Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Has anyone had any experience with this item ?
http://www.detoxyourworld.com/acatalog/phone_dome.html

Is it legit ?

I have this stupid Motorola L6 and it emits 1.58W/kg (which is the most radiation in all cell phones of the world or something ... (the US is the world ... right ? )
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6602_7-502 ... l?tag=lnav
I use it only once a month, but I still don't like the idea of putting it to my ear

Hehe, that's just bogus crap. Don't fall for that trick that those devices should reduce or even remove radiation ..even Pen & Teller trashed this type of stuff on Bullshit not long ago so don't waste your money on it Thomas.

Just use your cell less and for shorter periods and you should be fine, in worst case get a new cell which don't emit so much radiation if that's a problem.

/ Max

Well, it is true that if I wear a tin-foil helmet it will definately shield the radiation ... as it creates a Faraday cage ...

Any conductive enclosure (envelope) acts as a faraday cage. For example the hard disk enclosure acts as a cage protecting the data from external fields. The PSU enclosure is a cage of its own ...
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sD ... 82,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

you mean, this?

I think this one is safer:



HD[/i]

YES ! These would be perfect ...

... on the other hand it migt be more practical to wrap the cellphone itself and just leave a hole in the back for the antenna reception...

I'm not sure if that still won't make it harder for it to capture a signal, which means it will have to boost power, which means even more radiation

Recently I saw a video where they use 2 cellphones (they call the one phone from the other and leave them both connected) placed on either side of an egg. Result: 20 min to softboil 40 min to hardboil. If I can find the site I'll post it.... (I use a headset)

b-kandor wrote:Recently I saw a video where they use 2 cellphones (they call the one phone from the other and leave them both connected) placed on either side of an egg. Result: 20 min to softboil 40 min to hardboil. If I can find the site I'll post it.... (I use a headset)

This one ?
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... phones.htm

Good find Thomas! Never believe what you read or see or feel or hear or taste!

Anyhow, the last paragraph lends some truth to the original obfuscation:

Keep in mind that I don't want even 10% of the energy required to cook and egg working on my brain. I've made 30min calls on my cellphone (prior to headset) and had to end the call when the phone became to warm to hold comfortably!

Kandor

quoted>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Contrary to all common sense, two journalists from the Russian tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda claimed they successfully cooked an egg with two cell phones in April 2006. Citing "a popular British Internet forum for students" as the inspiration for their project, Vladimir Lagovski and Andrei Moiseynko followed Ivermee's instructions to the letter, situating a raw egg between two cell phones, switching on a portable radio to emulate conversation, and dialing one phone from the other to establish a connection.

After three minutes -- the amount of time Ivermee claimed it took to thoroughly cook an egg -- theirs was still cold, the Russians reported. At the 15-minute mark, the same. But 10 minutes later, they remarked, the egg had gotten noticably warmer. When the experiment came to an abrupt end at the 65-minute mark because one of the cell phones ran out of power, Lagovski and Moiseynko said they cracked open the egg and found it was cooked to the equivalent of a soft boil.

"Therefore," they concluded, "carrying two cell phones in the pockets of your pants is not recommended."

I don't know about that, but based on the preponderance of evidence I do recommend taking most of what they say with a giant grain of salt.

b-kandor wrote: Keep in mind that I don't want even 10% of the energy required to cook and egg working on my brain. ...

Definately !!
That is my concern as well... and there is a volume of ongoing reports regarding cancer acceleration rates in the presence of RF.

The thing is that when big money is involved; as in the cell-phone industry, any adverse reports can be dubbed "inconclusive" indefinately by means of crafty rhetoric and clever litigators (much the same way the tabaco industry was succesfully convincing many of us that smoking is not addictive ... that any evidense to the contrary is "junk science" ... and that anyone can stop use on the dime ... it is just that they don't want to).

b-kandor wrote: I've made 30min calls on my cellphone (prior to headset) and had to end the call when the phone became to warm to hold comfortably!

Actually the soft tissues are more susceptible than the brain.

Here are a couple of things I dug up ... (don't know how accurate are their claims though)
http://www.rfsafe.com/research/cell_phone_location.htm

In the process of searching on this ... I found out that microwave ovens do leak radiation. Their EMF shielding is not hermetic

You can place a cell phone inside the oven ... call it ... and it will still ring (that is, untill you press the "start" button )

OT...but you since you brought it up...

Thomas An. wrote:...much the same way the tabaco industry was succesfully convincing many of us that smoking is not addictive ... that any evidense to the contrary is "junk science" ... and that anyone can stop use on the dime ... it is just that they don't want to.

I am not addicted.
I can stop anytime.
I just don't want to.

As a smoker, I'm always pretty offended by the hordes of self-appointed Health missionaries who seem to insinuate that I'm a nothing more than a brainwashed idiot, who is too stupid to make decisions for himself. More than that though, I'm mostly incensed by those who disingenuously decry tobacco, tobacco companies, and smokers, yet have no problem taking ridiculous amounts of our money. And don't even try to say that tobacco is taxed in proportion with its associated health care costs...when was the last time you paid a 300-500% tax-markup (remember, this is in post-income-tax dollars) on a Big Mac...or an automobile. It even makes it a little more ironic that in my 31 years, the only people I've known who got, or died from, cancer were *not* smokers, and didn't even live around smokers...but I've never known a single smoker who died from, or even got, cancer. I know that's just anecdotal, but then again...

Recent findings by the World Health Organization suggest that U.S. white male smokers have an 8% chance of acquiring lung cancer at some point in their lives, as opposed to the 2% chance of acquiring lung cancer among U.S. white male non-smokers.

So...even the WHO says that smoking only increases my chances in the lung-cancer lottery by a lousy 6%? Tell you what, that's just not gonna do it for me...

:: lights up ::

...besides, I've personally got much better chances of dying somewhere between here and the end of a quarter-mile before cigarettes ever get a shot at me. Obviously I'm having a little fun with this, so don't take it wrong Thomas, but maybe in the future, you'll want to make sure there aren't any militant smokers in the room before you inadvertently malign an estimated 35%+ of the population of the Earth with unnecessary remarks about smoking...we're a generally quiet, but feisty bunch.

...and we like our smokes.

Hit a smokers nerve! Cool ... controversial discussion is brewing, just I was getting borred (with all this work around here )

My dad was/is a smoker ... everywhere he goes there is a cloud following him (like in cartoons) . I grew up with that stuff and lots of it. I have asked him all the hard questions and the answers were never substantial. Basically he just started smoking because it was "cool" and then he just liked it ever since ... I have used him as a guinea pig for some of my experiments too ... once I sneaked a random batch of Marlboro lites in his regulars to see if he will notice. If as he claimed he was not addicted and he just liked the feel of it on his hands and mouth then it wouldn't matter if there was nicotine or not... well he did spot the lites without even looking at them
I still call him a druggie and he knows he can't win on that one ...

In any case tabacco is a neural stimulant ... if us humans use something (like alcohol and tabacco) for more than a 1000 years ... there is something in it ... it doesn't matter how mild it is ... it is still a drug nontheless ... and I have an idealistic issue about artificial tempering of the "feedback system" (emotional frame of mind)

Tobacco is an agricultural crop that is used to make cigarettes. It is grown all over the world and supports a billion-dollar industry. Tobacco is dried and processed, then either placed into cigarettes and processed, or manufactured for chewing tobacco. The psychoactive ingredient is nicotine, a stimulant, but more than 4,000 other chemicals (2,000 of which are known to be poisonous) are present in cigarettes.

Tobacco is a nervous system stimulant that triggers complex biochemical and neurotransmitter disruptions. It elevates heart rate and blood pressure, constricts blood vessels, irritates lung tissue, and diminishes your ability to taste and smell