
> frying pan.

Irrelevant, since you already know that I don't have a cell phone (I'm
more honest than you).
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 30 Apr 2007 14:45:38 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 27 Apr 2007 14:13:07 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> YOU, Michael J Vandeman, have been bombarded with RF energy for
>your
>>>>> entire life. If you haven't any brain tumors already, then RF isn't
>>>>> going to harm you, if you do have tumors, that explains alot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Global Warming is turning out to be a hoax, this is the next
>alarmist
>>>>> wail to come from the environmental lobby.
>>>>
>>>> Vandeman's idiotic rantings aside, global warming is not a hoax,
>>>> although it may be somewhat of a misnomer. I even heard about it
>>>> years ago in a graduate-level course on E&M (Electricity and
>>>> Magnetism) where a quick estimate of the earth's temperature given
>the
>>>> incident energy from the sun and treating the earth as a blackbody
>>>> came out too low (the oceans should have been frozen). The
>properties
>>>> of "greenhouse gases", CO2 specifically, was mentioned as the reason
>>>> the estimate was off.
>>>>
>>>> The reason it is a misnomer is that what we are really doing is that
>>>> we are introducing gases into the atmosphere that are changing the
>>>> transparency of the atmosphere to blackbody radiation at around 300K
>>>> but not at the much higher temperature for sunlight (close to 6000
>K).
>>>> We really do know how this part of it works - we can measure the
>>>> properties of these gasses in laboratory experiments, and blackbody
>>>> radiation was beaten to death in the early 20th century
>(understanding
>>>> it was very useful in the development of quantum mechanics, so there
>>>> was a lot of incentive).
>>>>
>>>> What is far less certain is how the weather and climate will
>>>> respond. The models, however, are getting better each year, if only
>>>> due to have faster computers with more and more memory. If you hear
>>>> someone trying to discredit it by saying A said X and B said Y,
>check
>>>> the dates. The more recent results will be the most accurate (all
>>>> else being equal) because each year, we can throw more and more
>>>> computing resources at the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, if you take a "we aren't 100 percent sure, so lets
>>>> ignore the problem" approach, you should also keep in mind that
>doing
>>>> nothing is basically gambling that nothing bad will happen when all
>>>> your eggs are in one basket. From a risk management standpoint,
>that
>>>> is simply not the prudent thing to do, and if we wait until there is
>a
>>>> real crisis, it might be too late to avoid a catastrophy.
>Meanwhile,
>>>> there are plenty of good reasons to reduce our emissions of
>greenhouse
>>>> gases. For example, if we substantially reduce oil dependency world
>>>> wide by developing commercially viable alternatives, we can let the
>>>> Middle East sink into obscurity. With no money involved, there will
>>>> be nothing to fight over that need concern us.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I agree Bill. Otherwise this will be the first in the series of 'oils
>>>wars'.
>>>
>>>We (America) need to invest in renewable energy sources now (wind,
>>>solar, hydro) and as a stop gap (I hate to say this, but ......) we
>need
>>>to build breeder reactors. Breeder would ensure that we there would
>be
>>>an unlimited amount of fuel for the future and as an added bonus we
>>>could reduce the stores of highly radioactive waste from previously
>>>wasteful reactors
>>
>> That only shows how ignorant you are. The first priority is to reduce
>> energy use. There is no sustainable energy source large enough to
>> maintain current energy use, no matter how much research you do..
>
>Here is a simple exapmle to demonstarte that you sir need to do your
>homework.
>
> If we take the total amount money that have been used to date on the
>Iraq/Afganistamn war (MORE THAN $400 BILLION DOLLARS
>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)
>we could purchase solar cells, place them on the nuclear testing grounds
>of the 1940 - 1970 and TOTALLY ELIMINATE importing all forign oil. We
>could take all oil burning/natural gas burning/coal fired electrical
>plants OFFLINE. Phase out the internal combustion engin and go
>electric. All this could be done in the next ten years.

1. I don't think there's enough space there to provide that amount of
energy.
2. It is unfair to the wildlife to shade their homes like that. A MUCH
better solution would be to put those solar panels over all of our
roads, shading nothing but concrete & a few roadside plants.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:02 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Because whether or not I use a cell phone or wifi is simply none of
> >your f___ing business. We went through this last year when you whined
> >about me not answering such questions. You should know the answer by
> >now. My personal purchasing decisions one way or the other are not
> >relevant to the discussion: those decisions would be based on my
> >personal needs.
>
> You are obviously afraid to reveal this information. The question is
> WHY? Are you embarrassed to be using a cell phone? Or NOT to be using
> a cell phone, after insisting that it is safe??? The world would like
> to know.

Vandeman, you are a moron. There is absolutely no reason for me to
divulge personal information about my purchasing decisions on a public
forum. Furthermore, I didn't even insist that cell phones were safe,
but rather just pointed out that your arguments against them were BS.
Finally, being "safe" is not a reason to purchase a cell phone and the
service you need to use it. That decision depends on quite a number
of factors that boil down to "am I getting enough to justify the
cost."

> >If you want to "dis" cell phones, why don't you talk about the
> >*real* risks? For example:
> >
> > 1. Smashing into something at 60 mph because you were trying
> > to type in a text message instead of looking at the road.
> >
> > 2. Yapping away in a loud voice in a movie theater while the
> > film is playing and while sitting next to a bodybuilder who
> > is feeling very aggressive due to all the steroids he is
> > popping, and who is none too pleased at the noise you are
> > making. A few teeth go down your throat along with the
> > phone.
> >
> > 3. Leaving an explicit text message from your girlfriend on
> > the phone and then giving the phone to your wife for the day
> > (that has probably happened to someone). The only question is
> > what hits you first - the cell phone, the rolling pin, or the
> > frying pan.
>
> Irrelevant, since you already know that I don't have a cell phone (I'm
> more honest than you).

I wasn't talking about you - any use of "you" in these examples was
clearly the "impersonal" use of the word, as a less stilted
alternative to "one".


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 30 Apr 2007 14:45:38 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:

> > If we take the total amount money that have been used to date on the
> >Iraq/Afganistamn war (MORE THAN $400 BILLION DOLLARS
> >http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)
> >we could purchase solar cells, place them on the nuclear testing grounds
> >of the 1940 - 1970 and TOTALLY ELIMINATE importing all forign oil. We
> >could take all oil burning/natural gas burning/coal fired electrical
> >plants OFFLINE. Phase out the internal combustion engin and go
> >electric. All this could be done in the next ten years.
>
> 1. I don't think there's enough space there to provide that amount of
> energy.
> 2. It is unfair to the wildlife to shade their homes like that. A MUCH
> better solution would be to put those solar panels over all of our
> roads, shading nothing but concrete & a few roadside plants.

LOL. Regardless of whether Chris estimated the land area accurately
enough, it sesm that our self-styled defender of animal rights wants
his beloved critters to live in an area with levels of radioactivity
that make them unsuitable for humans!


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 01 May 2007 17:31:29 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 30 Apr 2007 14:45:38 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >news:[email protected]:
>
>> > If we take the total amount money that have been used to date on the
>> >Iraq/Afganistamn war (MORE THAN $400 BILLION DOLLARS
>> >http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)
>> >we could purchase solar cells, place them on the nuclear testing grounds
>> >of the 1940 - 1970 and TOTALLY ELIMINATE importing all forign oil. We
>> >could take all oil burning/natural gas burning/coal fired electrical
>> >plants OFFLINE. Phase out the internal combustion engin and go
>> >electric. All this could be done in the next ten years.
>>
>> 1. I don't think there's enough space there to provide that amount of
>> energy.
>> 2. It is unfair to the wildlife to shade their homes like that. A MUCH
>> better solution would be to put those solar panels over all of our
>> roads, shading nothing but concrete & a few roadside plants.
>
>LOL. Regardless of whether Chris estimated the land area accurately
>enough, it sesm that our self-styled defender of animal rights wants
>his beloved critters to live in an area with levels of radioactivity
>that make them unsuitable for humans!

That's what it takes, to keep humans from invading their habitat. That
doesn't say much for us. Or you.

By the way, how come you didn't drop gratuitous physics jargon about
ionizing radiation, as you usually do? You are slipping!
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 01 May 2007 17:26:50 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:02 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Because whether or not I use a cell phone or wifi is simply none of
>> >your f___ing business. We went through this last year when you whined
>> >about me not answering such questions. You should know the answer by
>> >now. My personal purchasing decisions one way or the other are not
>> >relevant to the discussion: those decisions would be based on my
>> >personal needs.
>>
>> You are obviously afraid to reveal this information. The question is
>> WHY? Are you embarrassed to be using a cell phone? Or NOT to be using
>> a cell phone, after insisting that it is safe??? The world would like
>> to know.
>
>Vandeman, you are a moron. There is absolutely no reason for me to
>divulge personal information about my purchasing decisions on a public
>forum. Furthermore, I didn't even insist that cell phones were safe,
>but rather just pointed out that your arguments against them were BS.
>Finally, being "safe" is not a reason to purchase a cell phone and the
>service you need to use it. That decision depends on quite a number
>of factors that boil down to "am I getting enough to justify the
>cost."

I see: you didn't want us to interpret your failure to use a cell
phone as an admission that you consider them, in spite of appearances,
harmful.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 01 May 2007 17:26:50 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:57:02 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Because whether or not I use a cell phone or wifi is simply none of
> >> >your f___ing business. We went through this last year when you whined
> >> >about me not answering such questions. You should know the answer by
> >> >now. My personal purchasing decisions one way or the other are not
> >> >relevant to the discussion: those decisions would be based on my
> >> >personal needs.
> >>
> >> You are obviously afraid to reveal this information. The question is
> >> WHY? Are you embarrassed to be using a cell phone? Or NOT to be using
> >> a cell phone, after insisting that it is safe??? The world would like
> >> to know.
> >
> >Vandeman, you are a moron. There is absolutely no reason for me to
> >divulge personal information about my purchasing decisions on a public
> >forum. Furthermore, I didn't even insist that cell phones were safe,
> >but rather just pointed out that your arguments against them were BS.
> >Finally, being "safe" is not a reason to purchase a cell phone and the
> >service you need to use it. That decision depends on quite a number
> >of factors that boil down to "am I getting enough to justify the
> >cost."
>
> I see: you didn't want us to interpret your failure to use a cell
> phone as an admission that you consider them, in spite of appearances,
> harmful.

What you "see" simply proves you are a complete and utter idiot!



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 01 May 2007 17:31:29 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 30 Apr 2007 14:45:38 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> >news:[email protected]:
> >
> >>
> >> 1. I don't think there's enough space there to provide that amount of
> >> energy.
> >> 2. It is unfair to the wildlife to shade their homes like that. A MUCH
> >> better solution would be to put those solar panels over all of our
> >> roads, shading nothing but concrete & a few roadside plants.
> >
> >LOL. Regardless of whether Chris estimated the land area accurately
> >enough, it sesm that our self-styled defender of animal rights wants
> >his beloved critters to live in an area with levels of radioactivity
> >that make them unsuitable for humans!
>
> That's what it takes, to keep humans from invading their habitat. That
> doesn't say much for us. Or you.

Doesn't say much for me???? You stated (unwittingly, I presume) that
you don't want to discourage critters from living in areas with
dangerous levels of radioactivity!

> By the way, how come you didn't drop gratuitous physics jargon about
> ionizing radiation, as you usually do? You are slipping!

It doesn't have to be mentioned in this case because everyone should
know that it is superfluous in this context. In the previous discussion,
the term was anything but gratuitous given the crazy statements you
were making.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Chris]

I dont care where we put them. Th Japanese and Germans are putting them on
thier roof tops.

The biggest down side to my little plan is that there is a world wide
shortage of photovotaics due to the Japanese and Germans buying them all
up.


facts and figures for you number crunchers.

Solar cells cost approx $4/Watt
Today efficiencies 12Watts/sq-ft

Max sun exposeure time 6 hrs
Average sun exposure time 4.5 hrs

Initail cost is Approx $20K - $30K and you can go 'completly off-grid' as I
have. The sun also heats my hot water, initial cost $5K. Wonderful
endless HOT showers or Hot tubbing


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Chris]

>>Here is a simple exapmle to demonstarte that you sir need to do your
>>homework.
>>
>> If we take the total amount money that have been used to date on the
>>Iraq/Afganistamn war (MORE THAN $400 BILLION DOLLARS
>>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)
>>we could purchase solar cells, place them on the nuclear testing grounds
>>of the 1940 - 1970 and TOTALLY ELIMINATE importing all forign oil. We
>>could take all oil burning/natural gas burning/coal fired electrical
>>plants OFFLINE. Phase out the internal combustion engin and go
>>electric. All this could be done in the next ten years.
>
> 1. I don't think there's enough space there to provide that amount of
> energy.

http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/

> 2. It is unfair to the wildlife to shade their homes like that. A MUCH
> better solution would be to put those solar panels over all of our
> roads, shading nothing but concrete & a few roadside plants.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 07 May 2007 18:59:53 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Here is a simple exapmle to demonstarte that you sir need to do your
>>>homework.
>>>
>>> If we take the total amount money that have been used to date on the
>>>Iraq/Afganistamn war (MORE THAN $400 BILLION DOLLARS
>>>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)
>>>we could purchase solar cells, place them on the nuclear testing grounds
>>>of the 1940 - 1970 and TOTALLY ELIMINATE importing all forign oil. We
>>>could take all oil burning/natural gas burning/coal fired electrical
>>>plants OFFLINE. Phase out the internal combustion engin and go
>>>electric. All this could be done in the next ten years.
>>
>> 1. I don't think there's enough space there to provide that amount of
>> energy.
>
>http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/

So the U.S. requires shading a square piece of land 413 km on a side.
Where do you suggest that we do that, and sacrifice that much habitat,
farmland, or living space? Better to use roads & roofs.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande