Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Robert G. Seeberger]

On 6/26/2006 9:57:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/26/2006 10:51:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> 2) The  planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set
> > off  in
> > the floors that they hit.
> >
>
> Bingo, and it resides as a  suspicion, not a belief. None of the
> "official explanations" precludes the  sort of conspiracy required. 
> The
> conspiracy theorists addressed such right  from the get-go.
> Now,
> I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are  correct or
> that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they  say
> has been "without doubt" eliminated as a possibility. (The point 
> being
> that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged 
> and/or
> ignored)
> So if you are going to blow up the buildings with explosives why fly 
> the
> planes into the buildings?

Well, that's the heart of the idea of a conspiracy, eh?
Knock down the targeted buildings but leave the rest of the business 
district mostly unscathed.


>If you are terrorists why should you care whether the
> buildings go straight down or topple over. Wouldn't
> you want them to topple
> to  do more damage?

Bingo again!
And that is the only reason it is suspicious at all.

What was the distance between adjacent buildings in that part of town?

xponent
Rumors Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 6/26/2006 10:51:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

2) The  planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set 
> off  in
> the floors that they hit.
>

Bingo, and it resides as a  suspicion, not a belief. None of the 
"official explanations" precludes the  sort of conspiracy required. The 
conspiracy theorists addressed such right  from the get-go.
Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are  correct or 
that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they  say 
has been "without doubt" eliminated as a possibility. (The point being  
that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged and/or  
ignored)
So if you are going to blow up the buildings with explosives why fly the  
planes into the buildings? If you are terrorists why should you care whether 
the  
buildings go straight down or topple over. Wouldn't you want them to topple 
to  do more damage?






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 6/26/2006 5:56:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

EM  radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and physical trauma.  
Go  lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll see.

It's whether *these  frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage  
that is in question,  and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I  
said in another  post, I think the balance of evidence is that the  
risk is negligable  compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more  
worried about skin  cancer than I am about brain tumours.
Once again the key has to be whether the em radiation from cell phones is  
powerful enough to cause DNA damage in the brain. My point is that the brain is 
 
bathed in em all the time and unless the cell phones produce a different or 
more  powerful type of radiation the brain should have no trouble dealing with 
this.  By the way there is no evidence of increased cancer risks in adults who 
have  undergone CT scan even multiple scans where the radiation exposure is 
orders of  magnitudes greater than that from a cell phone. Even radiation 
therapy to the  brain does not cause a significant increase in additional 
cancers. 
Radiation at  therapeutic doses is bad. it damages the blood vessels in the 
brain and leads to  chronic ischemia but not to an increase in second primary 
tumors. By the way the  reason that exposure to the sun leads to increase in 
cancer is not as far as I  understand directly due to direct damage to DNA. 
Rather the sun causes tissue  damage and the response to this damage is 
cellular 
proliferation. Proliferating  cells are much more likely to undergo mutations 
leading to cancer. 
 






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" 
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:17 PM
Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples


[Snip a godawful amount of quoted text]

> All of this makes sense to me, and is consistent with what I see on 
> the
> videos of the collapse.

Well of course it does Dan. The explanations these gentlemen give are 
tailored to explain what was seen in the evidence, what they don't do 
is eliminate alternate explanations and that is the item that I would 
like to see.
I would even trust your judgement of such an endevour, but such has 
not been undertaken or even really been officially commented on. (At 
least I have not become aware of it and that is also within the realms 
of possibility)

>It seems that you are very skeptical about the
> analysis that was done.  I'm trying to find out why you think these 
> guys are
> wrong.
>
It is that it is *an* explanation, but not neccessarily *the* 
explanation.
>
>
> I'm also trying to understand what you believe might have happened. 
> I can
> think of a couple theoretical possibilities.
>
> 1) There no hijacked planes.  The pictures of the second plane 
> flying into
> the WTC faked were faked.

Then the witnesses would have to be faked also, but there are just too 
many of them for that to be true.

>
> 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set 
> off in
> the floors that they hit.
>

Bingo, and it resides as a suspicion, not a belief. None of the 
"official explanations" precludes the sort of conspiracy required. The 
conspiracy theorists addressed such right from the get-go.
Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or 
that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say 
has been "without doubt" eliminated as a possibility. (The point being 
that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged and/or 
ignored)

As we have previously discussed, my main concern is that all three 
buildings collapsed fairly well into their basements with about as 
little collateral damage as could be possible.
Why pancaking and not toppling?
>From your post:
" He noted that
videotapes showed some tilting of the top portion of the south tower 
before
it collapsed. 'This indicates the buckling of one building face while 
the
adjacent face was bending.' After that, the upper portions of the 
tower are
shown disintegrating, with 'a dynamic effect and amplification 
process'"

Why was this tilting not "amplified"? It should have been.

xponent
Always Questions Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Bemmzim]

 
In a message dated 6/26/2006 3:45:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Which,  IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low  level.




But the effect is completely different than the effect needed to produce  
cancer. Remember the brain produces em radiation and responds to it so there is 
 
no reason that the brain would not respond to an external source of em. I 
would  propose another test. Yell really loud into someone's ear. This is a 
sound 
wave.  Measure the electromagnetic response in the brain with an MR scan 
(actually you  don't have to yell all that loud). The fact that sound causes a 
brain response  would mean by this logic that sound can cause cancer. Please 
get 
me some  earmuffs. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 6/26/2006 3:16:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Actually, it's a first order approximationnot a straw man.   First, we
know that the rate of cancer caused by the E&M fields within  the brain is,
at most, the total rate of brain cancer.  I think  Zimmy's point is that the
exposure of the brain to E&M from cell phones  is a fraction of the exposure
from within the brain itself.  Part of  this is the absorption in the skull,
part of it is the good old fashion  inverse square law.  Local fields from
synapse firing can be seen as  strong fields over a very small volume.  We
know that we can pick up  signals from inside the brain through our thick
skulls with EEGs.   Thus, 
Yes that is it



> Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or  ruled out?
> Not yet. 

Not ruled out, but a fairly low upper  limit has been set.  It has to be
small enough to not be seen against  a relatively low rate of primary brain
tumors...7 to 10 per 100k.   Further, if you look at penetrating power, these
tumors should be  relatively shallowwhich results in a further lowering
of the  backgroundsince only a subset of tumors are shallow...Zimmy can
give  some numbers on this, I'd bet.
Primary brain tumors typically arise from the white matter that is not the  
superficial part of the brain. Some tumors are superficial; benign tumors -  
meningiomas arise from the linings of the brain. There is an increased 
incidence 
 of meningiomas in individuals who have been previously irradiated. For 
instance  in the mid 20th century in Europe lice infestations were treated with 
radiation  (really). So we used to see an unusually high number of meningiomas 
in 
old  polish immigrants. Otherwise I know of no predilection for brain tumor 
that is  not based on the histologic tumor type. (Certain types of cells are 
more common  in different parts of the brain so it is not surprising that the 
tumors that  arise from these cells are common where the cells reside. 



>Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided.  

That's a true statement, but a tad misleading.  Proponents of a  mechanism
need to demonstrate how low levels of RF signals cause cancer,  while there
is a significant upper limit on higher levels.  I remember  a similar
argument with power lines.  My friend, who had worked in RF  modeling for
over a decade at the time, pointed out that the fields that  supposedly cause
cancer are significantly smaller than fields that exist at  the cellular
levels in the body.  And, since the energy is  non-ionizing, comparison of
fields strengths should be  valid.

Finally, if RF fields cause cancer, shouldn't we see a large  increase in
cancers caused by the use of NMR  machines?



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

One pound per minute (was: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone)

[Matt Grimaldi]

Ronn!Blankenship
]At 05:05 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:
]
]>On 27/06/2006, at 1:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
]>>
]>>
]>>Simple fix:  Only use your phone at night.  Besides, the rates are
]>>lower.
]>
]>I'm in Cyprus. It's a pound an hour or something stupidly cheap like
]>that.
]
]
]Would that the gym could promise rates like that . . .

They could only deliver by resorting to surgical methods.

For Fight Club fans, whatever you do, don't buy that "special" soap at the 
department store...

-- Matt






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Charlie Bell]

On 27/06/2006, at 1:08 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


At 05:05 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:


On 27/06/2006, at 1:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:



Simple fix:  Only use your phone at night.  Besides, the rates are
lower.


I'm in Cyprus. It's a pound an hour or something stupidly cheap like
that.



Would that the gym could promise rates like that . . .


Get on your bike. It's free. ;)

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:05 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:


On 27/06/2006, at 1:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:



Simple fix:  Only use your phone at night.  Besides, the rates are
lower.


I'm in Cyprus. It's a pound an hour or something stupidly cheap like
that.



Would that the gym could promise rates like that . . .


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Charlie Bell]

On 27/06/2006, at 1:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:



Simple fix:  Only use your phone at night.  Besides, the rates are  
lower.


I'm in Cyprus. It's a pound an hour or something stupidly cheap like  
that.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:01 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:


On 27/06/2006, at 12:59 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage
that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I
said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the
risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more
worried about skin cancer




From your cell phone?


No. From sunlight.



Simple fix:  Only use your phone at night.  Besides, the rates are lower.


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Charlie Bell]

On 27/06/2006, at 12:59 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage
that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I
said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the
risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more
worried about skin cancer




From your cell phone?


No. From sunlight.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:55 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:




That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even
the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*.


My point was that brain cells are subject to em effects all of the
time. They live in a sea of em for their entire existence. If em
radiation could cause DNA damage and cancer then these cells could
simply not survive and neither could we; in fact we could never
have evolved in the first place.


EM radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and physical trauma.
Go lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll see.

It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage
that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I
said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the
risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more
worried about skin cancer




From your cell phone?




 than I am about brain tumours.

Charlie


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Charlie Bell]

That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even
the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*.


My point was that brain cells are subject to em effects all of the  
time. They live in a sea of em for their entire existence. If em  
radiation could cause DNA damage and cancer then these cells could  
simply not survive and neither could we; in fact we could never  
have evolved in the first place.


EM radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and physical trauma.  
Go lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll see.


It's whether *these frequencies* at *this power* can cause damage  
that is in question, and whether there are cumulative effects. Like I  
said in another post, I think the balance of evidence is that the  
risk is negligable compared to other risks. I'm certainly far more  
worried about skin cancer than I am about brain tumours.


Charlie


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 02:19 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Dan Minette wrote:



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 2:03 PM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
>
> At 12:29 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:45 PM
> > > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> > > Subject: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> > >
> > > http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
> > >
> > >
> > > Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham
> > > Young University physics professor has identified the material as
> > > Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite
> > > plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel
> > > quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > This would be a blockbuster if true.
> >
> >But, he gives no evidence that it is true.  He just claims it.  Also, I
> >think it's rather funny that it's from the same state that gave us cold
> >fusion. :-)
>
>
> Um . . . presumably you do know what that Steve Jones (there are two
> at BYU) was best known for before he got on this WTC kick?

I once knew, but forgot that he did real cold fusion with muons...this is
too funny. :-)



Although at least muon-catalyzed cold fusion worked . . . although in 
the short life of a muon, it apparently cannot catalyze enough fusion 
reactions to make as much energy as it took to make the muon in the 
first place, so it is not a great new source of energy.


I was in Provo at the time, and I'll try to find a summary I wrote of 
what went on if anyone's interested . . .



-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[bemmzim]

 
 
-Original Message-
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion 
Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:10:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone


At 01:49 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: 
 
>On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
>> These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers 
> 
>That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even 
>the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*. 
 
My point was that brain cells are subject to em effects all of the time. They 
live in a sea of em for their entire existence. If em radiation could cause DNA 
damage and cancer then these cells could simply not survive and neither could 
we; in fact we could never have evolved in the first place. 
> 
>Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out? 
>Not yet. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. Is 
>it anything to worry about? Probably not, but keep phone use short 
>anyway to be on the safe side. 
 
But is it more probable that you will die of a cell-phone-induced brain tumor 
or that you will have a wreck while gabbing on the cell phone while driving (or 
be run over by some idiot who is gabbing on the cell phone while driving) or 
that you will die of asphyxiation in a public place due to having your cell 
phone stuffed down your throat by someone who is sick and tired of the noise? 
 
Hang Up And Drive Already Maru 
 
-- Ronn! :) 
 
 
___ 
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l 

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. 
All on demand. Always Free.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[The Fool]

> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

> > Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
> > 
> > --
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> > It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the
> > energy of the penetrating em signal  and where the penetration occurs.
The
> > study does not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the
> > brain;
> > the TMS signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em
signal
> > may alter superficial processes such as blood flow.
> > 
> > 
> > A study I posted to this list last year showed that red blood cells could
> > probably clump together from cell phone radiation.
> > 
> > Another study I posted showed damage to corneas from cell phone
radiation,
> > and one I posted a long time ago show a correlation between corneal
> > cancers and cell phone radiation.
> > 
> > So that is obviously something that has been repeatedly shown to occur.
> 
> I realize that you think that, but it raises an obvious question.  What do
> you do when different studies produce different results?  How do you think
> the results of the studies should be weighed against each other?
> 

First who funds the respective studies?  Second, which study has a larger
correlation? (Isn't that the n value?)  Third, size and time scale of the
study.  Fouth, additional related studies that show simmilar / dissimmilar
findings.

> 
> > Individual molecules would resonate fairly well (cell phone use similar
> > frequencies to microwaves).  Wheras Dan has argued that in agregate the
> > temperature change is small to negliable, I have argued that individual
> > molecules may become super-heated and changed/damaged OR possibly
> > change/damage other molecules / strucures / DNA.
> 
> I'd very much appreciate it if you'd walk through the physics to show how
> this is done.  In particular, it would be worth showing how one molecule in
> a constant EM field (a darn good approximation when considering sizes
> comprising tens of thousands of molecules) becomes superheated, while its
> companions don't. 

Not all molecules are stationary.  Some are more fixed in place than others. 
Transient cells and fluids would probably be less likely to have such
localized heating.  Not all molecular bonds are at angles that resonate well
with those frequencies.  The reason microwave ovens use those particular
frequencies is because they tend to resonate the bonds of water molecules in
particular.  By superheated, I don't mean millions of degrees, but enough of
a differential to have an effect (which could in fact be positive in some
cases).

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Charlie Bell]

On 26/06/2006, at 11:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote:



Also, I've had much more luck
discussing science with you than I have discussing it with the Fool.


Maybe because I've got formal science training...


I've seen that correlation before.  Maybe we're on to something and  
could

publish a paper on the possibility of causation between formal science
training and understanding science. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll let  
you be

first author. :-)


More interesting, the link between lack of formal science training  
(or even a decent schooling in science) and tendency to believe crank  
stuff (homeopathy and other altie "medicine", free energy, ufos,  
occult, etc).


It seems trivial that people who study science tend to get science.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:46 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
> 
>>Also, I've had much more luck
>> discussing science with you than I have discussing it with the Fool.
> 
> Maybe because I've got formal science training...

I've seen that correlation before.  Maybe we're on to something and could
publish a paper on the possibility of causation between formal science
training and understanding science. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll let you be
first author. :-)

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Charlie Bell]

On 26/06/2006, at 11:28 PM, Dan Minette wrote:


Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level.


The US national institute of health's website states at:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter5.html


The predominant evaluations of the various health end-points  
covered in this

report are 'limited' and 'inadequate' evidence.



Fair enough. I was thinking of something from the Lancet a while ago,  
but ICBA to go look. It was very low level at best (worst).



That's just it - it doesn't need to be ionising. Heat at very low
levels can cause damage to cells - spot heating effects could cause
denaturing of proteins. That's not to say they do at the frequencies
that mobile phones emit, it' s conjecture.


It's possible for spot heating to do this...but it does depend on  
the change
in temperature. We do spot heating all the time.  When we wash  
dishes in hot
water, we do spot heating on our hands.  I'd argue that, for a  
total 3 watt

signal from a cell phone, the heating rate is rather low.


Sure. It's like microwave ovens though - the heating is not at all  
uniform.


Further, the heating should fall off as exp(-a*r)/r^2, where a is the
attenuation coefficient in the head.  Maybe Zimmy knows what the  
attenuation
in the skull is.  We can also assume that it's the attenuation that  
does the

heating, so we could use similar numbers to look at the heating of the
brain.

How about this for a test?  Put a cell phone next to a few cc's of  
water.
Place a thermostat in the water.  See how much it warms.  This  
should be
greater than the warming of any spot in the brain, unless one is  
wearing the

wrong tin foil hat, causing a focus at one point. :-)


I'd use jelly (jello to you), which melts about the same temperature  
as protein denaturing (50 degrees) and see if there's localised  
effects, convection in water would negate those. Or better, use a  
jelly with a protein (say egg albumin) in, and another with a  
specific nucleic acids in, with some sort of marker, and see both if  
phones can cause spot damage, and what frequency and power *does*  
cause damage (obviously, somewhere between a phone and a microwave  
oven there's a danger line...).




Recent studies did show correlation between a cell phone on the hip
or in a trouser pocket and lowered sperm counts. Of course,
correlation does not mean causation, but it's interesting anyway (and
watching porn increases sperm production, so if you're trying for a
kid, watch porn an hour or two before you plan to ejaculate...).



Interesting that you saw fit to extensively fisk my post, but not the
original article.


I thought about it, but Zimmy got to it first.  Then, when you  
responded to

him, I thought I'd give it a whirl.  Also, I've had much more luck
discussing science with you than I have discussing it with the Fool.


Maybe because I've got formal science training...


He has
a rather personalized technique for evaluating research.


He does indeed.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of The Fool
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:56 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
> 
> --
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the
> energy of the penetrating em signal  and where the penetration occurs. The
> study does not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the
> brain;
> the TMS signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em signal
> may alter superficial processes such as blood flow.
> 
> 
> A study I posted to this list last year showed that red blood cells could
> probably clump together from cell phone radiation.
> 
> Another study I posted showed damage to corneas from cell phone radiation,
> and one I posted a long time ago show a correlation between corneal
> cancers and cell phone radiation.
> 
> So that is obviously something that has been repeatedly shown to occur.

I realize that you think that, but it raises an obvious question.  What do
you do when different studies produce different results?  How do you think
the results of the studies should be weighed against each other?


> Individual molecules would resonate fairly well (cell phone use similar
> frequencies to microwaves).  Wheras Dan has argued that in agregate the
> temperature change is small to negliable, I have argued that individual
> molecules may become super-heated and changed/damaged OR possibly
> change/damage other molecules / strucures / DNA.

I'd very much appreciate it if you'd walk through the physics to show how
this is done.  In particular, it would be worth showing how one molecule in
a constant EM field (a darn good approximation when considering sizes
comprising tens of thousands of molecules) becomes superheated, while its
companions don't. 

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 2:45 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
> 
> 
> On 26/06/2006, at 10:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > Actually, it's a first order approximationnot a straw man.
> 
> That's the boy. Still fallacial.
> 
> >
> >> Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out?
> >> Not yet.
> >
> > Not ruled out, but a fairly low upper limit has been set.
> 
> Yep.
> >
> >> Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided.
> >
> > That's a true statement, but a tad misleading.  Proponents of a
> > mechanism
> > need to demonstrate how low levels of RF signals cause cancer,
> > while there
> > is a significant upper limit on higher levels.  I remember a similar
> > argument with power lines.
> 
> Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level.

The US national institute of health's website states at:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/html/WGReport/Chapter5.html


The predominant evaluations of the various health end-points covered in this
report are 'limited' and 'inadequate' evidence.


That's about the state of things I remembered from when I talked to my
friend...there were some studies that indicated some health effects.  The
problem with using these studies is that, in their compilation, erroneous
statistical techniques were employed.  In particular, subsets of cancers
were used to find a signal...since there was no signal seen in the overall
numbers.  That, by itself, is OK, one just has to include the number of
places one looks in calculating the chi-squared/DOF.  This was not done.
Further, compilations combined a + 2.5 sigma signal in cancer A in study 1,
with a +2.2 sigma signal in cancer B in study 2, to arrive at a combined >3
sigma signalignoring the fact that study 1 showed a negative correlation
with cancer B and study 2 showed a negative correlation with cancer A.  The
API did a study of the technique, and used the same technique to show that
that power lines prevented cancersand sometimes the same cancers they
causedfrom the same data.

> That's just it - it doesn't need to be ionising. Heat at very low
> levels can cause damage to cells - spot heating effects could cause
> denaturing of proteins. That's not to say they do at the frequencies
> that mobile phones emit, it' s conjecture.

It's possible for spot heating to do this...but it does depend on the change
in temperature. We do spot heating all the time.  When we wash dishes in hot
water, we do spot heating on our hands.  I'd argue that, for a total 3 watt
signal from a cell phone, the heating rate is rather low.

Further, the heating should fall off as exp(-a*r)/r^2, where a is the
attenuation coefficient in the head.  Maybe Zimmy knows what the attenuation
in the skull is.  We can also assume that it's the attenuation that does the
heating, so we could use similar numbers to look at the heating of the
brain.

How about this for a test?  Put a cell phone next to a few cc's of water.
Place a thermostat in the water.  See how much it warms.  This should be
greater than the warming of any spot in the brain, unless one is wearing the
wrong tin foil hat, causing a focus at one point. :-)


> Recent studies did show correlation between a cell phone on the hip
> or in a trouser pocket and lowered sperm counts. Of course,
> correlation does not mean causation, but it's interesting anyway (and
> watching porn increases sperm production, so if you're trying for a
> kid, watch porn an hour or two before you plan to ejaculate...).
 
> Interesting that you saw fit to extensively fisk my post, but not the
> original article.

I thought about it, but Zimmy got to it first.  Then, when you responded to
him, I thought I'd give it a whirl.  Also, I've had much more luck
discussing science with you than I have discussing it with the Fool.  He has
a rather personalized technique for evaluating research.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[The Fool]

--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the
energy of the penetrating em signal  and where the penetration occurs. The
study does not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the brain;
the TMS signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em signal
may alter superficial processes such as blood flow.


A study I posted to this list last year showed that red blood cells could
probably clump together from cell phone radiation.

Another study I posted showed damage to corneas from cell phone radiation,
and one I posted a long time ago show a correlation between corneal cancers
and cell phone radiation.

So that is obviously something that has been repeatedly shown to occur.


 In any event the energy necessary to affect the electrical activity of
neurons is very different than the energy necessary to induce cancer.  The
neurons are always exposed to chemical and em signals - EEGs are recordings
of the electrical activity of the brain. These emission don't cause cancer or
we would all have brain cancers (come to think of it there would be no "we
all" in any sense if low level em caused cancer). 


Individual molecules would resonate fairly well (cell phone use similar
frequencies to microwaves).  Wheras Dan has argued that in agregate the
temperature change is small to negliable, I have argued that individual
molecules may become super-heated and changed/damaged OR possibly
change/damage other molecules / strucures / DNA.
 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Charlie Bell]

On 26/06/2006, at 10:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote:


Actually, it's a first order approximationnot a straw man.


That's the boy. Still fallacial.




Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out?
Not yet.


Not ruled out, but a fairly low upper limit has been set.


Yep.



Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided.


That's a true statement, but a tad misleading.  Proponents of a  
mechanism
need to demonstrate how low levels of RF signals cause cancer,  
while there

is a significant upper limit on higher levels.  I remember a similar
argument with power lines.


Which, IIRC, have been now shown to have an effect, albeit low level.


My friend, who had worked in RF modeling for
over a decade at the time, pointed out that the fields that  
supposedly cause
cancer are significantly smaller than fields that exist at the  
cellular
levels in the body.  And, since the energy is non-ionizing,  
comparison of

fields strengths should be valid.


That's just it - it doesn't need to be ionising. Heat at very low  
levels can cause damage to cells - spot heating effects could cause  
denaturing of proteins. That's not to say they do at the frequencies  
that mobile phones emit, it' s conjecture.


Finally, if RF fields cause cancer, shouldn't we see a large  
increase in

cancers caused by the use of NMR machines?


Dunno. Depends on the frequencies, doesn't it. A low-intesity field  
can have a strong effect if it hits transients and resonant  
frequencies of proteins or molecules.


Recent studies did show correlation between a cell phone on the hip  
or in a trouser pocket and lowered sperm counts. Of course,  
correlation does not mean causation, but it's interesting anyway (and  
watching porn increases sperm production, so if you're trying for a  
kid, watch porn an hour or two before you plan to ejaculate...).


Interesting that you saw fit to extensively fisk my post, but not the  
original article. For the record, I think that the risks of moderate  
mobile phone use have been shown to be negligable. I'm still open to  
the possibility that there may be an effect, but I'm not worried  
about it. As Rob rightly pointed out, mobile phone use leads to other  
risks far greater than the using of a phone itself.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 2:03 PM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> 
> At 12:29 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:45 PM
> > > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> > > Subject: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> > >
> > > http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
> > >
> > >
> > > Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham
> > > Young University physics professor has identified the material as
> > > Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite
> > > plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel
> > > quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > This would be a blockbuster if true.
> >
> >But, he gives no evidence that it is true.  He just claims it.  Also, I
> >think it's rather funny that it's from the same state that gave us cold
> >fusion. :-)
> 
> 
> Um . . . presumably you do know what that Steve Jones (there are two
> at BYU) was best known for before he got on this WTC kick?

I once knew, but forgot that he did real cold fusion with muons...this is
too funny. :-)


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:49 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone
> 
> 
> On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >  These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers
> 
> That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even
> the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*.

Actually, it's a first order approximationnot a straw man.  First, we
know that the rate of cancer caused by the E&M fields within the brain is,
at most, the total rate of brain cancer.  I think Zimmy's point is that the
exposure of the brain to E&M from cell phones is a fraction of the exposure
from within the brain itself.  Part of this is the absorption in the skull,
part of it is the good old fashion inverse square law.  Local fields from
synapse firing can be seen as strong fields over a very small volume.  We
know that we can pick up signals from inside the brain through our thick
skulls with EEGs.  Thus, 
 
> Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out?
> Not yet. 

Not ruled out, but a fairly low upper limit has been set.  It has to be
small enough to not be seen against a relatively low rate of primary brain
tumors...7 to 10 per 100k.  Further, if you look at penetrating power, these
tumors should be relatively shallowwhich results in a further lowering
of the backgroundsince only a subset of tumors are shallow...Zimmy can
give some numbers on this, I'd bet.

>Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. 

That's a true statement, but a tad misleading.  Proponents of a mechanism
need to demonstrate how low levels of RF signals cause cancer, while there
is a significant upper limit on higher levels.  I remember a similar
argument with power lines.  My friend, who had worked in RF modeling for
over a decade at the time, pointed out that the fields that supposedly cause
cancer are significantly smaller than fields that exist at the cellular
levels in the body.  And, since the energy is non-ionizing, comparison of
fields strengths should be valid.

Finally, if RF fields cause cancer, shouldn't we see a large increase in
cancers caused by the use of NMR machines?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 01:49 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:


On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers


That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even
the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*.

Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out?
Not yet. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. Is
it anything to worry about? Probably not, but keep phone use short
anyway to be on the safe side.



But is it more probable that you will die of a cell-phone-induced 
brain tumor or that you will have a wreck while gabbing on the cell 
phone while driving (or be run over by some idiot who is gabbing on 
the cell phone while driving) or that you will die of asphyxiation in 
a public place due to having your cell phone stuffed down your throat 
by someone who is sick and tired of the noise?


Hang Up And Drive Already Maru


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 12:29 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Dan Minette wrote:



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:45 PM
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
>
> http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
>
>
> Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham
> Young University physics professor has identified the material as
> Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite
> plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel
> quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
>
> 
>
> This would be a blockbuster if true.

But, he gives no evidence that it is true.  He just claims it.  Also, I
think it's rather funny that it's from the same state that gave us cold
fusion. :-)



Um . . . presumably you do know what that Steve Jones (there are two 
at BYU) was best known for before he got on this WTC kick?



-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Charlie Bell]

On 26/06/2006, at 9:49 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:



On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers


That's a classic straw man.


Sorry, no it wasn't, but it's a logical fallacy of some sort - had a  
beer too many at the pub. :)


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Dave Land]

On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 6/26/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect.  It's  
all so

perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life.  Real
investigations of real happenings are usually much more  
messyjust like

real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks.


And... real, unplanned building collapses due to fire are usually  
(okay,

always) a lot messier (in that they never neatly pancake)...


In fact, the number of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed due to
fire in the history of the world is three: the fallen WTC buildings.

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Charlie Bell]

On 26/06/2006, at 9:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 These emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers


That's a classic straw man. It's probabilities, not certainties. Even  
the most virulent pathogen doesn't kill *everyone*.


Is there an increased risk? Maybe. Has it been shown or ruled out?  
Not yet. Is there a plausible mechanism? Scientists are divided. Is  
it anything to worry about? Probably not, but keep phone use short  
anyway to be on the safe side.


Charlie

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[bemmzim]

It isn't whether it can penetrate it is how much penetrates, what is the energy 
of the penetrating em signal  and where the penetration occurs. The study does 
not by the way prove that the em signal penetrates into the brain; the TMS 
signal may be affected by superficial stuff so the phone em signal may alter 
superficial processes such as blood flow. In any event the energy necessary to 
affect the electrical activity of neurons is very different than the energy 
necessary to induce cancer.  The neurons are always exposed to chemical and em 
signals - EEGs are recordings of the electrical activity of the brain. These 
emission don't cause cancer or we would all have brain cancers (come to think 
of it there would be no "we all" in any sense if low level em caused cancer). 
 
-Original Message-
From: The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:28:15 -0600
Subject: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone


What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the
skull again?

<>

Cell phone signal excites brain品s it harmful? Repeated exposure could have
possible effect on certain people, study finds

WASHINGTON - Cell phone emissions excite the part of the brain cortex nearest
to the phone, but it is not clear if these effects are harmful, Italian
researchers reported Monday.
Their study, published in the Annals of Neurology, adds to a growing body of
research about mobile phones, their possible effects on the brain, and
whether there is any link to cancer.
About 730 million cell phones are expected to be sold this year, according to
industry estimates, and nearly 2 billion people around the world already use
them.

Of these, more than 500 million use a type that emits electromagnetic fields
known as Global System for Mobile communications or GSM radio phones. Their
possible effects on the brain are controversial and not well understood.
Dr. Paolo Rossini of Fatebenefratelli hospital in Milan and colleagues used
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation or TMS to check brain function while people
used these phones.
They had 15 young male volunteers use a GSM 900 cell phone for 45 minutes. In
12 of the 15, the cells in the motor cortex adjacent to the cell phone showed
excitability during phone use but returned to normal within an hour.

The cortex is the outside layer of the brain and the motor cortex is known as
the "excitable area" because magnetic stimulation has been shown to cause a
muscle twitch.
Mixed results
The researchers stressed that they had not shown that using a cell phone is
bad for the brain in any way, but people with conditions such as epilepsy,
linked with brain cell excitability, could potentially be affected.
"It should be argued that long-lasting and repeated exposure to EMFs
(electromagnetic frequencies) linked with intense use of cellular phones in
daily life might be harmful or beneficial in brain-diseased subjects," they
wrote.
"Further studies are needed to better circumstantiate these conditions and to
provide safe rules for the use of this increasingly more widespread device."
Medical studies on cell phone use have provided mixed results. Swedish
researchers found last year that using cell phones over time can raise the
risk of brain tumors. But a study by Japan's _four mobile telephone
operators_ found no evidence that radio waves from the phones harmed cells or
DNA.
The Dutch Health Council analyzed several studies and found no evidence that
radiation from mobile phones was harmful.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. 
All on demand. Always Free.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:41 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> 
> On 6/26/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect.  It's all
> so
> > perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life.  Real
> > investigations of real happenings are usually much more messyjust
> like
> > real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks.
> 
> 
> And... real, unplanned building collapses due to fire are usually (okay,
> always) a lot messier (in that they never neatly pancake)... 

So, what you are arguing is that such an action is counter-intuitive.  OK, I
can see that.  But, one needs to ask where that intuition is trained.  How
often have we looked at the collapse of the top of, say, a > 20 story
building?  Once the top of the building started to fall, it was a classic
shock wave.  

>Yet I remain optimistic that a reasonable explanation can be found.
>There's an awful lot unexplained, IMO.

Then, why do the professionals who examine this think otherwise?  All one
has to do to accept the official explanation is to accept that the physics
of large building collapse isn't well informed by watching small building
collapses.  I'd further argue that one reason for this is the fact that when
an entire building is being weakened, the bottom falls first.  Second, even
when the collapse of a 100 story building with a given floor plan size has a
bigger impact footprint than the collapse of a 3 story building of the same
floor plan size, it looks smaller, because we compare it to the height of
the building.

I posted a number of professional reviews here before.  One of them was at

http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3742&isa=Category

Let me quote a bit from it


Although the towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing
707, "'the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions
nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next-a key design omission,' stated
Eduardo Kausel" of MIT CEE and panel member 'It was designed for the
type of fire you'd expect in an office building-paper, desks, drapes,'
McNamara said," not the much hotter temperature of burning aviation fuel.

In general, the panalists agreed that as the structure warped and weakened
at the top of each tower, the frame, along with the concrete slabs,
furniture, file cabinets and other materials, became an enormous
consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the
structure below.

Connor's collapse theory focused on weaknesses in how the vertical and
horizontal structural members were tied together. "The floor trusses sat on
beams and were tied down so the core was locked to the exterior. If a
damaged floor system were to fall, it would break the end connections in the
lower floors," and they would tumble down on top of each other. He theorized
that the fire weakened the supporting joint connection. "When it broke, one
end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while
simultaneously tugging the vertical members to which it was still attached
toward the center of the building and down," a process that accelerated
until the structure fell in on itself.

"Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he
acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazart at Northwestern
Univ. 'I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the floor trusses
and columns so that they became like chewing gum and that was enough to
trigger the collapse. The floor trusses are likely to have been the first to
sag and fail. As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from
the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually
gave way. The dynamic forces were so large that the downward motion became
unstoppable.'" Using two simple models, Kausel determined that the fall of
the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic
forces exceeding the buildings' design loads by at least an order of
magnitude.

Probably all these failure mechanisms occurred and interacted, said panelist
Oral Buyukozturk of MIT CEE. "'The prolonged effect of high heat is likely
to have led to the buckling of the columns, collapse of the floors, as well
as to the shearing of the floors upon the failure the joints.' He noted that
videotapes showed some tilting of the top portion of the south tower before
it collapsed. 'This indicates the buckling of one building face while the
adjacent face was bending.' After that, the upper portions of the tower are
shown disintegrating, with 'a dynamic effect and amplification process'
following that led to a progressive collapse-'a kind of pancaking or deck of
cards effect,' down to ground zero.

Robert McNamara's failure theory "'focuses on the connections that hold th

RE: oops: Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story

[Jim Sharkey]

Didn't Bush say from the get-go that the US would be going after the 
terrorists' finances?  How can these terrorists be as insidious and
frighteningly organized as he claims but still not be bright enough
to assume their financiers are being watched?  Regardless of whether
or not they can implement countermeasures, does the President honestly
think they don't realize their money trails are being sought out?

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Nick Arnett]

On 6/26/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect.  It's all so
perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life.  Real
investigations of real happenings are usually much more messyjust like
real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks.



And... real, unplanned building collapses due to fire are usually (okay,
always) a lot messier (in that they never neatly pancake)... Yet I remain
optimistic that a reasonable explanation can be found.  There's an awful lot
unexplained, IMO.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

oops: Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story

[Gary Nunn]

Translation: Damn! We got caught.


Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story
Bush Slams Release of Information on Monitoring of Finances for Terrorist
Activities

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a
secret anti-terrorism program that taps into an immense international
database of confidential financial records. 

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does
great harm to the United States of America," Bush said. He said the
disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2119480

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:45 PM
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
> Subject: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> 
> http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
> 
> 
> Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham
> Young University physics professor has identified the material as
> Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite
> plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel
> quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
> 
> 
> 
> This would be a blockbuster if true.

But, he gives no evidence that it is true.  He just claims it.  Also, I
think it's rather funny that it's from the same state that gave us cold
fusion. :-)

> There is some interesting discussion in the comment section.
> It pretty much all sounds like conspiracy-talk, but then it has always
> been my opinion that there was something not quite right with the
> "official" explanations.

I'm not quite sure why you say that.  The official explanation is pretty
simple: planes fly into buildingsdamages buildingsfire weakens steel
to the point where the remaining columns give way, buildings go boom.

This has been investigated by a number of structural engineers, who have
found a number of different hypotheses for the relative importance of
various factors.  If there was a gaping hole in the theory, why would there
be an overabundance of conventional explanations?

In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect.  It's all so
perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life.  Real
investigations of real happenings are usually much more messyjust like
real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[Klaus Stock]

> What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the
> skull again?

Gee.

Smoking is harmful,
alcolhol is harmful,
cell phones are harmful...
...what will come next?

Something really stupid like "buring mineral oil products is harmful"?

- Klaus
_
This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Cell Phone Signal Excites Brain Near the Cell Phone

[The Fool]

What was that about cell-phone radiation not being able to penetrate the
skull again?

<>

Cell phone signal excites brain•is it harmful? Repeated exposure could have
possible effect on certain people, study finds

WASHINGTON - Cell phone emissions excite the part of the brain cortex nearest
to the phone, but it is not clear if these effects are harmful, Italian
researchers reported Monday.
Their study, published in the Annals of Neurology, adds to a growing body of
research about mobile phones, their possible effects on the brain, and
whether there is any link to cancer.
About 730 million cell phones are expected to be sold this year, according to
industry estimates, and nearly 2 billion people around the world already use
them.

Of these, more than 500 million use a type that emits electromagnetic fields
known as Global System for Mobile communications or GSM radio phones. Their
possible effects on the brain are controversial and not well understood.
Dr. Paolo Rossini of Fatebenefratelli hospital in Milan and colleagues used
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation or TMS to check brain function while people
used these phones.
They had 15 young male volunteers use a GSM 900 cell phone for 45 minutes. In
12 of the 15, the cells in the motor cortex adjacent to the cell phone showed
excitability during phone use but returned to normal within an hour.

The cortex is the outside layer of the brain and the motor cortex is known as
the "excitable area" because magnetic stimulation has been shown to cause a
muscle twitch.
Mixed results
The researchers stressed that they had not shown that using a cell phone is
bad for the brain in any way, but people with conditions such as epilepsy,
linked with brain cell excitability, could potentially be affected.
"It should be argued that long-lasting and repeated exposure to EMFs
(electromagnetic frequencies) linked with intense use of cellular phones in
daily life might be harmful or beneficial in brain-diseased subjects," they
wrote.
"Further studies are needed to better circumstantiate these conditions and to
provide safe rules for the use of this increasingly more widespread device."
Medical studies on cell phone use have provided mixed results. Swedish
researchers found last year that using cell phones over time can raise the
risk of brain tumors. But a study by Japan's _four mobile telephone
operators_ found no evidence that radio waves from the phones harmed cells or
DNA.
The Dutch Health Council analyzed several studies and found no evidence that
radiation from mobile phones was harmful.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l