I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. I'm
looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to stump
up the cash without further advice.)

Thanks
Steve

ren@ionalisebritishtele.com spoke thusly:

> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. I'm
> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to stump
> up the cash without further advice.)
> 
> Thanks
> Steve


The Sony Ericsson K750i is a nice little shirt pocket camera, it even 
has a phone built in.

On  6-Aug-2005, Tosh <tosh@youknow.where> wrote:


> The Sony Ericsson K750i is a nice little shirt pocket camera, it even
> has a phone built in.


Thanks. I hate mobile phones. Why do they put cameras in phones? Why do
people who mend shoes also cut keys?

Steve

"Tosh" <tosh@youknow.where> wrote in message 
news:HW8Je.23677$bT4.6986@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

> ren@ionalisebritishtele.com spoke thusly:
>> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. 
>> I'm
>> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
>> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
>> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to 
>> stump
>> up the cash without further advice.)
>>
>> Thanks
>> Steve
>
> The Sony Ericsson K750i is a nice little shirt pocket camera, it even has 
> a phone built in.


I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your heart. 
The radiation doesn't do it much good. Course you can put it in your pocket 
and nuke your nuts.

wrote in message
news:QH7Je.23828$FG3.10593@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me.
I'm
> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to
stump
> up the cash without further advice.)
>
> Thanks
> Steve


The Sony T7 is THE perfect solution.....  -  HIGHLY recommended.

Robin.

In article <QH7Je.23828$FG3.10593@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
ren@ionalisebritishtele.com says...

> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. I'm
> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to stump
> up the cash without further advice.)
> 
> Thanks
> Steve
> 


I think the Pentax Optio WP is the underwater model. Not sure this is 
what you want. I've got a Pentax Optio S5n which is really tiny. I wish 
it had an optical viewfinder though which like on the S5i if you can get 
your hands on one. The S5n has got a bigger lcd though.

ren@ionalisebritishtele.com wrote:

> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. I'm
> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to stump
> up the cash without further advice.)


Have a look at a Casio Exilim.  DABS recently had some on sale, and I was 
lucky enough to get one for 99.

> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. I'm
> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to stump
> up the cash without further advice.)


I believe the Minolta Dimage series are thin, and there was one going at 
empiredirect for about £48 the other week (3x optical zoom as well IIRC)

You can check out the reviews at www.stevesdigicams.com

"Tosh" <tosh@youknow.where> wrote in message 
news:HW8Je.23677$bT4.6986@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

> ren@ionalisebritishtele.com spoke thusly:
>> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. 
>> I'm
>> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
>> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
>> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to 
>> stump
>> up the cash without further advice.)
>>
>> Thanks
>> Steve
>
> The Sony Ericsson K750i is a nice little shirt pocket camera, it even has 
> a phone built in.


I've got a Canon Ixus 40. Only about 20mm thick and it met my other criteria 
of: Metal case, SD card, good battery life and rapid power up and minimum 
shutter lag. I also have a Pentax Optio but it is a clunky toy in 
comparison.

Ian

wrote in message 
news:l29Je.23989$FG3.7069@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> On  6-Aug-2005, Tosh <tosh@youknow.where> wrote:
>
>> The Sony Ericsson K750i is a nice little shirt pocket camera, it even
>> has a phone built in.
>
> Thanks. I hate mobile phones. Why do they put cameras in phones? Why do
> people who mend shoes also cut keys?
>
>


Because lots of people have to carry mobile for business if nothing else and 
having a camera built in can be handy.

As to the key cutter/cobbler conundrum - I suspect neither business 
generates enough turnover to warrant separate businesses.

Ren wrote:

> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with
> me. I'm looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and
> be there on those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!"
> Anybody got any suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp
> but I can't thoil to stump up the cash without further advice.)




I looked up the specifications of OptioWP.  This camera has many attractive
features but has now been superseded by some recent models.  One that
readily comes to mind is......Samsung i5.  That's right, it's not one in the
mainstream (not yet!) but when you read up on its specifications and users'
opinions, you will be surprised.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052404samsung_1.asp

Note that it's 17mm thick, OptioWP is 22.  More appealing is the fact that
it takes credible MPEG-4 movies together with still pictures, which can
also stand up to critical scrutiny.  So, now we have a *shirt pocket*
camera that takes good pictures and good videos for the first time. (Thanks
to the new COACH -- Camera On A CHip -- signal processing chip from Zoran of
California, now of version 7e I believe)  Check out the sample photos
posted on Steve's Digicam Forums, and the one video clip** posted by forum
member 'Musicarvind' here (on 2005-07-31):
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=64173&forum_id=87&page=2

And, it's only 200. (OptioWP is 180)

** I could play the clip only in VLC Media Player, not Windows Media Player,
QuickTime player, Real player, or DivX player.  http://www.videolan.org/
(This universal player, which can take on all comers, is worth having even
if you have no wish to play the above clip).

-- 
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].

oO wrote:

> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your heart.
> The radiation doesn't do it much good....




I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?

-- 
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].

Theres a casio "exilim" one thats little thicker than a credit card. Do a 
search on kelkoo.co.uk
or pricerunner or any of the comparison sites

 wrote in message 
news:QH7Je.23828$FG3.10593@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. 
> I'm
> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to 
> stump
> up the cash without further advice.)
>
> Thanks
> Steve 

"Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
news:lJhJe.32420$Ag3.16084@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> Ren wrote:
>> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with
>> me. I'm looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and
>> be there on those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!"
>> Anybody got any suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp
>> but I can't thoil to stump up the cash without further advice.)
>
>
>
> I looked up the specifications of OptioWP.  This camera has many 
> attractive
> features but has now been superseded by some recent models.  One that
> readily comes to mind is......Samsung i5.  That's right, it's not one in 
> the
> mainstream (not yet!) but when you read up on its specifications and 
> users'
> opinions, you will be surprised.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052404samsung_1.asp


How does it superceed the Optio WP?
If I had taken any of the pictures I used the Optio for the Samsung would be 
dead.
It isn't waterproof so not much use while swimming.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:18:47 GMT, Tosh <tosh@youknow.where> wrote:


>ren@ionalisebritishtele.com spoke thusly:
>> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. I'm
>> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
>> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
>> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to stump
>> up the cash without further advice.)
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Steve
>
>The Sony Ericsson K750i is a nice little shirt pocket camera, it even 
>has a phone built in.


I have one but it can't compare to a dedicated digital camera.  It's
not too bad under the right lighting conditions though.

My digital camera is getting on now and I'm on the look out for
something new myself.  Small would be handy, but an optical zoom is a
must.

Sanddancer

In message <QH7Je.23828$FG3.10593@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
ren@ionalisebritishtele.com writes

>I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. I'm
>looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
>those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
>suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to stump
>up the cash without further advice.)


I've got a Casio Exilim EX-S20. It's about 11mm deep across the majority 
of the body, and only 15mm or so at the lens. Only 2 Megapixel, but 
picture quality is actually bloody good; a lot better than my older 3.1 
Megapixel Kodak.

In terms of the space/quality trade off, I'm more than happy. So happy 
in fact, that I'm now on my third one... the first two having suffered 
alcohol related accidents (I drowned the first one, my other half put 
the second somewhere safe - where it got drowned) and each time I've 
replaced the dead camera with the identical model.

If water (well Guinness or wine) proof was in your spec then I'd advise 
against, but if not then I'd heartily recommend it.

Except I think it's now been replaced; check out
http://www.exilim.co.uk/exilimcard/ for the latest models. My first cost 
180, the first replacement was 120 and the last one was a mere 49 
from the bargain bin in PC World
-- 
Gyp - weapon of muff disruption
Take out the chemical loo to reply

Dennis wrote:

> Lin Chung wrote:
> > Ren wrote:
> > > I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with
> > > me. I'm looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and
> > > be there on those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!"
> > > Anybody got any suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp
> > > but I can't thoil to stump up the cash without further advice.)
> > I looked up the specifications of OptioWP.  This camera has many
> > attractive features but has now been superseded by some recent models.
> > One that readily comes to mind is......Samsung i5....
> How does it superceed the Optio WP?  If I had taken any of the pictures I
> used the Optio for the Samsung would be dead.
> It isn't waterproof so not much use while swimming.




If you require specialized capability you should have mentioned that.  The
i5 does have an optional watertight housing accessory.  Your main
requirement as stated is a thin camera that can slip into the top *pocket*.
I was just trying to help and I'm certainly not going to waste my time being
drawn into argument you now have initiated.  Just be thankful that you are
not going to be torn to pieces for your inconsistency, ill logic, and poor
combative character.

-- 
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].

"Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
news:LguJe.13706$9K3.1740@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

> Dennis wrote:
>> Lin Chung wrote:
>> > Ren wrote:
>> > > I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with
>> > > me. I'm looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and
>> > > be there on those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!"
>> > > Anybody got any suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp
>> > > but I can't thoil to stump up the cash without further advice.)
>> > I looked up the specifications of OptioWP.  This camera has many
>> > attractive features but has now been superseded by some recent models.
>> > One that readily comes to mind is......Samsung i5....
>> How does it superceed the Optio WP?  If I had taken any of the pictures I
>> used the Optio for the Samsung would be dead.
>> It isn't waterproof so not much use while swimming.
>
>
>
> If you require specialized capability you should have mentioned that.  The
> i5 does have an optional watertight housing accessory.  Your main
> requirement as stated is a thin camera that can slip into the top 
> *pocket*.
> I was just trying to help and I'm certainly not going to waste my time 
> being
> drawn into argument you now have initiated.  Just be thankful that you are
> not going to be torn to pieces for your inconsistency, ill logic, and poor
> combative character.


???

On  7-Aug-2005, "Lin Chung"  wrote:


> Just be thankful that you are
> not going to be torn to pieces for your inconsistency, ill logic, and poor
> combative character.


It wasn't me, mate! I asked the original question and I'm grateful for your
advice.

Steve

In message <A_uJe.32799$FG3.27646@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, 
ren@ionalisebritishtele.com writes

>
>On  7-Aug-2005, "Lin Chung"  wrote:
>
>> Just be thankful that you are
>> not going to be torn to pieces for your inconsistency, ill logic, and poor
>> combative character.
>
>It wasn't me, mate! I asked the original question and I'm grateful for your
>advice.
>
>Steve


Steve, if you want to see a couple of photos from the Exilim, e-mail me 
an un-munged address (having un-munged mine) and I'll send them to you
-- 
Gyp - weapon of muff disruption
Take out the chemical loo to reply

I have a Casio Exilim M2 and its lived in my pockets for years now, the case 
is dinted and scratched. Its 2M pixel and very thin, I keep thinking about 
upgrading to the new versions (they are upto 5M pixel now with built-in 3x 
optical zoom). Only problem is when I get the images printed at boots on 6x4 
they quality means I cannot justify buying a new one!

The battery life is excellent, using the flash I have taken over 250 photos 
in a single night without the battery running out, that includes reviewing 
what I've taken from time to time.

There are plenty good cameras out there now, but as you can guess I'm very 
impressed with my exilim. Several of my friends have borrowed it for their 
holidays and bought one when they got back. Tells you something I think 
(apart from the fact that they all have newer cameras to me!)

Finally, I dont like cameras in phones either but my reason is I like a 
phone to be centred around making calls not taking pictures/video. I'm going 
back to my nokia 6310i.

Hope this helps.

Simon

 wrote in message 
news:QH7Je.23828$FG3.10593@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. 
> I'm
> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to 
> stump
> up the cash without further advice.)
>
> Thanks
> Steve 

Thanks very much to everyone who replied. Your suggestions are much
appreciated. Now all I have to do is weigh it all up and decide!

Steve

"Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> oO wrote:
>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>> heart.
>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>
>
>
> I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?


Ni hao

Well from personal experience, a friend felt a pain in his chest while 
driving. He thought he was having a heart attack. He went to hospital, 
doctor asked him - "where do you keep mobile phone ?"- yes you guessed it - 
constantly in his shirt pocket over his heart. He was advised to cease this 
practice. He was quite shocked that the doctor asked this so soon and 
alluded to the fact that it is quite a common problem.

By the way I'm sure there is a link between the alarming rise in tesitcular 
cancer and where many men keep their phones (in their trouser pockets next 
to their nuts). These days I try to keep my phone out of my pockets as long 
as I can. If possible I carry it in a bag and when not on the move keep it 
out on a desk. Also I read a report from Japan that said the amount of 
radiation we are exposed to while travelling in buses or trains is very 
damaging because you are in a confined space where everyone has their phones 
turned on (don't have to be in use - just on communicating with their base 
stations) - the the amount of radiation is significantly multiplied - you 
are in effect sitting in a low-power microwave oven. No doubt we will know 
much more in about 30 years when its too late - a bit like smoking.

 There is info online - a quick google reveals:

From: http://www.newstarget.com/003694.html

"The shirt pocket is considered dangerous because the radiation emitted by 
the phone would be too close to the heart---this apart from reports that 
cell phones interfere with the functioning of pacemakers. "

"Keeping them in pant pockets has been linked to a drop in sperm counts"

ETC

oO spoke thusly:

> "Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
> news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> oO wrote:
>>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>>> heart.
>>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>>
>>
>>
>> I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?
> 
> Ni hao
> 
> Well from personal experience, a friend felt a pain in his chest while 
> driving. He thought he was having a heart attack. He went to hospital, 
> doctor asked him - "where do you keep mobile phone ?"- yes you guessed it - 
> constantly in his shirt pocket over his heart. He was advised to cease this 
> practice. He was quite shocked that the doctor asked this so soon and 
> alluded to the fact that it is quite a common problem.
> 
> By the way I'm sure there is a link between the alarming rise in tesitcular 
> cancer and where many men keep their phones (in their trouser pockets next 
> to their nuts).





There has been a 60% increase in testicular cancer over the last 25 
years however the greatest increase came between 1973 and 1997 pretty 
much before the mobile phone boom.

"Robin Petersen"  wrote in message 
news:pp9Je.32375$Ag3.22485@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...


> The Sony T7 is THE perfect solution.....  -  HIGHLY recommended.
>
> Robin.
>
>


I totally agree with this, it's at the top of my list for my next purchase!

"oO"  wrote in message news:3lnjniF110dvqU1@individual.net...

>
> "Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
> news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> oO wrote:
>>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>>> heart.
>>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>>
>>
>>
>> I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?
>
> Ni hao
>
> Well from personal experience, a friend felt a pain in his chest while 
> driving. He thought he was having a heart attack. He went to hospital, 
> doctor asked him - "where do you keep mobile phone ?"- yes you guessed 
> it - constantly in his shirt pocket over his heart. He was advised to 
> cease this practice. He was quite shocked that the doctor asked this so 
> soon and alluded to the fact that it is quite a common problem.
>
> By the way I'm sure there is a link between the alarming rise in 
> tesitcular cancer and where many men keep their phones (in their trouser 
> pockets next to their nuts). These days I try to keep my phone out of my 
> pockets as long as I can. If possible I carry it in a bag and when not on 
> the move keep it out on a desk. Also I read a report from Japan that said 
> the amount of radiation we are exposed to while travelling in buses or 
> trains is very damaging because you are in a confined space where everyone 
> has their phones turned on (don't have to be in use - just on 
> communicating with their base stations) - the the amount of radiation is 
> significantly multiplied - you are in effect sitting in a low-power 
> microwave oven.


Its nothing like a microwave oven.

The frequencies in mobile phones are not absorbed by the human body.
Microwaves would be totally absorbed.


> No doubt we will know much more in about 30 years when its too late - a 
> bit like smoking.


Smoking has been known to be harmful for at least 50 years and has no 
benifits.
You can't really compare it to mobiles.


> There is info online - a quick google reveals:
>
> From: http://www.newstarget.com/003694.html
>
> "The shirt pocket is considered dangerous because the radiation emitted by 
> the phone would be too close to the heart---this apart from reports that 
> cell phones interfere with the functioning of pacemakers. "
>
> "Keeping them in pant pockets has been linked to a drop in sperm counts"
>
> ETC


Really respectable sources I see.

oO wrote:

> Lin Chung wrote:
> > oO wrote:
> > > I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your
> > > heart.  The radiation doesn't do it much good....
> > I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?
> Ni hao
> From: http://www.newstarget.com/003694.html "The shirt pocket is
> considered dangerous because the radiation emitted by the phone would
> be too close to the heart---this apart from reports that cell phones
> interfere with the functioning of pacemakers." "Keeping them in pant
> pockets has been linked to a drop in sperm counts"   ETC




xie4 xie5

-- 
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].

"dennis@home"  wrote in message 
news:FSHJe.84599$G8.15779@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "oO"  wrote in message news:3lnjniF110dvqU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
>> news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>> oO wrote:
>>>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>>>> heart.
>>>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?
>>
>> Ni hao
>>
>> Well from personal experience, a friend felt a pain in his chest while 
>> driving. He thought he was having a heart attack. He went to hospital, 
>> doctor asked him - "where do you keep mobile phone ?"- yes you guessed 
>> it - constantly in his shirt pocket over his heart. He was advised to 
>> cease this practice. He was quite shocked that the doctor asked this so 
>> soon and alluded to the fact that it is quite a common problem.
>>
>> By the way I'm sure there is a link between the alarming rise in 
>> tesitcular cancer and where many men keep their phones (in their trouser 
>> pockets next to their nuts). These days I try to keep my phone out of my 
>> pockets as long as I can. If possible I carry it in a bag and when not on 
>> the move keep it out on a desk. Also I read a report from Japan that said 
>> the amount of radiation we are exposed to while travelling in buses or 
>> trains is very damaging because you are in a confined space where 
>> everyone has their phones turned on (don't have to be in use - just on 
>> communicating with their base stations) - the the amount of radiation is 
>> significantly multiplied - you are in effect sitting in a low-power 
>> microwave oven.
>
> Its nothing like a microwave oven.


respectable sources please?


> The frequencies in mobile phones are not absorbed by the human body.


Umm the 'frequencies' from mobile phones is microwave radiation. Do you know 
what the SAR value of mobiles phones are? I'll tell you - it is (and I 
quote) "the rate at which radiation from the handset is absorbed by the 
body".  Go on google it and ye shall see.


> Microwaves would be totally absorbed.
>
>> No doubt we will know much more in about 30 years when its too late - a 
>> bit like smoking.
>
> Smoking has been known to be harmful for at least 50 years and has no 
> benifits.
> You can't really compare it to mobiles.


Why? To say you cannot compare or contrast these two issues linked to 
lifestyle and health is pathetic. Smoking was previously said to have no 
harmful effects - years later we are told it causes cancer. You disagree 
that this will be the case with mobile phonmes - I don't. We shall see. End 
of chat.


>> There is info online - a quick google reveals:
>>
>> From: http://www.newstarget.com/003694.html
>>
>> "The shirt pocket is considered dangerous because the radiation emitted 
>> by the phone would be too close to the heart---this apart from reports 
>> that cell phones interfere with the functioning of pacemakers. "
>>
>> "Keeping them in pant pockets has been linked to a drop in sperm counts"
>>
>> ETC
>
> Really respectable sources I see.


You know something about newsstart.com? Please share. As I said it was a 
'quick google' and this was the first site that I chose. I could copy and 
paste from thousands of links saying similar things, from medical 
researchers and 'experts'. However your mind is already made up and it would 
be a fruitless exercise. As for anyone else who is seriously interested I am 
sure they are quite capable of doing their own searching for info. Happy 
chatting.

"Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
news:68JJe.1672$Dm5.734@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...

> xie4 xie5



No problem.  :-)

"Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> oO wrote:
>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>> heart.
>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>
>
>
> I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?
>
> -- 
> Lin Chung
> [Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].


Actually this reminds me. Sometime ago Chris Evans had a TVshow called TFI 
Friday. While live on air he got some eggs, got a member of the audience to 
pick one (then smashed the rest) to show they were real and random. He then 
got two mobile phones and put the egg in between and phoned them. While that 
was going on he proceeded to chat and interview a guest. After that he came 
back and cut the egg open. It was hard. Makes you think what these phones do 
to your head. Very interesting, I thought.

"Tosh" <tosh@youknow.where> wrote

>>
>> By the way I'm sure there is a link between the alarming rise in 
>> tesitcular cancer and where many men keep their phones (in their trouser 
>> pockets next to their nuts).


Its just as likely to be tighter trousers!


>
> There has been a 60% increase in testicular cancer over the last 25 years 
> however the greatest increase came between 1973 and 1997 pretty much 
> before the mobile phone boom.


Never let the facts get in the way of a great story !

Hold your phone to your ear and make a call. Measure the power landing
at your ear during the call, then hold the phone at arms length and measure
the power again at the same place.
What factor would you expect in level change?
2x? 5x? 10x?  Try 10,000 times less !

Are you safer making a call 200yds away from a base station, or 2 miles?
- the mobile boosts its own power when you have a weaker signal, making
you safer closer to the base station.

Its easier for most uninformed people to just to look at the masts and shout
"Evil ! Evil ! Think of the children!" :)

--
Mike

"oO"  wrote in message news:3lprnbF12n4caU1@individual.net...

>
> "Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
> news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> oO wrote:
>>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>>> heart.
>>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>>
>
> Actually this reminds me. Sometime ago Chris Evans had a TVshow called TFI 
> Friday. While live on air he got some eggs, got a member of the audience 
> to pick one (then smashed the rest) to show they were real and random. He 
> then got two mobile phones and put the egg in between and phoned them. 
> While that was going on he proceeded to chat and interview a guest. After 
> that he came back and cut the egg open. It was hard. Makes you think what 
> these phones do to your head.

>Very interesting, I thought.


The public is very gullible & stupid , yes.

"Mike Redrobe"  wrote in message 
news:xrPJe.84939$G8.22171@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "oO"  wrote in message news:3lprnbF12n4caU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
>> news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>> oO wrote:
>>>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>>>> heart.
>>>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>>>
>>
>> Actually this reminds me. Sometime ago Chris Evans had a TVshow called 
>> TFI Friday. While live on air he got some eggs, got a member of the 
>> audience to pick one (then smashed the rest) to show they were real and 
>> random. He then got two mobile phones and put the egg in between and 
>> phoned them. While that was going on he proceeded to chat and interview a 
>> guest. After that he came back and cut the egg open. It was hard. Makes 
>> you think what these phones do to your head.
>
>>Very interesting, I thought.
>
> The public is very gullible & stupid , yes.


http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm

Try it yourself

Weekend Eating:
Mobile Cooking

with Suzzanna Decantworthy
additional research: Sean McCleanaugh

Many students, and other young people, have little in the way of cooking 
skills but can usually get their hands on a couple of mobile phones. So, 
this week, we show you how to use two mobile phones to cook an egg which 
will make a change from phoning out for a pizza. Please note that this will 
not work with cordless phones.
To do this you will need two mobile phones -they do not have to be on the 
same network but you will need to know the number of one of them. The only 
other items you will need are:



  1.. An egg cup, (make sure that the egg cup is made of an insulating 
material such as China, wood or glass - plastic will do. DO NOT use 
stainless steel or other metal).
  2.. A radio, AM or FM - you can also use your hifi.


  3.. A table or other flat surface on which to place the phones and egg 
cup. You can place the radio anywhere in the room but you might as well put 
it on the table.



How To Do It:


  1.. Take an egg from the fridge and place it in the egg cup in the centre 
of the table.

  2.. Switch on the radio or hifi and turn it up to a comfortable volume.

  3.. Switch on phone A and place it on the table such that the antenna (the 
pokey thing at the top) is about half an inch from the egg (you may need to 
experiment to get the relative heights correct - paperbacks are good if you 
have any - if not you may be able to get some wood off cuts from your local 
hardware shop).

  4.. Switch on phone B and ring phone A then place phone B on the table in 
a similar but complementary position to Phone A.

  5.. Answer phone A - you should be able to do this without removing it 
from the table. If not, don't panic, just return the phone to where you 
originally placed on the table.

  6.. Phone A will now be talking to Phone B whilst Phone B will be talking 
to Phone A.

  7.. Cooking time: This very much depends on the power output of your 
mobile phone. For instance, a pair of mobiles each with 2 Watts of 
transmitter output will take three minutes to boil a large free range egg. 
Check your user manual and remember that cooking time will be proportional 
to the inverse square of the output power for a given distance from egg to 
phone.

  8.. Cut out these instructions for future reference.
Note: We cooked our egg during the evening using free local calls, if you 
were to cook an egg for lunch it would cost 3.00 - not cheap but you do 
have the convenience.

"oO"  wrote in message news:3lprakF12c66iU1@individual.net...


>> The frequencies in mobile phones are not absorbed by the human body.
>
> Umm the 'frequencies' from mobile phones is microwave radiation. Do you 
> know what the SAR value of mobiles phones are? I'll tell you - it is (and 
> I quote) "the rate at which radiation from the handset is absorbed by the 
> body".  Go on google it and ye shall see.


So if you start a call and turn around the call stops working when your head 
is between the base station and the handset then?
No of course it doesn't because almost none the signal is not absorbed by 
the human body.

The SAR figure doesn't tell you how much of the signal is absorbed.

"oO"  wrote in message news:3lprnbF12n4caU1@individual.net...

>
> "Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
> news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> oO wrote:
>>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>>> heart.
>>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>>
>>
>>
>> I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?
>>
>> -- 
>> Lin Chung
>> [Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
>
> Actually this reminds me. Sometime ago Chris Evans had a TVshow called TFI 
> Friday. While live on air he got some eggs, got a member of the audience 
> to pick one (then smashed the rest) to show they were real and random. He 
> then got two mobile phones and put the egg in between and phoned them. 
> While that was going on he proceeded to chat and interview a guest. After 
> that he came back and cut the egg open. It was hard. Makes you think what 
> these phones do to your head. Very interesting, I thought.


It convinces me that you don't understand radio.

What happens to an egg if you microwave it?
It explodes.

So why didn't the egg explode?

Because you were had?

"dennis@home"  wrote in message 
news:ZHPJe.84964$G8.70686@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "oO"  wrote in message news:3lprakF12c66iU1@individual.net...
>
>>> The frequencies in mobile phones are not absorbed by the human body.
>>
>> Umm the 'frequencies' from mobile phones is microwave radiation. Do you 
>> know what the SAR value of mobiles phones are? I'll tell you - it is (and 
>> I quote) "the rate at which radiation from the handset is absorbed by the 
>> body".  Go on google it and ye shall see.
>
> So if you start a call and turn around the call stops working when your 
> head is between the base station and the handset then?


Don't be an idiot there isn't one 'line of sight', so to speak, for the 
signal.


> No of course it doesn't because almost none the signal is not absorbed by 
> the human body.


So hang-on you have went from saying: "The frequencies in mobile phones are 
not absorbed by the human body" to "almost none the signal is not absorbed". 
Let us not forget you asked for "reputable sources" when I responded Lin 
Chung's request for information. It is interesting you are not so ready to 
back up your own claims.



> The SAR figure doesn't tell you how much of the signal is absorbed.


That is what the SAR value is.

Again a quick google (I'm not going to past every link from the internet) 
reveals:

What is the SAR value?
SAR indicates the level of energy that the body absorbs. SAR is measured in 
Watts per kilogram (W/kg). In the US, the SAR level applicable to mobile 
phones is 1.6 W/kg (watts per kilogram). In Europe, SAR level applicable to 
phones is set by the European Union as the ICNIRP standard of 2.0 W/kg.

Source: 
http://www.sendo.com/Sendo/Templates/Root/Basic.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fSendo%2fCompany%2fHealth%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7bB7B0D299-3837-4B88-A4A7-4A219D69C6EE%7d&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#Q3

dennis@home wrote:

> So if you start a call and turn around the call stops working when your head 
> is between the base station and the handset then?
> No of course it doesn't because almost none the signal is not absorbed by 
> the human body.
> 
> The SAR figure doesn't tell you how much of the signal is absorbed.
> 

	It doesn't really need to. AIUI no mobile phone company has yet been 
able to get product liability insurance for injury caused by radiation!!

	Work out why!

	Regards
	Capitol

"dennis@home"  wrote in message 
news:VKPJe.84967$G8.74632@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "oO"  wrote in message news:3lprnbF12n4caU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
>> news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>> oO wrote:
>>>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>>>> heart.
>>>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Lin Chung
>>> [Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
>>
>> Actually this reminds me. Sometime ago Chris Evans had a TVshow called 
>> TFI Friday. While live on air he got some eggs, got a member of the 
>> audience to pick one (then smashed the rest) to show they were real and 
>> random. He then got two mobile phones and put the egg in between and 
>> phoned them. While that was going on he proceeded to chat and interview a 
>> guest. After that he came back and cut the egg open. It was hard. Makes 
>> you think what these phones do to your head. Very interesting, I thought.
>
> It convinces me that you don't understand radio.


That's rich considering your previous posts.


> What happens to an egg if you microwave it?
> It explodes.
>
> So why didn't the egg explode?
>
> Because you were had?


No. In fact New Scientist journal listed "boiling an egg with your mobile 
phone" as one of the top 100 things to do before you die. Is New Scientist 
"reputable" enough for you?

"BRAINY FUN: Scientists have compiled a list of 100 things to do before, and 
after, you die, including boiling an egg with a cellphone or ogling 
Galileo's middle finger

THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
Tuesday, Nov 30, 2004,Page 7"

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/11/30/2003213180

oO wrote:

> "Mike Redrobe"  wrote
>> "oO"  wrote in message
>> news:3lprnbF12n4caU1@individual.net...
>>> Actually this reminds me. Sometime ago Chris Evans had a TVshow
>>> called TFI Friday. While live on air he got some eggs, got a member
>>> of the audience to pick one (then smashed the rest) to show they
>>> were real and random. He then got two mobile phones and put the egg
>>> in between and phoned them. While that was going on he proceeded to
>>> chat and interview a guest. After that he came back and cut the egg
>>> open. It was hard. Makes you think what these phones do to your
>>> head.
>>
>>> Very interesting, I thought.
>>
>> The public is very gullible & stupid , yes.
>
> http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm
>

[cooking an egg with 2 mobile phones]

this is a classic spoof -  it even says it takes 3 minutes !


>
> Try it yourself


ROTFL, do you really believe these spoofs ?

I'm bored so I`ll explain it:

Clues:
Mobiles produce a max of 1W output..but usually
more like 0.1W and that is spread outward in all directions.

Microwave ovens produce 650W output reflected entirely
inside the oven case.

It takes 1 minute to boil an egg in said microwave.

Ignoring lots of physics like heat dissipation and the fact
that mobile phones don't operate at the same microwave
frequencies, and also if you had a perfect insulator
surrounding that egg:
-you might theoretically get it to boil after a week or two !!

Read this website:

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS

Oh, and there's a nice gentleman from Nigeria who wants
you to help him get his $43 million.

--
Mike

"Mike Redrobe"  wrote in message 
news:ulQJe.85000$G8.22252@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> oO wrote:
>> "Mike Redrobe"  wrote
>>> "oO"  wrote in message
>>> news:3lprnbF12n4caU1@individual.net...
>>>> Actually this reminds me. Sometime ago Chris Evans had a TVshow
>>>> called TFI Friday. While live on air he got some eggs, got a member
>>>> of the audience to pick one (then smashed the rest) to show they
>>>> were real and random. He then got two mobile phones and put the egg
>>>> in between and phoned them. While that was going on he proceeded to
>>>> chat and interview a guest. After that he came back and cut the egg
>>>> open. It was hard. Makes you think what these phones do to your
>>>> head.
>>>
>>>> Very interesting, I thought.
>>>
>>> The public is very gullible & stupid , yes.
>>
>> http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm
>>
> [cooking an egg with 2 mobile phones]
>
> this is a classic spoof -  it even says it takes 3 minutes !
>
>>
>> Try it yourself
>
> ROTFL, do you really believe these spoofs ?
>
> I'm bored so I`ll explain it:
>
> Clues:
> Mobiles produce a max of 1W output..but usually
> more like 0.1W and that is spread outward in all directions.
>
> Microwave ovens produce 650W output reflected entirely
> inside the oven case.
>
> It takes 1 minute to boil an egg in said microwave.


So you've boiled an egg in a microwave??

"oO"  wrote in message news:3lq056F134vv4U1@individual.net...

>
> "dennis@home"  wrote in message 
> news:VKPJe.84967$G8.74632@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "oO"  wrote in message news:3lprnbF12n4caU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
>>> news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> oO wrote:
>>>>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>>>>> heart.
>>>>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Lin Chung
>>>> [Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
>>>
>>> Actually this reminds me. Sometime ago Chris Evans had a TVshow called 
>>> TFI Friday. While live on air he got some eggs, got a member of the 
>>> audience to pick one (then smashed the rest) to show they were real and 
>>> random. He then got two mobile phones and put the egg in between and 
>>> phoned them. While that was going on he proceeded to chat and interview 
>>> a guest. After that he came back and cut the egg open. It was hard. 
>>> Makes you think what these phones do to your head. Very interesting, I 
>>> thought.
>>
>> It convinces me that you don't understand radio.
>
> That's rich considering your previous posts.
>
>> What happens to an egg if you microwave it?
>> It explodes.
>>
>> So why didn't the egg explode?
>>
>> Because you were had?
>
> No. In fact New Scientist journal listed "boiling an egg with your mobile 
> phone" as one of the top 100 things to do before you die. Is New Scientist 
> "reputable" enough for you?


Same page listed, and I quote... you should "measure the speed of light with 
chocolate",
<vbg>

--
Mike

"oO"  wrote

>> Mobiles produce a max of 1W output..but usually
>> more like 0.1W and that is spread outward in all directions.
>>
>> Microwave ovens produce 650W output reflected entirely
>> inside the oven case.
>>
>> It takes 1 minute to boil an egg in said microwave.
>
> So you've boiled an egg in a microwave??


Think that's not possible now do you?
http://www.nordicware.com/b2c/product_details.cfm?prodid=50&prod_master_cat=2&prod_cat=6
That's right, no yolk/shell piercing needed.

Ever believed you could cook an egg with 2 mobile phones ?

--
Mike

You're an idiot.

Stop posting.

"oO"  wrote in message news:3lpvu9F13gmokU1@individual.net...


> That is what the SAR value is.


No it isn't.
Its the amount absorbed by a dummy in a lab.
It has no bearing on a real person.

"oO"  wrote in message news:3lpuurF134i9jU1@individual.net...


>
>  7.. Cooking time: This very much depends on the power output of your 
> mobile phone. For instance, a pair of mobiles each with 2 Watts of 
> transmitter output will take three minutes to boil a large free range egg. 
> Check your user manual and remember that cooking time will be proportional 
> to the inverse square of the output power for a given distance from egg to 
> phone.


And there you provide your own proof that its wrong.

Start with a 50g egg @ 25C

2 x 2 watts is 4 joules/second so if it is *all* absorbed it will raise the 
egg by ~0.02 degrees C per second.

So it will take at least an hour to boil the egg even in perfect conditions.

In reality only a tiny amount of the energy will be absorbed by the egg and 
it will take days even if you have perfect insulation around the eggs.


Which shows why mobiles don't cook people.

Even if they were running at microwave oven frequencies (~2.4GHz), which 
they don't,  and so acted as microwaves, people are rather larger than eggs 
and would take a lot longer to heat up.
It just happens that people have an inbuilt temperature control system which 
acts somewhat quicker than the heating effect from you "microwave" phones so 
they have zero effect due to heating.



Now maybe you could learn to use Google.
I.e. learn which bits to ignore when you find them.


Now I have shown you some of the simple physics about phones maybe you can 
research a different mechanism that supports your mobile phone effects?
Magic?
Lies?

"oO"  wrote in message news:3lq056F134vv4U1@individual.net...

>
> "dennis@home"  wrote in message 
> news:VKPJe.84967$G8.74632@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "oO"  wrote in message news:3lprnbF12n4caU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
>>> news:KLhJe.32421$Ag3.6881@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> oO wrote:
>>>>> I'd advise against keeping a mobile phone in shirt pocket over your 
>>>>> heart.
>>>>> The radiation doesn't do it much good....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was surprised to read that!  Could you provide some reference?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Lin Chung
>>>> [Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].
>>>
>>> Actually this reminds me. Sometime ago Chris Evans had a TVshow called 
>>> TFI Friday. While live on air he got some eggs, got a member of the 
>>> audience to pick one (then smashed the rest) to show they were real and 
>>> random. He then got two mobile phones and put the egg in between and 
>>> phoned them. While that was going on he proceeded to chat and interview 
>>> a guest. After that he came back and cut the egg open. It was hard. 
>>> Makes you think what these phones do to your head. Very interesting, I 
>>> thought.
>>
>> It convinces me that you don't understand radio.
>
> That's rich considering your previous posts.
>
>> What happens to an egg if you microwave it?
>> It explodes.
>>
>> So why didn't the egg explode?
>>
>> Because you were had?
>
> No. In fact New Scientist journal listed "boiling an egg with your mobile 
> phone" as one of the top 100 things to do before you die. Is New Scientist 
> "reputable" enough for you?
>
> "BRAINY FUN: Scientists have compiled a list of 100 things to do before, 
> and after, you die, including boiling an egg with a cellphone or ogling 
> Galileo's middle finger
>
> THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
> Tuesday, Nov 30, 2004,Page 7"
>
> http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/11/30/2003213180
>


Do you want to buy a bridge?
I have this nice one with lifting roads.
It being stored in London if you want to take a look.
Very cheap @ 5M and I will deliver it as soon as the cash is delivered.

In article , oO  writes

>No. In fact New Scientist journal listed "boiling an egg with your 
>mobile phone" as one of the top 100 things to do before you die. Is New 
>Scientist "reputable" enough for you?
>
>"BRAINY FUN: Scientists have compiled a list of 100 things to do 
>before, and after, you die, including boiling an egg with a cellphone 
>or ogling Galileo's middle finger
>
>THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
>Tuesday, Nov 30, 2004,Page 7"


That's strange, it's not in my copy of "100 Things to Do Before You 
Die".

Perhaps someone from the phone manufacturers has doctored my copy.

-- 
John Blundell

"dennis@home"  wrote

>
> "oO"  wrote
>>
>>  7.. Cooking time: This very much depends on the power output of your 
>> mobile phone. For instance, a pair of mobiles each with 2 Watts of 
>> transmitter output

> 2 x 2 watts is 4 joules/second so if it is *all* absorbed it will raise 
> the egg by ~0.02 degrees C per second.


Getting pedantic here, but modern mobiles only produce a maximum
average of 0.25W in a very poor reception area during a call,
and often less than a tenth of that in a good reception area.


SAR is based on a fixed maximum output of the phone, but all phones
are variable power based on your locations signal strength.

Go to a window when using you mobie indoors,
and reduce your RF exposure by a factor of 100 ;)

This is what makes SAR a useless PR stunt IMO

--
Mike

"dennis@home"  wrote in message 
news:u3ZJe.85163$G8.53897@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "oO"  wrote in message news:3lpvu9F13gmokU1@individual.net...
>
>> That is what the SAR value is.
>
> No it isn't.


Again - definition of SAR value

SAR indicates the level of energy that the body absorbs. SAR is measured in
Watts per kilogram (W/kg). In the US, the SAR level applicable to mobile
phones is 1.6 W/kg (watts per kilogram). In Europe, SAR level applicable to
phones is set by the European Union as the ICNIRP standard of 2.0 W/kg.


> Its the amount absorbed by a dummy in a lab.
> It has no bearing on a real person.


Idiot. The 'dummy' used replicates the human body, of course it has 'bearing 
on a real person'. I think you have absorbed too much mobile phone 
radiation. It has fried your brain. Why do you think they even do this test 
in a lab? For fun? To pass the time?

ren@ionalisebritishtele.com wrote:

> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me. I'm
> looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there on
> those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got any
> suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to stump
> up the cash without further advice.)
> 
> Thanks
> Steve


casio and fuji do some slimline ones. 
B.

"oO"  wrote in message news:3lsa2jF147b9jU1@individual.net...

>
> "dennis@home"  wrote in message 
> news:u3ZJe.85163$G8.53897@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "oO"  wrote in message news:3lpvu9F13gmokU1@individual.net...
>>
>>> That is what the SAR value is.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> Again - definition of SAR value
>
> SAR indicates the level of energy that the body absorbs. SAR is measured 
> in
> Watts per kilogram (W/kg). In the US, the SAR level applicable to mobile
> phones is 1.6 W/kg (watts per kilogram). In Europe, SAR level applicable 
> to
> phones is set by the European Union as the ICNIRP standard of 2.0 W/kg.
>
>> Its the amount absorbed by a dummy in a lab.
>> It has no bearing on a real person.
>
> Idiot. The 'dummy' used replicates the human body, of course it has 
> 'bearing on a real person'. I think you have absorbed too much mobile 
> phone radiation. It has fried your brain. Why do you think they even do 
> this test in a lab? For fun? To pass the time?
>

If you really want to argue about SAR then why not.

First the radio energy isn't absorbed despite what they say.
If it were the phones wouldn't work in a room full of people would they.
Also the SAR value would drop to zero once the signal was inside the head.

SAR measures the field strength inside the head which isn't the same thing.




Mobiles use omni directional aerials.
So they all radiate in the same way.
This means that they should all have the same field strength when measured 
at the same distance.
So why is there more than 10:1 difference between the highest SAR and the 
lowest SAR?



Then there are different  frequencies.
As absorption and field strength are different for different frequencies why 
do the SAR figures appear to ignore what band the phones operate on?


Not very useful is SAR, unless you are a marketing person that is.



PS. Do you want the bridge?
I have other punters waiting.

John Blundell wrote:

> In article , oO  writes
> 
>> No. In fact New Scientist journal listed "boiling an egg with your 
>> mobile phone" as one of the top 100 things to do before you die. Is 
>> New Scientist "reputable" enough for you?
>>
>> "BRAINY FUN: Scientists have compiled a list of 100 things to do 
>> before, and after, you die, including boiling an egg with a cellphone 
>> or ogling Galileo's middle finger
>>
>> THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
>> Tuesday, Nov 30, 2004,Page 7"
> 
> 
> That's strange, it's not in my copy of "100 Things to Do Before You Die".
> 
> Perhaps someone from the phone manufacturers has doctored my copy.
> 

If it's the Guardian, they've probably given the book to an islamic 
extremist to doctor (they do in everything else)

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:54:40 +0000, ren wrote:


> I've got an Olympus which is ok but it's big so I don't take it with me.
> I'm looking for a thin one that will slip into my top pocket and be there
> on those occasions when you think "If only I had a camera!" Anybody got
> any suggestions please? (I've seen a pentax optio wp but I can't thoil to
> stump up the cash without further advice.)


A mate with similar requirements (i.e "small and cheap enough to take
everywhere") has just bought a Pentax Mini from Tesco for about 60GBP. It
runs off 2xAAA, takes SD (allegedly only upto 128MB, but he's using
512MB with no apparent problems) and is about the size of a "Matchbox" car
(though not particularly thin). It has about 3MP. Downsides are that it's
very basic - fixed focus, and no manual controls at all, but both he and I
were pleasantly surprised by the quality of the pictures it produces. I
believe Tesco have a "100% Satisfaction" guarantee, so it's worth a whirl.


> Thanks
> Steve


HTH,
Alex.
-- 
Alex Butcher      Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK                      Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950                         <http://www.assursys.com/>