Author Topic: Another one for the scientists.........  (Read 3695 times)

Frank Gallagher

  • Member
  • Posts: 4792
Re: Another one for the scientists.........
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2005, 12:49:00 pm »
Well, seemed like I stumped you all...even Mr. "I know everthing about everything" GGW.
 
 It's all down to my extra sensory powers!

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: Another one for the scientists.........
« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2005, 03:14:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
  Well, seemed like I stumped you all...even Mr. "I know everthing about everything" GGW.
 
 It's all down to my extra sensory powers!
Alright, Mankie, give me some time to sign on.
 
 Your car alarm remote operates at a very low frequency and the human body actually acts as an antenna for low frequency singals.  Not all signal transmissions are based on metal - some are based on heat, and for low frequencies like AM/FM stereo and old cordless phones, the heat from the human body actually acts as an antenna and strenthens your signal.
 
 I'm surprised you just now discovered this.  You don't have to touch your head either - you can simply put your finger across the front of your remote.
 
 Take, for example, your FM tuner.  With no antenna, you get very little recpetion.  With a wire antenna, your reception increases depending on the length and access to open air signals.  When you touch the antenna, your signal again increases because of your natural 98.6 body heat.  The stronger the frequency, however, the less effect your body heat has on the signal.  The AM signal is greatly magnified by touching the antenna, but your 2.4 GHZ wireless internet connection has almost no increased signal strength when you touch the antenna.  Your old mobile phones (the StarTac being the classic example) operated at mostly 900 MHZ and if you touched the antenna you could use your body to act as a larger antenna then the little wire sticking out of your phone.  Now they operate in the 2.4 GHZ stream because digital data travels faster at that frequency and touching the antenna has less of an effect.
 
 Some companies are working on ways to access this natural conducted heat in the human body to send electrical signals and even data through the human body instead of wirelessly.  For example, if you saw a movie poster, you could touch the screen and send local show times to your mobile device by touching it's sensor.  It's much more user friendly then using bluetooth.
 
 But don't knock bluetooth.  Stuff is the bomb.
27>34

Frank Gallagher

  • Member
  • Posts: 4792
Re: Another one for the scientists.........
« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2005, 04:31:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by vansmack:
 
Quote
But don't knock bluetooth.  Stuff is the bomb. [/b]
Sorry, still say I'm special!!!!
 
 Maybe I just had bad luck with my bluetooth toy. It was crap....lose signal in mid-conversation, wouldn't turn on...then wouldn't turn off. Then it fell apart for no apparent reason. The O2 store replaced it for me but I haven't been arsed to give the second one a try yet, speaker phone is just as easy while driving actually, which is all I tried to use bluetooth for anyway.

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Another one for the scientists.........
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2005, 04:47:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
  Sorry, still say I'm special!!!!
 
As in "Special" Olympics....

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: Another one for the scientists.........
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2005, 05:26:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
  Sorry, still say I'm special!!!!
 
 Maybe I just had bad luck with my bluetooth toy. It was crap....lose signal in mid-conversation, wouldn't turn on...then wouldn't turn off. Then it fell apart for no apparent reason. The O2 store replaced it for me but I haven't been arsed to give the second one a try yet, speaker phone is just as easy while driving actually, which is all I tried to use bluetooth for anyway.
You are special in that you're a warm blooded animal.  Cold blooded animals send very weak signals.
 
 As for Bluetooth, I will grant you that manufacturers have been pumping out some crap hardware in feable attempts to keep up with demands.  My first Motorola headset had to be taken back the next day, but my second one has been brilliant.
27>34

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: Another one for the scientists.........
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2005, 01:25:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
  If I haven't got one from the mobile phone, then I'm immune to them....
Sorry Mank, but again, you're not that special. We're all immune to them so far:
 
 
 Mobile phone cancer link rejected
 
 Mobile phone use does not up the risk of cancer, at least in the first 10 years of use, the largest investigation to date shows.
 
 Past studies had suggested an increased risk of acoustic neuroma - a tumour of the nerve connecting the ear and the brain - but others did not.
 
 The latest Institute of Cancer Research work includes data from five European countries and more than 4,000 people.
 
 Expert advice is still to limit mobile phone use as a precautionary measure.
 
 
 There are more than one billion mobile phone users worldwide.
 
 Longer follow up is needed to check that health problems do not arise with many more years of use, the researchers say in the British Journal of Cancer.
 
 An independent group for the UK government, led by Sir William Stewart, that looked into the safety of mobile phones in the late 1990s also concluded mobile phones do not appear to harm health.
 
 However, the group said that there was evidence that radiation from mobile phones could potentially cause adverse health effects and that therefore a "precautionary approach" to their use should be adopted.
 
 Precautions
 
 The government currently advises mobile phone users keep their call times short.
 
 And children under the age of 16 should only use mobile phones for essential calls, because their head and nervous systems may still be developing.
 
 The latest data from the UK, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, included 678 people with acoustic neuroma and 3,553 without this form of cancer.
 
 This revealed no relation between the risk of acoustic neuroma and the number of years for which the mobile phones had been used, the time since first use, total hours of use or total number of calls.
 
 It is important that researchers continue to monitor phone users over the coming years
 Dr Julie Sharp, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK  
 
 Nor was there any link with analogue or digital phones or whether or not a hands free kit was used.
 
 On balance, the evidence suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade of use, but the possibility of some effect after longer periods remains open, the researchers concluded.
 
 Senior investigator Professor Anthony Swedlow said: "Whether there are longer-term risks remains unknown, reflecting the fact that this is a relatively recent technology."
 
 Dr Michael Clark from the Health Protection Agency said: "This is good news but we still need to be a bit cautious."
 
 Dr Julie Sharp, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "This study provides further evidence that using mobile phones does not increase the risk of brain tumours.
 
 "However, it is important that researchers continue to monitor phone users over the coming years as mobiles are still a relatively new invention."
 
 A Swedish study identified an increased risk of acoustic neuromas among people who had used mobile phones for 10 years or more.
 
 People have been concerned that the radiofrequency from phones might cause cancers, despite the absence of a known biological mechanism for this.
 
 
 Story from BBC NEWS:
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/4196762.stm
27>34