<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_26_0057254</id>
	<title>BlackBerry Bold Tops Radiation Ranking</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267191840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>geek4 writes with this excerpt from eWeek Europe: <i>"Data from the Environmental Working Group places the BlackBerry Bold 9700 as the mobile device with the <a href="http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/blackberry-bold-ly-tops-radiation-ranking-5493">highest legal levels of cell phone radiation</a> among popular smartphones. Research In Motion's BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation, according to the latest 2010 Environmental Working Group ranking. Following the Bold 9700 are the Motorola Droid, the LG Chocolate and Google's HTC Nexus One. The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>geek4 writes with this excerpt from eWeek Europe : " Data from the Environmental Working Group places the BlackBerry Bold 9700 as the mobile device with the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation among popular smartphones .
Research In Motion 's BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation , according to the latest 2010 Environmental Working Group ranking .
Following the Bold 9700 are the Motorola Droid , the LG Chocolate and Google 's HTC Nexus One .
The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>geek4 writes with this excerpt from eWeek Europe: "Data from the Environmental Working Group places the BlackBerry Bold 9700 as the mobile device with the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation among popular smartphones.
Research In Motion's BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation, according to the latest 2010 Environmental Working Group ranking.
Following the Bold 9700 are the Motorola Droid, the LG Chocolate and Google's HTC Nexus One.
The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280632</id>
	<title>Okay, guys.</title>
	<author>linuxgeek64</author>
	<datestamp>1267109760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get out your tinfoil hats! This is a life and death situation!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get out your tinfoil hats !
This is a life and death situation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get out your tinfoil hats!
This is a life and death situation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285688</id>
	<title>Awesome!</title>
	<author>bytethese</author>
	<datestamp>1267203180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With radiation like this, our kids will have 4 thumbs, thus doubling productivity!</htmltext>
<tokenext>With radiation like this , our kids will have 4 thumbs , thus doubling productivity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With radiation like this, our kids will have 4 thumbs, thus doubling productivity!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281354</id>
	<title>Re:not a big deal</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1267117440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not a big deal? I for one demand that all cellphones rank below the average in terms of radiation!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a big deal ?
I for one demand that all cellphones rank below the average in terms of radiation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a big deal?
I for one demand that all cellphones rank below the average in terms of radiation!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280796</id>
	<title>This link would have been nice in the article...</title>
	<author>CliffH</author>
	<datestamp>1267111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation" title="ewg.org">http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation</a> [ewg.org]  -- This is the actual report site. Have a look through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation [ ewg.org ] -- This is the actual report site .
Have a look through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation [ewg.org]  -- This is the actual report site.
Have a look through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281368</id>
	<title>Re:lol, where's the iPhone?</title>
	<author>sa1lnr</author>
	<datestamp>1267117560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, they get RDF not EMI/RFI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , they get RDF not EMI/RFI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, they get RDF not EMI/RFI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281402</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1267117980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microwaves without mode stirrers would indeed heat food.  It just wouldn't heat them evenly.  Even with mode stirrers, you don't get consistent constructive interference evenly enough through the chamber (and from enough angles where containers don't partially block the signal) to not require a rotating tray to put the food on.  There's a reason that lots of microwaves have 1kW power draw, and that's because they deliver 500W+ of RF energy into the cavity, which is enough to close a megabit communication link across thousands of miles with antennas the size of a large pizza plate. It's nothing to laugh at and would most definitely hurt if you were in front of it.  There's a reason why the Colombian drug runners that dry their product with open-door microwaves have exceedingly short lifespans.
<br> <br>
That said, microwaves are non-ionizing, but they do enough to cause damage.  Lots of S-Band RADARS have caused cancer (including lots of L-Band, UHF, etc transmitters, not to mention police RADAR guns).  So, energy does count for something.  I don't really worry because the intermittent transmissions up to ~3.5W (while typically being less than 1W) really probably aren't going to do that much.
<br> <br>
So, cut people a little slack when it is already widely known in the literature that radiation at that frequency can and will cause cancer and other problems in people (at high power).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microwaves without mode stirrers would indeed heat food .
It just would n't heat them evenly .
Even with mode stirrers , you do n't get consistent constructive interference evenly enough through the chamber ( and from enough angles where containers do n't partially block the signal ) to not require a rotating tray to put the food on .
There 's a reason that lots of microwaves have 1kW power draw , and that 's because they deliver 500W + of RF energy into the cavity , which is enough to close a megabit communication link across thousands of miles with antennas the size of a large pizza plate .
It 's nothing to laugh at and would most definitely hurt if you were in front of it .
There 's a reason why the Colombian drug runners that dry their product with open-door microwaves have exceedingly short lifespans .
That said , microwaves are non-ionizing , but they do enough to cause damage .
Lots of S-Band RADARS have caused cancer ( including lots of L-Band , UHF , etc transmitters , not to mention police RADAR guns ) .
So , energy does count for something .
I do n't really worry because the intermittent transmissions up to ~ 3.5W ( while typically being less than 1W ) really probably are n't going to do that much .
So , cut people a little slack when it is already widely known in the literature that radiation at that frequency can and will cause cancer and other problems in people ( at high power ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microwaves without mode stirrers would indeed heat food.
It just wouldn't heat them evenly.
Even with mode stirrers, you don't get consistent constructive interference evenly enough through the chamber (and from enough angles where containers don't partially block the signal) to not require a rotating tray to put the food on.
There's a reason that lots of microwaves have 1kW power draw, and that's because they deliver 500W+ of RF energy into the cavity, which is enough to close a megabit communication link across thousands of miles with antennas the size of a large pizza plate.
It's nothing to laugh at and would most definitely hurt if you were in front of it.
There's a reason why the Colombian drug runners that dry their product with open-door microwaves have exceedingly short lifespans.
That said, microwaves are non-ionizing, but they do enough to cause damage.
Lots of S-Band RADARS have caused cancer (including lots of L-Band, UHF, etc transmitters, not to mention police RADAR guns).
So, energy does count for something.
I don't really worry because the intermittent transmissions up to ~3.5W (while typically being less than 1W) really probably aren't going to do that much.
So, cut people a little slack when it is already widely known in the literature that radiation at that frequency can and will cause cancer and other problems in people (at high power).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285478</id>
	<title>Re:This link would have been nice in the article..</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1267202220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And <a href="http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone?allavailable=1" title="ewg.org">here's</a> [ewg.org] the whole list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here 's [ ewg.org ] the whole list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here's [ewg.org] the whole list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281010</id>
	<title>Blackberry's next plan</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267113840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll come out with one that is just exactly at the Government limit on radiation, and call it the "Zesty".</p><p>Then they'll come out with one well above the limit and call it the "Extra Crispy"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll come out with one that is just exactly at the Government limit on radiation , and call it the " Zesty " .Then they 'll come out with one well above the limit and call it the " Extra Crispy "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll come out with one that is just exactly at the Government limit on radiation, and call it the "Zesty".Then they'll come out with one well above the limit and call it the "Extra Crispy"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281384</id>
	<title>Re:no comprende</title>
	<author>dubbreak</author>
	<datestamp>1267117740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then why is it a story?</p></div><p>I know. Why would anyone want to make the most popular smartphone (among business users) look bad? It just doesn't make sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why is it a story ? I know .
Why would anyone want to make the most popular smartphone ( among business users ) look bad ?
It just does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why is it a story?I know.
Why would anyone want to make the most popular smartphone (among business users) look bad?
It just doesn't make sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282464</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good</title>
	<author>thsths</author>
	<datestamp>1267174980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Perhaps this means it'll get signal where I live?</p><p>Unfortunately now. All the energy going into your head is not going to reach the base station, so this is going to hurt your reception. It is just bad engineering, and they should really try to do better. This is not rocket science - the equations are very well understood and design tools are readily available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Perhaps this means it 'll get signal where I live ? Unfortunately now .
All the energy going into your head is not going to reach the base station , so this is going to hurt your reception .
It is just bad engineering , and they should really try to do better .
This is not rocket science - the equations are very well understood and design tools are readily available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Perhaps this means it'll get signal where I live?Unfortunately now.
All the energy going into your head is not going to reach the base station, so this is going to hurt your reception.
It is just bad engineering, and they should really try to do better.
This is not rocket science - the equations are very well understood and design tools are readily available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281474</id>
	<title>Here's what I think about the BB</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1267119000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is literally my experience with Black Berry's.
<br>
At first I had a old 7900, a big blue brick of a BB that worked great, I never had problems with it and it's never crashed or broke.
<br>
<br>
I move up to a BB curve 8330 and there isn't a day I don't curse the name of Rim.  The phone is an electronic brick, it's a horrible phone that never works.  My first 8330 had the screen just shatter on it, like totally blow up, Of course the screen is never covered by warranty because Rim knows just how crappy it was built.  Being I still had a long contract left I had to buy a new 8330 from Virgin and this phone is even worse.  The first problem is the battery life is horrible, it's unacceptable, a full charge yields 10 hours of battery.
<br>
<br>
The second major problem is the horrible signal strength.  Now don't go quoting it's CDMA or a Bell network and it's not Rim's problem the signal is bad.  It's 50\% Rim's problem and 50\% Virgin's problem.  If the BB can't get a signal why would it use the battery as an open drain to boost the signal output does that make sense? NO, NO it doesn't, maybe to a first semester electrical or telecommunications engineer but that's about it.  Before you go calling me a Troll or Flamebot or what ever else names exist, I'm currently a studying Telecommunications Engineer and I just finished a full Computer Engineering Degree, so I know what I'm talking about with signals.
<br>
<br>
I'm going to focus on why this is Rim's problem first.   It's there duty to make sure if the phone can't find signal it shuts off searching or goes into an INT mode until the phone enters a signal area.   I know GSM works this way and I know CDMA can work this way, I do have a full CCNA Cert and a Wireless Networking Cert.   The battery should be used on min power when the phone is not in operation.  The problem is when the phone is searching for a signal is keeps switching between quiescent current and transient current which will lead to power being wasted.
Rim should take care to make sure this doesn't happen!
<br>
<br>
How this is Virgin's problem, they should make sure the phones they use work in all expected area's.   If I sit by my window I should be getting more then 1 or 2 bars.   I would also like to mention the fact that there telecommunication engineers should be one the ball and know this problem exists and either recommend Rim fixes it or fix it themselves by changing the access method to the network.  If you can use CDMA you can easily change the network protocol to access on a different basis.  It's basic cellular networking studies and practice,  If you can use CDMA to access a network you can also use many other network access techniques.  If Virgin doesn't take the time to look into this then there just as much responsible as Rim and hence we find the 50\% duty shared by both sides.
<br>
<br>
Some referance links if anyone if interested:
 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush\_current" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush\_current</a> [wikipedia.org]
 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-dropout\_regulator" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-dropout\_regulator</a> [wikipedia.org]
 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br>
<br>
Those links do a fair job of explaining and backing up the points I made above.
Virgin refuses to look into this problem claiming there not responsible, well I don't know how they can justify that but I haven't given up fighting that problem.
<br>
<br>
It doesn't stop there, it keeps going and starting Yesterday on the 24th of Feb my BB started just randomly restarting every variable amount of time.  I tied to update the firmware, I've tried to remove the battery, I've even tried to reset the BB to default firmware and just screw my settings.  Nothing works, I can't figure out anything I haven't done to try and get over this problem.   Today the 25th I contacted Virgin telling them this is what happening, of course they blame the battery, then they blame the phone programming and on and on and on.
<br>
<br>
Lets cut the bull, the phone wasn't made well, t</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is literally my experience with Black Berry 's .
At first I had a old 7900 , a big blue brick of a BB that worked great , I never had problems with it and it 's never crashed or broke .
I move up to a BB curve 8330 and there is n't a day I do n't curse the name of Rim .
The phone is an electronic brick , it 's a horrible phone that never works .
My first 8330 had the screen just shatter on it , like totally blow up , Of course the screen is never covered by warranty because Rim knows just how crappy it was built .
Being I still had a long contract left I had to buy a new 8330 from Virgin and this phone is even worse .
The first problem is the battery life is horrible , it 's unacceptable , a full charge yields 10 hours of battery .
The second major problem is the horrible signal strength .
Now do n't go quoting it 's CDMA or a Bell network and it 's not Rim 's problem the signal is bad .
It 's 50 \ % Rim 's problem and 50 \ % Virgin 's problem .
If the BB ca n't get a signal why would it use the battery as an open drain to boost the signal output does that make sense ?
NO , NO it does n't , maybe to a first semester electrical or telecommunications engineer but that 's about it .
Before you go calling me a Troll or Flamebot or what ever else names exist , I 'm currently a studying Telecommunications Engineer and I just finished a full Computer Engineering Degree , so I know what I 'm talking about with signals .
I 'm going to focus on why this is Rim 's problem first .
It 's there duty to make sure if the phone ca n't find signal it shuts off searching or goes into an INT mode until the phone enters a signal area .
I know GSM works this way and I know CDMA can work this way , I do have a full CCNA Cert and a Wireless Networking Cert .
The battery should be used on min power when the phone is not in operation .
The problem is when the phone is searching for a signal is keeps switching between quiescent current and transient current which will lead to power being wasted .
Rim should take care to make sure this does n't happen !
How this is Virgin 's problem , they should make sure the phones they use work in all expected area 's .
If I sit by my window I should be getting more then 1 or 2 bars .
I would also like to mention the fact that there telecommunication engineers should be one the ball and know this problem exists and either recommend Rim fixes it or fix it themselves by changing the access method to the network .
If you can use CDMA you can easily change the network protocol to access on a different basis .
It 's basic cellular networking studies and practice , If you can use CDMA to access a network you can also use many other network access techniques .
If Virgin does n't take the time to look into this then there just as much responsible as Rim and hence we find the 50 \ % duty shared by both sides .
Some referance links if anyone if interested : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush \ _current [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-dropout \ _regulator [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA [ wikipedia.org ] Those links do a fair job of explaining and backing up the points I made above .
Virgin refuses to look into this problem claiming there not responsible , well I do n't know how they can justify that but I have n't given up fighting that problem .
It does n't stop there , it keeps going and starting Yesterday on the 24th of Feb my BB started just randomly restarting every variable amount of time .
I tied to update the firmware , I 've tried to remove the battery , I 've even tried to reset the BB to default firmware and just screw my settings .
Nothing works , I ca n't figure out anything I have n't done to try and get over this problem .
Today the 25th I contacted Virgin telling them this is what happening , of course they blame the battery , then they blame the phone programming and on and on and on .
Lets cut the bull , the phone was n't made well , t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is literally my experience with Black Berry's.
At first I had a old 7900, a big blue brick of a BB that worked great, I never had problems with it and it's never crashed or broke.
I move up to a BB curve 8330 and there isn't a day I don't curse the name of Rim.
The phone is an electronic brick, it's a horrible phone that never works.
My first 8330 had the screen just shatter on it, like totally blow up, Of course the screen is never covered by warranty because Rim knows just how crappy it was built.
Being I still had a long contract left I had to buy a new 8330 from Virgin and this phone is even worse.
The first problem is the battery life is horrible, it's unacceptable, a full charge yields 10 hours of battery.
The second major problem is the horrible signal strength.
Now don't go quoting it's CDMA or a Bell network and it's not Rim's problem the signal is bad.
It's 50\% Rim's problem and 50\% Virgin's problem.
If the BB can't get a signal why would it use the battery as an open drain to boost the signal output does that make sense?
NO, NO it doesn't, maybe to a first semester electrical or telecommunications engineer but that's about it.
Before you go calling me a Troll or Flamebot or what ever else names exist, I'm currently a studying Telecommunications Engineer and I just finished a full Computer Engineering Degree, so I know what I'm talking about with signals.
I'm going to focus on why this is Rim's problem first.
It's there duty to make sure if the phone can't find signal it shuts off searching or goes into an INT mode until the phone enters a signal area.
I know GSM works this way and I know CDMA can work this way, I do have a full CCNA Cert and a Wireless Networking Cert.
The battery should be used on min power when the phone is not in operation.
The problem is when the phone is searching for a signal is keeps switching between quiescent current and transient current which will lead to power being wasted.
Rim should take care to make sure this doesn't happen!
How this is Virgin's problem, they should make sure the phones they use work in all expected area's.
If I sit by my window I should be getting more then 1 or 2 bars.
I would also like to mention the fact that there telecommunication engineers should be one the ball and know this problem exists and either recommend Rim fixes it or fix it themselves by changing the access method to the network.
If you can use CDMA you can easily change the network protocol to access on a different basis.
It's basic cellular networking studies and practice,  If you can use CDMA to access a network you can also use many other network access techniques.
If Virgin doesn't take the time to look into this then there just as much responsible as Rim and hence we find the 50\% duty shared by both sides.
Some referance links if anyone if interested:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush\_current [wikipedia.org]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-dropout\_regulator [wikipedia.org]
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA [wikipedia.org]


Those links do a fair job of explaining and backing up the points I made above.
Virgin refuses to look into this problem claiming there not responsible, well I don't know how they can justify that but I haven't given up fighting that problem.
It doesn't stop there, it keeps going and starting Yesterday on the 24th of Feb my BB started just randomly restarting every variable amount of time.
I tied to update the firmware, I've tried to remove the battery, I've even tried to reset the BB to default firmware and just screw my settings.
Nothing works, I can't figure out anything I haven't done to try and get over this problem.
Today the 25th I contacted Virgin telling them this is what happening, of course they blame the battery, then they blame the phone programming and on and on and on.
Lets cut the bull, the phone wasn't made well, t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281018</id>
	<title>Electromagnetic spectrum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267113900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong here, but since cell phones operate in radio frequencies, wouldn't it have to be running at massive power outputs to even potential cause damage to DNA?  You would think that meter (or decimeter, or centimeter) wavelengths would have a hard time smacking a DNA molecule.  Put it this way, radio  visible spectrum  ultraviolet, and last i checked, you had to go up to UV to worry about cancer.  Could you get cancer from a really bright light, all in the visible spectrum?</p><p>AC because I forgot my password...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong here , but since cell phones operate in radio frequencies , would n't it have to be running at massive power outputs to even potential cause damage to DNA ?
You would think that meter ( or decimeter , or centimeter ) wavelengths would have a hard time smacking a DNA molecule .
Put it this way , radio visible spectrum ultraviolet , and last i checked , you had to go up to UV to worry about cancer .
Could you get cancer from a really bright light , all in the visible spectrum ? AC because I forgot my password.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong here, but since cell phones operate in radio frequencies, wouldn't it have to be running at massive power outputs to even potential cause damage to DNA?
You would think that meter (or decimeter, or centimeter) wavelengths would have a hard time smacking a DNA molecule.
Put it this way, radio  visible spectrum  ultraviolet, and last i checked, you had to go up to UV to worry about cancer.
Could you get cancer from a really bright light, all in the visible spectrum?AC because I forgot my password...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31283594</id>
	<title>If you're worried about this...</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1267190040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...then I can only assume you spend all your time in a sealed, pitch-black room.  Light is radiation, y'know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...then I can only assume you spend all your time in a sealed , pitch-black room .
Light is radiation , y'know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then I can only assume you spend all your time in a sealed, pitch-black room.
Light is radiation, y'know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31283738</id>
	<title>Re:Radiation yes, but non-ionizing radiation folks</title>
	<author>unkiereamus</author>
	<datestamp>1267191660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You will [be] standing out in the sun every day...</p></div><p>Hi, Welcome to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You will [ be ] standing out in the sun every day...Hi , Welcome to / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will [be] standing out in the sun every day...Hi, Welcome to /.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280840</id>
	<title>Dude... that's Rad!!</title>
	<author>v3xt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1267112040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had been one of those mislead skeptics and paranoid anti-radiation-braintumor cellphone conspiracy theorists until I actually worked around some radiology detection systems and began randomly testing things, like cell phones.</p><p>I never got to test an iphone, which is what I have now, but my old Samsung A90 from sprint, never set off any of the detection systems, unless I had just walked-in from the outside during day time, which was due to residual radiation from just walking outside. So I quickly realized that just walking around outside in the sun, exposed me to far more radiation than my cellphone alone ever would.</p><p>It was most interesting, though, when my old CTO went in for a CT scan and was tripping-off the radiation detectors for 3 days straight thereafter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had been one of those mislead skeptics and paranoid anti-radiation-braintumor cellphone conspiracy theorists until I actually worked around some radiology detection systems and began randomly testing things , like cell phones.I never got to test an iphone , which is what I have now , but my old Samsung A90 from sprint , never set off any of the detection systems , unless I had just walked-in from the outside during day time , which was due to residual radiation from just walking outside .
So I quickly realized that just walking around outside in the sun , exposed me to far more radiation than my cellphone alone ever would.It was most interesting , though , when my old CTO went in for a CT scan and was tripping-off the radiation detectors for 3 days straight thereafter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had been one of those mislead skeptics and paranoid anti-radiation-braintumor cellphone conspiracy theorists until I actually worked around some radiology detection systems and began randomly testing things, like cell phones.I never got to test an iphone, which is what I have now, but my old Samsung A90 from sprint, never set off any of the detection systems, unless I had just walked-in from the outside during day time, which was due to residual radiation from just walking outside.
So I quickly realized that just walking around outside in the sun, exposed me to far more radiation than my cellphone alone ever would.It was most interesting, though, when my old CTO went in for a CT scan and was tripping-off the radiation detectors for 3 days straight thereafter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280868</id>
	<title>Whooo Hooo!</title>
	<author>ArcadeNut</author>
	<datestamp>1267112340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're number ONE!....</p><p>Oh wait....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're number ONE ! ....Oh wait... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're number ONE!....Oh wait....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280742</id>
	<title>Yay! pop corn faster!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267110840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's old, but good:</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEl7QqoPH9c</p><p>Now that Rick is gone, what else can I do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's old , but good : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = ZEl7QqoPH9cNow that Rick is gone , what else can I do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's old, but good:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEl7QqoPH9cNow that Rick is gone, what else can I do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281918</id>
	<title>Maybe it should be called the Blackberry Bald</title>
	<author>Nicky G</author>
	<datestamp>1267124340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Burn those hairs right off your head!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Burn those hairs right off your head !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burn those hairs right off your head!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281940</id>
	<title>Actually. . .</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1267124580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh boy.</p><p>I can't count the number of times I've run across this particular piece of rationalization.  Probably because, on the surface, it makes an emotional kind of sense.</p><p>Yes, non-ionizing radiation doesn't burn anything.  But that's not the problem.  Nobody is claiming it IS the problem.  The only people who are convinced that anybody is claiming this as the problem simply aren't paying attention.  Sorry.  I don't mean to come down hard on you, but the EM spectrum is useful in electronics because it <i>vibrates,</i> not because it burns things.  Cells, when vibrated on the EM spectrum, react.  It's that simple.  There is a ton of information available to anybody who wants to know what is really going on here.</p><p>Basically, it comes down to this:</p><p>Cells respond, evidently by their very nature, to coherent electromagnetic signals in the 1 to 500Hz range.  They do all kinds of weird things depending on the pulse rate and power and how the Earth's magnetic field interacts with the signal.  Cells have been observed to reproduce many times faster or slower than normal when exposed to different radio frequencies.  -Or to open up their membrane walls allowing foreign particles to enter which would not normally be able to pass.  Very low power signals can do this and a great deal more.</p><p>There are a number of observed mechanics, one of which is called, "Cyclotronic Resonance".  Here's an example. . .</p><p>As I am sure you know, everything has a natural sympathetic frequency.  This is understood.  <i>Cyclotronic Resonance</i> is a type of resonance which occurs when both a radio frequency and a steady magnetic field are present.  For instance, when you produce a 60Hz frequency, (as in wall-socket current), and combine it with a steady magnetic field of 0.2 Gauss, (as supplied by the Earth's magnetic field), the <i>Lithium Ion</i> resonates and becomes excited.  It also moves on a spiral vector.  The result is that any trace quantities of Lithium which happen to be in the blood stream of an organism will cease to sit still and will instead energize and move, enabling them to penetrate the blood brain barrier with greater frequency than normal.  It was noted that rats exposed to these conditions exhibited behavior consistent with a medicinal dose of lithium drug as compared to the control rats.  It should be noted that Lithium is the active ingredient in many anti-depressants.</p><p>That's just one small example.  There are many others.  But you're NOT going to read about them in the main stream press.  You just won't.  I'd explain why but that's a whole other post.  (Typically, people who believe in the whole idea that "non-ionizing" means "Safe" also tend to have trouble believing that the media can be anything less than honest.  Or that corruption exists.  Or that any group might have a vested interest in mass-medicating a population.  Just as one example.)</p><p>But there is some excellent information out there.  -A good book on this is, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cross-Currents-Robert-O-Becker/dp/0874776090/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1267163575&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">"Cross Currents" by Robert O. Becker.</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>Scary?</p><p>Of course it is.</p><p>Good luck.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh boy.I ca n't count the number of times I 've run across this particular piece of rationalization .
Probably because , on the surface , it makes an emotional kind of sense.Yes , non-ionizing radiation does n't burn anything .
But that 's not the problem .
Nobody is claiming it IS the problem .
The only people who are convinced that anybody is claiming this as the problem simply are n't paying attention .
Sorry. I do n't mean to come down hard on you , but the EM spectrum is useful in electronics because it vibrates , not because it burns things .
Cells , when vibrated on the EM spectrum , react .
It 's that simple .
There is a ton of information available to anybody who wants to know what is really going on here.Basically , it comes down to this : Cells respond , evidently by their very nature , to coherent electromagnetic signals in the 1 to 500Hz range .
They do all kinds of weird things depending on the pulse rate and power and how the Earth 's magnetic field interacts with the signal .
Cells have been observed to reproduce many times faster or slower than normal when exposed to different radio frequencies .
-Or to open up their membrane walls allowing foreign particles to enter which would not normally be able to pass .
Very low power signals can do this and a great deal more.There are a number of observed mechanics , one of which is called , " Cyclotronic Resonance " .
Here 's an example .
. .As I am sure you know , everything has a natural sympathetic frequency .
This is understood .
Cyclotronic Resonance is a type of resonance which occurs when both a radio frequency and a steady magnetic field are present .
For instance , when you produce a 60Hz frequency , ( as in wall-socket current ) , and combine it with a steady magnetic field of 0.2 Gauss , ( as supplied by the Earth 's magnetic field ) , the Lithium Ion resonates and becomes excited .
It also moves on a spiral vector .
The result is that any trace quantities of Lithium which happen to be in the blood stream of an organism will cease to sit still and will instead energize and move , enabling them to penetrate the blood brain barrier with greater frequency than normal .
It was noted that rats exposed to these conditions exhibited behavior consistent with a medicinal dose of lithium drug as compared to the control rats .
It should be noted that Lithium is the active ingredient in many anti-depressants.That 's just one small example .
There are many others .
But you 're NOT going to read about them in the main stream press .
You just wo n't .
I 'd explain why but that 's a whole other post .
( Typically , people who believe in the whole idea that " non-ionizing " means " Safe " also tend to have trouble believing that the media can be anything less than honest .
Or that corruption exists .
Or that any group might have a vested interest in mass-medicating a population .
Just as one example .
) But there is some excellent information out there .
-A good book on this is , " Cross Currents " by Robert O. Becker. [ amazon.com ] Scary ? Of course it is.Good luck.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh boy.I can't count the number of times I've run across this particular piece of rationalization.
Probably because, on the surface, it makes an emotional kind of sense.Yes, non-ionizing radiation doesn't burn anything.
But that's not the problem.
Nobody is claiming it IS the problem.
The only people who are convinced that anybody is claiming this as the problem simply aren't paying attention.
Sorry.  I don't mean to come down hard on you, but the EM spectrum is useful in electronics because it vibrates, not because it burns things.
Cells, when vibrated on the EM spectrum, react.
It's that simple.
There is a ton of information available to anybody who wants to know what is really going on here.Basically, it comes down to this:Cells respond, evidently by their very nature, to coherent electromagnetic signals in the 1 to 500Hz range.
They do all kinds of weird things depending on the pulse rate and power and how the Earth's magnetic field interacts with the signal.
Cells have been observed to reproduce many times faster or slower than normal when exposed to different radio frequencies.
-Or to open up their membrane walls allowing foreign particles to enter which would not normally be able to pass.
Very low power signals can do this and a great deal more.There are a number of observed mechanics, one of which is called, "Cyclotronic Resonance".
Here's an example.
. .As I am sure you know, everything has a natural sympathetic frequency.
This is understood.
Cyclotronic Resonance is a type of resonance which occurs when both a radio frequency and a steady magnetic field are present.
For instance, when you produce a 60Hz frequency, (as in wall-socket current), and combine it with a steady magnetic field of 0.2 Gauss, (as supplied by the Earth's magnetic field), the Lithium Ion resonates and becomes excited.
It also moves on a spiral vector.
The result is that any trace quantities of Lithium which happen to be in the blood stream of an organism will cease to sit still and will instead energize and move, enabling them to penetrate the blood brain barrier with greater frequency than normal.
It was noted that rats exposed to these conditions exhibited behavior consistent with a medicinal dose of lithium drug as compared to the control rats.
It should be noted that Lithium is the active ingredient in many anti-depressants.That's just one small example.
There are many others.
But you're NOT going to read about them in the main stream press.
You just won't.
I'd explain why but that's a whole other post.
(Typically, people who believe in the whole idea that "non-ionizing" means "Safe" also tend to have trouble believing that the media can be anything less than honest.
Or that corruption exists.
Or that any group might have a vested interest in mass-medicating a population.
Just as one example.
)But there is some excellent information out there.
-A good book on this is, "Cross Currents" by Robert O. Becker. [amazon.com]Scary?Of course it is.Good luck.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746</id>
	<title>no comprende</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1267110840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then why is it a story?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.Then why is it a story ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.Then why is it a story?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280678</id>
	<title>Pro/Con</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267110120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pro: Best distance from tower possible due to high TX power<br>Con: no kids^H^H^H^H^H^H^H<br>Pro: no kids</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pro : Best distance from tower possible due to high TX powerCon : no kids ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ HPro : no kids</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pro: Best distance from tower possible due to high TX powerCon: no kids^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPro: no kids</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280790</id>
	<title>i'm shock that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this wasnt posted by kdawson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this wasnt posted by kdawson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this wasnt posted by kdawson</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280712</id>
	<title>not a big deal</title>
	<author>sammykrupa</author>
	<datestamp>1267110420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone compiled a list, then sorted it numerically by some quantifiable characteristic.</p><p>Something came in at #1. what a surprise. this doesn't mean #1 is that that good or great or bad or harmful, as noted in the summary itself<br>"The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules."</p><p>stupid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone compiled a list , then sorted it numerically by some quantifiable characteristic.Something came in at # 1. what a surprise .
this does n't mean # 1 is that that good or great or bad or harmful , as noted in the summary itself " The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules .
" stupid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone compiled a list, then sorted it numerically by some quantifiable characteristic.Something came in at #1. what a surprise.
this doesn't mean #1 is that that good or great or bad or harmful, as noted in the summary itself"The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.
"stupid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280808</id>
	<title>Re:lol, where's the iPhone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not intended to be a troll so please dont misunderstand what I'm saying - but the people I know who have an iphone do complain about the signal quality not being as good as their other (non-smart)phones.  Maybe this is why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not intended to be a troll so please dont misunderstand what I 'm saying - but the people I know who have an iphone do complain about the signal quality not being as good as their other ( non-smart ) phones .
Maybe this is why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not intended to be a troll so please dont misunderstand what I'm saying - but the people I know who have an iphone do complain about the signal quality not being as good as their other (non-smart)phones.
Maybe this is why?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280998</id>
	<title>Re:lol, where's the iPhone?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267113660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, when I do that I get modded troll (not that I care anyway).</p><p>The iTrollerators must be sleeping, wrapped in their cozy reality distortion field.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , when I do that I get modded troll ( not that I care anyway ) .The iTrollerators must be sleeping , wrapped in their cozy reality distortion field .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, when I do that I get modded troll (not that I care anyway).The iTrollerators must be sleeping, wrapped in their cozy reality distortion field.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31283306</id>
	<title>Darn. Nokia N900 is no in the list...</title>
	<author>Herve5</author>
	<datestamp>1267185780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having a lower radiation would have helped me to gulp the linuxopensource cost<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/<br>Nobody knows where to find its figure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a lower radiation would have helped me to gulp the linuxopensource cost : -/Nobody knows where to find its figure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a lower radiation would have helped me to gulp the linuxopensource cost :-/Nobody knows where to find its figure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282440</id>
	<title>SAR vs Reception</title>
	<author>Lvdata</author>
	<datestamp>1267217700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, if any, relationship is there between the SAR and the reception on the phone? Higher is better? Lower is better? I always guessed a high SAR also means a better transciever, but my Palm Pre is LOWER then my old HTC Touch Pro, but it definatly is a better transmitter and reciver. It just might be a better RF design though.

How DID the government come up with a 1.6sar max though? and not the European 2.0?

I have had various cell phones (3w analog to my palm pre) in my shirt pocket for close to 20 years, and in trying to find an answer, I found out the SAR is 1 inch from the body, like on a holster, not in a shirt pocket. I don't care as it is RF non-ionizing though like others have said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , if any , relationship is there between the SAR and the reception on the phone ?
Higher is better ?
Lower is better ?
I always guessed a high SAR also means a better transciever , but my Palm Pre is LOWER then my old HTC Touch Pro , but it definatly is a better transmitter and reciver .
It just might be a better RF design though .
How DID the government come up with a 1.6sar max though ?
and not the European 2.0 ?
I have had various cell phones ( 3w analog to my palm pre ) in my shirt pocket for close to 20 years , and in trying to find an answer , I found out the SAR is 1 inch from the body , like on a holster , not in a shirt pocket .
I do n't care as it is RF non-ionizing though like others have said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, if any, relationship is there between the SAR and the reception on the phone?
Higher is better?
Lower is better?
I always guessed a high SAR also means a better transciever, but my Palm Pre is LOWER then my old HTC Touch Pro, but it definatly is a better transmitter and reciver.
It just might be a better RF design though.
How DID the government come up with a 1.6sar max though?
and not the European 2.0?
I have had various cell phones (3w analog to my palm pre) in my shirt pocket for close to 20 years, and in trying to find an answer, I found out the SAR is 1 inch from the body, like on a holster, not in a shirt pocket.
I don't care as it is RF non-ionizing though like others have said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281250</id>
	<title>Report data with less crap</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1267116180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the data as a Google Spreadsheet.
<a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlEnl9tgD98JdGNITERTYmN3TlRhTkNhQ1dBMElyeFE&amp;hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlEnl9tgD98JdGNITERTYmN3TlRhTkNhQ1dBMElyeFE&amp;hl=en</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the data as a Google Spreadsheet .
http : //spreadsheets.google.com/ccc ? key = 0AlEnl9tgD98JdGNITERTYmN3TlRhTkNhQ1dBMElyeFE&amp;hl = en [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the data as a Google Spreadsheet.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlEnl9tgD98JdGNITERTYmN3TlRhTkNhQ1dBMElyeFE&amp;hl=en [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281086</id>
	<title>Figures</title>
	<author>xbeefsupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1267114620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess that's why they call it a crackberry</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that 's why they call it a crackberry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that's why they call it a crackberry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281328</id>
	<title>Re:Just to head this off...</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1267116960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, "atomic radiation" includes:<br>* electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays)<br>* electrons (beta particles)<br>* neutrons<br>* He2+ particles (or alpha particles, if you prefer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , " atomic radiation " includes : * electromagnetic radiation ( gamma rays ) * electrons ( beta particles ) * neutrons * He2 + particles ( or alpha particles , if you prefer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, "atomic radiation" includes:* electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays)* electrons (beta particles)* neutrons* He2+ particles (or alpha particles, if you prefer)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280792</id>
	<title>Just to head this off...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>electromagnetic radiation != atomic radiation</p><p>"Cell phone radiation" just means that the things are electromagnetically noisy and prone to interfere with other nearby electronics through induced currents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>electromagnetic radiation ! = atomic radiation " Cell phone radiation " just means that the things are electromagnetically noisy and prone to interfere with other nearby electronics through induced currents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>electromagnetic radiation != atomic radiation"Cell phone radiation" just means that the things are electromagnetically noisy and prone to interfere with other nearby electronics through induced currents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31296042</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1267275000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perhaps this means it'll get signal where I live?</p></div></blockquote><p>[Sigh.] No.<br>Whether or not your phone can detect the presence of a readable signal from a cellphone base station (or several) doesn't depend on how strong the signal you're transmitting is, it depends on (surprise!) the strength of the base station signal at your location.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this means it 'll get signal where I live ? [ Sigh .
] No.Whether or not your phone can detect the presence of a readable signal from a cellphone base station ( or several ) does n't depend on how strong the signal you 're transmitting is , it depends on ( surprise !
) the strength of the base station signal at your location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this means it'll get signal where I live?[Sigh.
] No.Whether or not your phone can detect the presence of a readable signal from a cellphone base station (or several) doesn't depend on how strong the signal you're transmitting is, it depends on (surprise!
) the strength of the base station signal at your location.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31312282</id>
	<title>Even better, read the test results yourself.</title>
	<author>Foresto</author>
	<datestamp>1267383120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of their phone-specific pages cite the manufacturer as the only data source.  This includes <a href="http://www.ewg.org/cellphoneradiation/Get-a-Safer-Phone/HTC/Magic+(T-Mobile+myTouch+3G)/" title="ewg.org">a phone</a> [ewg.org] I'm playing with at the moment, which happens to have one of the worst SAR ratings on the ewg.org list.  (Worse than the Blackberry.)  I followed their link, and it brought me to a user manual, which did in fact show the same values shown on the list.</p><p>Call me paranoid, but that didn't really satisfy me.  For one thing, I don't trust user manuals all that much when it comes to fine details that might have changed since they were written.  For another, this phone supports several different radio frequencies, including Wi-Fi and several different GSM bands, yet the manual and ewg.org fail to reflect this with multiple SAR values. So, I <a href="http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/HTC-Magic-phone-pa\_3421.html" title="phonearena.com">looked up</a> [phonearena.com] the FCC ID for my phone and <a href="https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&amp;RequestTimeout=500&amp;calledFromFrame=N&amp;application\_id=363681&amp;fcc\_id='NM8SPRV'" title="fcc.gov">followed it</a> [fcc.gov] to the FCC's radiation report on that model.  What I found was much more informative.</p><p>As you might expect, the FCC's SAR measurements showed quite a range of values, depending on which radio is in use, which channel is in use, and how the phone is held.  According to this data, my particular phone habits and service provider should yield around half the SAR that was reported by ewg.org, comparable to their best-rated models.</p><p>This exercise was interesting, and set my mind at ease a little, but I'm still going to use a wired headset whenever possible.  Again, call me paranoid if you like.  There simply hasn't been enough time for us to observe the long-term effects of having a microwave broadcast antenna plastered to our heads, and I don't trust studies that claim all is well when they're funded by the cell phone industry.</p><p>Some of you might find this US Senate hearing interesting:<br><a href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&amp;id=2a7f2e87-68a0-48a3-b16b-08ac1b98cc42" title="senate.gov">http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&amp;id=2a7f2e87-68a0-48a3-b16b-08ac1b98cc42</a> [senate.gov]<br><a href="http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/288879-1" title="c-spanarchives.org">http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/288879-1</a> [c-spanarchives.org]<br><a href="http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell-phone-health-effects-hearing.htm" title="mapcruzin.com">http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell-phone-health-effects-hearing.htm</a> [mapcruzin.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of their phone-specific pages cite the manufacturer as the only data source .
This includes a phone [ ewg.org ] I 'm playing with at the moment , which happens to have one of the worst SAR ratings on the ewg.org list .
( Worse than the Blackberry .
) I followed their link , and it brought me to a user manual , which did in fact show the same values shown on the list.Call me paranoid , but that did n't really satisfy me .
For one thing , I do n't trust user manuals all that much when it comes to fine details that might have changed since they were written .
For another , this phone supports several different radio frequencies , including Wi-Fi and several different GSM bands , yet the manual and ewg.org fail to reflect this with multiple SAR values .
So , I looked up [ phonearena.com ] the FCC ID for my phone and followed it [ fcc.gov ] to the FCC 's radiation report on that model .
What I found was much more informative.As you might expect , the FCC 's SAR measurements showed quite a range of values , depending on which radio is in use , which channel is in use , and how the phone is held .
According to this data , my particular phone habits and service provider should yield around half the SAR that was reported by ewg.org , comparable to their best-rated models.This exercise was interesting , and set my mind at ease a little , but I 'm still going to use a wired headset whenever possible .
Again , call me paranoid if you like .
There simply has n't been enough time for us to observe the long-term effects of having a microwave broadcast antenna plastered to our heads , and I do n't trust studies that claim all is well when they 're funded by the cell phone industry.Some of you might find this US Senate hearing interesting : http : //appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm ? method = webcasts.view&amp;id = 2a7f2e87-68a0-48a3-b16b-08ac1b98cc42 [ senate.gov ] http : //www.c-spanarchives.org/program/288879-1 [ c-spanarchives.org ] http : //www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell-phone-health-effects-hearing.htm [ mapcruzin.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of their phone-specific pages cite the manufacturer as the only data source.
This includes a phone [ewg.org] I'm playing with at the moment, which happens to have one of the worst SAR ratings on the ewg.org list.
(Worse than the Blackberry.
)  I followed their link, and it brought me to a user manual, which did in fact show the same values shown on the list.Call me paranoid, but that didn't really satisfy me.
For one thing, I don't trust user manuals all that much when it comes to fine details that might have changed since they were written.
For another, this phone supports several different radio frequencies, including Wi-Fi and several different GSM bands, yet the manual and ewg.org fail to reflect this with multiple SAR values.
So, I looked up [phonearena.com] the FCC ID for my phone and followed it [fcc.gov] to the FCC's radiation report on that model.
What I found was much more informative.As you might expect, the FCC's SAR measurements showed quite a range of values, depending on which radio is in use, which channel is in use, and how the phone is held.
According to this data, my particular phone habits and service provider should yield around half the SAR that was reported by ewg.org, comparable to their best-rated models.This exercise was interesting, and set my mind at ease a little, but I'm still going to use a wired headset whenever possible.
Again, call me paranoid if you like.
There simply hasn't been enough time for us to observe the long-term effects of having a microwave broadcast antenna plastered to our heads, and I don't trust studies that claim all is well when they're funded by the cell phone industry.Some of you might find this US Senate hearing interesting:http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&amp;id=2a7f2e87-68a0-48a3-b16b-08ac1b98cc42 [senate.gov]http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/288879-1 [c-spanarchives.org]http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell-phone-health-effects-hearing.htm [mapcruzin.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285180</id>
	<title>Re:Actually. . .</title>
	<author>Audrey23</author>
	<datestamp>1267200720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, actually you might be confused, I did not say that non-ionizing radiation is safe. but
AT THE POWER LEVELS AND DUTY CYCLES BEING USED
it is safe.
Yes, as a matter of fact you can get burned with non-ionizing radiation, I have many long term RF burns on my fingers to prove it (I work with radio frequency transmitters as a hobby and as a professional). But only with much higher orders of magnitude power levels and "on time" (duty cycle) RF radiation can be dangerous, but it gets more complicated than can be explained here.
Also the frequencies and modulation techniques that are being used with modern mobile phones by their nature (very low power and duty cycle) cause them to be much less a threat than (again) exposure to the sun which is a much broader spectrum and higher duty cycle.

Also you seem to confuse extremely low frequency energy "1Hz to 500Hz range" with the much much higher frequency (800 to 1900MHz) that Cellular and PCS phones use. There may be certain effects from the very low field strengths emitted by mobile phones but it really is minute.
I actually tend to be concerned about the exposure we get to high level EMF from power lines myself but I don't have enough information to feel informed.
Finally I try not to be scared by science but instead keep an open mind and realize that there is allot I don't know but also quite a bit I do know and can learn, I will consider what you have shown above but will keep in mind what I do know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , actually you might be confused , I did not say that non-ionizing radiation is safe .
but AT THE POWER LEVELS AND DUTY CYCLES BEING USED it is safe .
Yes , as a matter of fact you can get burned with non-ionizing radiation , I have many long term RF burns on my fingers to prove it ( I work with radio frequency transmitters as a hobby and as a professional ) .
But only with much higher orders of magnitude power levels and " on time " ( duty cycle ) RF radiation can be dangerous , but it gets more complicated than can be explained here .
Also the frequencies and modulation techniques that are being used with modern mobile phones by their nature ( very low power and duty cycle ) cause them to be much less a threat than ( again ) exposure to the sun which is a much broader spectrum and higher duty cycle .
Also you seem to confuse extremely low frequency energy " 1Hz to 500Hz range " with the much much higher frequency ( 800 to 1900MHz ) that Cellular and PCS phones use .
There may be certain effects from the very low field strengths emitted by mobile phones but it really is minute .
I actually tend to be concerned about the exposure we get to high level EMF from power lines myself but I do n't have enough information to feel informed .
Finally I try not to be scared by science but instead keep an open mind and realize that there is allot I do n't know but also quite a bit I do know and can learn , I will consider what you have shown above but will keep in mind what I do know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, actually you might be confused, I did not say that non-ionizing radiation is safe.
but
AT THE POWER LEVELS AND DUTY CYCLES BEING USED
it is safe.
Yes, as a matter of fact you can get burned with non-ionizing radiation, I have many long term RF burns on my fingers to prove it (I work with radio frequency transmitters as a hobby and as a professional).
But only with much higher orders of magnitude power levels and "on time" (duty cycle) RF radiation can be dangerous, but it gets more complicated than can be explained here.
Also the frequencies and modulation techniques that are being used with modern mobile phones by their nature (very low power and duty cycle) cause them to be much less a threat than (again) exposure to the sun which is a much broader spectrum and higher duty cycle.
Also you seem to confuse extremely low frequency energy "1Hz to 500Hz range" with the much much higher frequency (800 to 1900MHz) that Cellular and PCS phones use.
There may be certain effects from the very low field strengths emitted by mobile phones but it really is minute.
I actually tend to be concerned about the exposure we get to high level EMF from power lines myself but I don't have enough information to feel informed.
Finally I try not to be scared by science but instead keep an open mind and realize that there is allot I don't know but also quite a bit I do know and can learn, I will consider what you have shown above but will keep in mind what I do know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284724</id>
	<title>cellphone radiation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267198200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Attention: Much talk here about how these cellphones may be inherently dangerous to living tissue, but not much has been said of the damage caused to other things.  My health may be directly impacted by this device causing unintended acceleration or braking in a fly-by-wire automotive application.<br>Airline industry has long denied cellphone use during flight, citing compromised electronics and failure of same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Attention : Much talk here about how these cellphones may be inherently dangerous to living tissue , but not much has been said of the damage caused to other things .
My health may be directly impacted by this device causing unintended acceleration or braking in a fly-by-wire automotive application.Airline industry has long denied cellphone use during flight , citing compromised electronics and failure of same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Attention: Much talk here about how these cellphones may be inherently dangerous to living tissue, but not much has been said of the damage caused to other things.
My health may be directly impacted by this device causing unintended acceleration or braking in a fly-by-wire automotive application.Airline industry has long denied cellphone use during flight, citing compromised electronics and failure of same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281030</id>
	<title>Re:no comprende</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267114020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then why is it a story?</p></div><p>Because we know from the meatpacking, pharmaceutical, and genetically modified crop industries just how much those lobbyist-paid federal regulators have (hah) public safety at heart.  So we want to see the numbers and decide for ourselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.Then why is it a story ? Because we know from the meatpacking , pharmaceutical , and genetically modified crop industries just how much those lobbyist-paid federal regulators have ( hah ) public safety at heart .
So we want to see the numbers and decide for ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.Then why is it a story?Because we know from the meatpacking, pharmaceutical, and genetically modified crop industries just how much those lobbyist-paid federal regulators have (hah) public safety at heart.
So we want to see the numbers and decide for ourselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285022</id>
	<title>Re:no comprende</title>
	<author>omfglearntoplay</author>
	<datestamp>1267199820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod this guy up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod this guy up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod this guy up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284290</id>
	<title>Since when does a phone only radiate to the head?</title>
	<author>George\_Ou</author>
	<datestamp>1267195860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never knew brain matter was a magnet for radio signals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never knew brain matter was a magnet for radio signals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never knew brain matter was a magnet for radio signals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31294060</id>
	<title>Re:Actually. . .</title>
	<author>bartwol</author>
	<datestamp>1267199640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting...despite all your Dr. Becker's theories and attempts at therapeutic protocols, I am not able to find one of his protocols that was demonstrated to be sufficiently effective to be worthy of widespread adoption. He, like you, never coughed up the science. Long on theory, short on substance.

</p><p>Clinical trials, baby. It's all about outcomes.

</p><p>You got NOTHING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting...despite all your Dr. Becker 's theories and attempts at therapeutic protocols , I am not able to find one of his protocols that was demonstrated to be sufficiently effective to be worthy of widespread adoption .
He , like you , never coughed up the science .
Long on theory , short on substance .
Clinical trials , baby .
It 's all about outcomes .
You got NOTHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting...despite all your Dr. Becker's theories and attempts at therapeutic protocols, I am not able to find one of his protocols that was demonstrated to be sufficiently effective to be worthy of widespread adoption.
He, like you, never coughed up the science.
Long on theory, short on substance.
Clinical trials, baby.
It's all about outcomes.
You got NOTHING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281380</id>
	<title>Sweet! No Alzheimer's for me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267117740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cell phone radiation reverses Alzheimer's in mice.<br>See here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AlzheimersNews/cell-phone-radiation-prevent-reverse-alzheimers-mice/story?id=9497387</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell phone radiation reverses Alzheimer 's in mice.See here : http : //abcnews.go.com/Health/AlzheimersNews/cell-phone-radiation-prevent-reverse-alzheimers-mice/story ? id = 9497387</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell phone radiation reverses Alzheimer's in mice.See here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AlzheimersNews/cell-phone-radiation-prevent-reverse-alzheimers-mice/story?id=9497387</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31293078</id>
	<title>Re:Actually. . .</title>
	<author>TD-Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1267192440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cells respond, evidently by their very nature, to coherent electromagnetic signals in the 1 to 500Hz range.</p></div><p>It's a good thing, then, that cell signals are in the 900MHz range or higher (for GSM, most newer ones are closer to the 2GHz range)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cells respond , evidently by their very nature , to coherent electromagnetic signals in the 1 to 500Hz range.It 's a good thing , then , that cell signals are in the 900MHz range or higher ( for GSM , most newer ones are closer to the 2GHz range )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cells respond, evidently by their very nature, to coherent electromagnetic signals in the 1 to 500Hz range.It's a good thing, then, that cell signals are in the 900MHz range or higher (for GSM, most newer ones are closer to the 2GHz range)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31290128</id>
	<title>Re:no comprende</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267176540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Some will intentionally seek out phones with high RF because more RF means the radio has more juice or the antenna is more efficient, which means it'll get "more bars in more places".</p></div></blockquote><p>This list does not represent radio/antenna quality.  It looks not at total RF radiation, but RF absorbed by the user.  So a phone which radiates most of its RF energy out the speark into your ear will rate much higher than one which radiates away from you where has a better chance of reaching the tower.  (yes, the title is wrong, as always)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some will intentionally seek out phones with high RF because more RF means the radio has more juice or the antenna is more efficient , which means it 'll get " more bars in more places " .This list does not represent radio/antenna quality .
It looks not at total RF radiation , but RF absorbed by the user .
So a phone which radiates most of its RF energy out the speark into your ear will rate much higher than one which radiates away from you where has a better chance of reaching the tower .
( yes , the title is wrong , as always )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some will intentionally seek out phones with high RF because more RF means the radio has more juice or the antenna is more efficient, which means it'll get "more bars in more places".This list does not represent radio/antenna quality.
It looks not at total RF radiation, but RF absorbed by the user.
So a phone which radiates most of its RF energy out the speark into your ear will rate much higher than one which radiates away from you where has a better chance of reaching the tower.
(yes, the title is wrong, as always)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281472</id>
	<title>Best phone for Alzheimers?</title>
	<author>TimTucker</author>
	<datestamp>1267119000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given the study a while back on cell phone radiation being possibly beneficial for Alzheimers patients, it seems like this information could be useful for anyone looking to try to it out for themselves:
<a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/07/1812250" title="slashdot.org">http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/07/1812250</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the study a while back on cell phone radiation being possibly beneficial for Alzheimers patients , it seems like this information could be useful for anyone looking to try to it out for themselves : http : //science.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 10/01/07/1812250 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the study a while back on cell phone radiation being possibly beneficial for Alzheimers patients, it seems like this information could be useful for anyone looking to try to it out for themselves:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/07/1812250 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280776</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's within legal limits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's within legal limits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's within legal limits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280930</id>
	<title>Re:Just to head this off...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267112940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, an intelligent response?</p><p>I was tempted to say I have one cellphone that emits zero radio frequency...it is old and no longer used, so it is turned off.  cellphones have to emit rf in order to work.  Sure, the very early ones used much higher power, but no recent ones do.</p><p>however, i hear tin foil hats make excellent antennas for some people...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , an intelligent response ? I was tempted to say I have one cellphone that emits zero radio frequency...it is old and no longer used , so it is turned off .
cellphones have to emit rf in order to work .
Sure , the very early ones used much higher power , but no recent ones do.however , i hear tin foil hats make excellent antennas for some people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, an intelligent response?I was tempted to say I have one cellphone that emits zero radio frequency...it is old and no longer used, so it is turned off.
cellphones have to emit rf in order to work.
Sure, the very early ones used much higher power, but no recent ones do.however, i hear tin foil hats make excellent antennas for some people...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281106</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267114800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate &ldquo;we all know this&rdquo; statements in situations that only exist because not everybody knows this.</p><p>Microwave radiation from mobile phones can by definition (=frequency=energy) not ionize anything. It can only heat things up. In case of human flesh that is 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius. (Warning: Only the rotation causes the strong heating in microwave ovens. Not the resonance or radiation energy itself.)<br>Do you know what Van-den-Waals bondings are? Look up their bonding energy. Now take the above quantum energy the radiation (as a function related to penetration depth e.g. into the brain, balls, etc) [like SAR], and you know if it can denature proteins.<br>(It&rsquo;s not that hard, and quite interesting. Especially to <em>know it for sure</em>.)</p><p>See. That way nobody can just make (stupid) bold statements or (even dumber) take sides, without knowing shit about the topic. (Notice how I myself did not take sides but only stated mere facts based on quantum physics. You have to not accept them, to not accept this.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate    we all know this    statements in situations that only exist because not everybody knows this.Microwave radiation from mobile phones can by definition ( = frequency = energy ) not ionize anything .
It can only heat things up .
In case of human flesh that is 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius .
( Warning : Only the rotation causes the strong heating in microwave ovens .
Not the resonance or radiation energy itself .
) Do you know what Van-den-Waals bondings are ?
Look up their bonding energy .
Now take the above quantum energy the radiation ( as a function related to penetration depth e.g .
into the brain , balls , etc ) [ like SAR ] , and you know if it can denature proteins .
( It    s not that hard , and quite interesting .
Especially to know it for sure. ) See .
That way nobody can just make ( stupid ) bold statements or ( even dumber ) take sides , without knowing shit about the topic .
( Notice how I myself did not take sides but only stated mere facts based on quantum physics .
You have to not accept them , to not accept this .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate “we all know this” statements in situations that only exist because not everybody knows this.Microwave radiation from mobile phones can by definition (=frequency=energy) not ionize anything.
It can only heat things up.
In case of human flesh that is 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius.
(Warning: Only the rotation causes the strong heating in microwave ovens.
Not the resonance or radiation energy itself.
)Do you know what Van-den-Waals bondings are?
Look up their bonding energy.
Now take the above quantum energy the radiation (as a function related to penetration depth e.g.
into the brain, balls, etc) [like SAR], and you know if it can denature proteins.
(It’s not that hard, and quite interesting.
Especially to know it for sure.)See.
That way nobody can just make (stupid) bold statements or (even dumber) take sides, without knowing shit about the topic.
(Notice how I myself did not take sides but only stated mere facts based on quantum physics.
You have to not accept them, to not accept this.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280608</id>
	<title>Brand-name Power</title>
	<author>MostAwesomeDude</author>
	<datestamp>1267109460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution? Stop putting in the Bold (tm) chunk of americium inside the earpiece.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution ?
Stop putting in the Bold ( tm ) chunk of americium inside the earpiece .
: 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution?
Stop putting in the Bold (tm) chunk of americium inside the earpiece.
:3</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281074</id>
	<title>Re:no comprende</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267114560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if you keep reading, there's something about a killer whale mauling its keeper at the end of the article.  Duh.  RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if you keep reading , there 's something about a killer whale mauling its keeper at the end of the article .
Duh. RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if you keep reading, there's something about a killer whale mauling its keeper at the end of the article.
Duh.  RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590</id>
	<title>Oh good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps this means it'll get signal where I live?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this means it 'll get signal where I live ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this means it'll get signal where I live?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281750</id>
	<title>Cell Phone Radiation</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1267122180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that anything like delta radiation?  A tachyon field?  The omega particle?</p><p>I also like this, from the summary: "the highest legal levels."  Hm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that anything like delta radiation ?
A tachyon field ?
The omega particle ? I also like this , from the summary : " the highest legal levels .
" Hm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that anything like delta radiation?
A tachyon field?
The omega particle?I also like this, from the summary: "the highest legal levels.
"  Hm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280760</id>
	<title>Attn: Fat Girls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok, you're fat and there's nothing you can do about it.  Well, there is one thing you can do but if you could do it, you wouldn't be fat.  Anyhow, you probably don't expect to get laid much but every once in a while, some guy is drunk or bored and decides to throw you a bone.  So do yourself a favor and shave your cunt.  Nobody likes fat girls and nobody likes hairy beavers.  Guess what?  Nobody likes fat girls with hairy beavers!!!  So put down the ice cream and shave your vag.  Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok , you 're fat and there 's nothing you can do about it .
Well , there is one thing you can do but if you could do it , you would n't be fat .
Anyhow , you probably do n't expect to get laid much but every once in a while , some guy is drunk or bored and decides to throw you a bone .
So do yourself a favor and shave your cunt .
Nobody likes fat girls and nobody likes hairy beavers .
Guess what ?
Nobody likes fat girls with hairy beavers ! ! !
So put down the ice cream and shave your vag .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok, you're fat and there's nothing you can do about it.
Well, there is one thing you can do but if you could do it, you wouldn't be fat.
Anyhow, you probably don't expect to get laid much but every once in a while, some guy is drunk or bored and decides to throw you a bone.
So do yourself a favor and shave your cunt.
Nobody likes fat girls and nobody likes hairy beavers.
Guess what?
Nobody likes fat girls with hairy beavers!!!
So put down the ice cream and shave your vag.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285502</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267202280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. That just means it will pump out more watts of power to reach the tower. And that doesn't relate to the phones ability to receive signal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
That just means it will pump out more watts of power to reach the tower .
And that does n't relate to the phones ability to receive signal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
That just means it will pump out more watts of power to reach the tower.
And that doesn't relate to the phones ability to receive signal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284790</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good</title>
	<author>Cytotoxic</author>
	<datestamp>1267198440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh?  This stupid survey is recording the strength of the cell phone's radio signal (called radiation in the article) by copying down the "Specific Absorption Rate" from the FCC.  It is a stupid spin to claim that it is a "radiation study" in the first place, but to claim that there is simple engineering available to make cell phone radios beam their signal to the tower while avoiding vital organs is just silly.  Unless you are talking about moving the antenna away from your body, I guess.<p>
The SAR they talk about can only depend on:
</p><p>1) strength of signal
</p><p>2) wavelength of signal
</p><p>3) position of signal
</p><p>There really are no other variables for an omnidirectional antenna, which a cellphone needs in order to work properly.  The wavelength is going to be set by the spectrum of the carrier, the signal strength is limited by the FCC.... so what are you measuring?  Basically all that is left is where you hold the antenna, right?  Jump over to <a href="http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation" title="ewg.org">the actual article</a> [ewg.org] at the Environmental Working Group and see if you find them credible or a bit more on the wacko side.
A cursory read of the site made them seem somewhere in the middle to me - like environmental wingnuts who are sort of trying to understand all this complicated science stuff, but don't really have a deep understanding of any of it.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
This stupid survey is recording the strength of the cell phone 's radio signal ( called radiation in the article ) by copying down the " Specific Absorption Rate " from the FCC .
It is a stupid spin to claim that it is a " radiation study " in the first place , but to claim that there is simple engineering available to make cell phone radios beam their signal to the tower while avoiding vital organs is just silly .
Unless you are talking about moving the antenna away from your body , I guess .
The SAR they talk about can only depend on : 1 ) strength of signal 2 ) wavelength of signal 3 ) position of signal There really are no other variables for an omnidirectional antenna , which a cellphone needs in order to work properly .
The wavelength is going to be set by the spectrum of the carrier , the signal strength is limited by the FCC.... so what are you measuring ?
Basically all that is left is where you hold the antenna , right ?
Jump over to the actual article [ ewg.org ] at the Environmental Working Group and see if you find them credible or a bit more on the wacko side .
A cursory read of the site made them seem somewhere in the middle to me - like environmental wingnuts who are sort of trying to understand all this complicated science stuff , but do n't really have a deep understanding of any of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
This stupid survey is recording the strength of the cell phone's radio signal (called radiation in the article) by copying down the "Specific Absorption Rate" from the FCC.
It is a stupid spin to claim that it is a "radiation study" in the first place, but to claim that there is simple engineering available to make cell phone radios beam their signal to the tower while avoiding vital organs is just silly.
Unless you are talking about moving the antenna away from your body, I guess.
The SAR they talk about can only depend on:
1) strength of signal
2) wavelength of signal
3) position of signal
There really are no other variables for an omnidirectional antenna, which a cellphone needs in order to work properly.
The wavelength is going to be set by the spectrum of the carrier, the signal strength is limited by the FCC.... so what are you measuring?
Basically all that is left is where you hold the antenna, right?
Jump over to the actual article [ewg.org] at the Environmental Working Group and see if you find them credible or a bit more on the wacko side.
A cursory read of the site made them seem somewhere in the middle to me - like environmental wingnuts who are sort of trying to understand all this complicated science stuff, but don't really have a deep understanding of any of it.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280606</id>
	<title>First!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284080</id>
	<title>Re:no comprende</title>
	<author>Karganeth</author>
	<datestamp>1267194600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rules do not need to be broken in order for a story to be posted to slashdot (or anywhere).  If there was a processor ranking list posted to slashdot would you question the story because the processors were not breaking any rules?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rules do not need to be broken in order for a story to be posted to slashdot ( or anywhere ) .
If there was a processor ranking list posted to slashdot would you question the story because the processors were not breaking any rules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rules do not need to be broken in order for a story to be posted to slashdot (or anywhere).
If there was a processor ranking list posted to slashdot would you question the story because the processors were not breaking any rules?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282234</id>
	<title>NYC has highest amount of poison in water!!</title>
	<author>Danny Rathjens</author>
	<datestamp>1267214580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>#1 602000000000000000000099 arsenic molecules per mole  - NYC</li>
<li>#2 602000000000000000000098 arsenic molecules per mole  - LA</li>
<li>#3 602000000000000000000097 arsenic molecules per mole  - Chicago</li>
<li>#4 602000000000000000000096 arsenic molecules per mole  - Miami</li>
<li>#5 602000000000000000000095 arsenic molecules per mole  - Houston</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul><p>
This might affect you!  Visit my site to read more about this shocking news and give me ad views!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 1 602000000000000000000099 arsenic molecules per mole - NYC # 2 602000000000000000000098 arsenic molecules per mole - LA # 3 602000000000000000000097 arsenic molecules per mole - Chicago # 4 602000000000000000000096 arsenic molecules per mole - Miami # 5 602000000000000000000095 arsenic molecules per mole - Houston .. . This might affect you !
Visit my site to read more about this shocking news and give me ad views !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
#1 602000000000000000000099 arsenic molecules per mole  - NYC
#2 602000000000000000000098 arsenic molecules per mole  - LA
#3 602000000000000000000097 arsenic molecules per mole  - Chicago
#4 602000000000000000000096 arsenic molecules per mole  - Miami
#5 602000000000000000000095 arsenic molecules per mole  - Houston
...

This might affect you!
Visit my site to read more about this shocking news and give me ad views!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281034</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1267114080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I purchased a BB Curve 8330 a year ago and never (not once, honest) had a dropped call due to poor reception. Audio quality has always been consistent.</p><p>I guess the fact it ranks in at #6 of having the highest radiation level has something to do with that =) CNET has written a nice article on the subject with a chart of phones by radiation rankings.</p><p><a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602\_7-291-1.html?tag=page;page" title="cnet.com">http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602\_7-291-1.html?tag=page;page</a> [cnet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I purchased a BB Curve 8330 a year ago and never ( not once , honest ) had a dropped call due to poor reception .
Audio quality has always been consistent.I guess the fact it ranks in at # 6 of having the highest radiation level has something to do with that = ) CNET has written a nice article on the subject with a chart of phones by radiation rankings.http : //reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602 \ _7-291-1.html ? tag = page ; page [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I purchased a BB Curve 8330 a year ago and never (not once, honest) had a dropped call due to poor reception.
Audio quality has always been consistent.I guess the fact it ranks in at #6 of having the highest radiation level has something to do with that =) CNET has written a nice article on the subject with a chart of phones by radiation rankings.http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602\_7-291-1.html?tag=page;page [cnet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280634</id>
	<title>lol, where's the iPhone?</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1267109760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You poor fanboys, your precious toy didn't even make the list. Weak is the signal, weak as the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You poor fanboys , your precious toy did n't even make the list .
Weak is the signal , weak as the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You poor fanboys, your precious toy didn't even make the list.
Weak is the signal, weak as the user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280798</id>
	<title>Sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Research In Motion's BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiation</p></div><p>That is awesome.  Now you know what cell will have the strongest possible signal!</p><p>Of course the unspoken assumption being made is that this cell phone radiation, aka radio waves, are somehow a bad thing or undesirable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Research In Motion 's BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiationThat is awesome .
Now you know what cell will have the strongest possible signal ! Of course the unspoken assumption being made is that this cell phone radiation , aka radio waves , are somehow a bad thing or undesirable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Research In Motion's BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores the highest among popular smartphones for exposing users to the highest legal levels of cell phone radiationThat is awesome.
Now you know what cell will have the strongest possible signal!Of course the unspoken assumption being made is that this cell phone radiation, aka radio waves, are somehow a bad thing or undesirable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281234</id>
	<title>Radiation vs. Reception</title>
	<author>NetNed</author>
	<datestamp>1267116060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about a comparison between Radiation levels and reception power of the phone so we can see if the trade off is worth having lees dropped call?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a comparison between Radiation levels and reception power of the phone so we can see if the trade off is worth having lees dropped call ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a comparison between Radiation levels and reception power of the phone so we can see if the trade off is worth having lees dropped call?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280610</id>
	<title>Uh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267109520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.</p></div><p>Wait... so I guess that makes this a complete non-story?</p><p>Or maybe we should have an enthralling debate about how these devices are within legal spec.</p><p>Or perhaps it's flamebait: We're supposed to bring out the apple fanboys and where the iphone ranks.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Current FCC regulations permit SAR levels of up to 1.6 W/kg for partial body (head) exposure, 0.08 W/kg for whole-body exposure and 4 W/kg for exposure to the hands, wrists, feet and ankles.<br>The BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores an overall 1.55 SAR in the new rankings. The Motorola Droid came in at 1.50 while the LG Chocolate scored a 1.46, the Nexus One ranked a 1.39 and the Apple iPhone 3G scored a 1.19.</p></div><p>Ok, I read some of the article. I guess we can talk about how close the Blackberry is to the upper bound. It still seems like a boring, non-story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.Wait... so I guess that makes this a complete non-story ? Or maybe we should have an enthralling debate about how these devices are within legal spec.Or perhaps it 's flamebait : We 're supposed to bring out the apple fanboys and where the iphone ranks.Current FCC regulations permit SAR levels of up to 1.6 W/kg for partial body ( head ) exposure , 0.08 W/kg for whole-body exposure and 4 W/kg for exposure to the hands , wrists , feet and ankles.The BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores an overall 1.55 SAR in the new rankings .
The Motorola Droid came in at 1.50 while the LG Chocolate scored a 1.46 , the Nexus One ranked a 1.39 and the Apple iPhone 3G scored a 1.19.Ok , I read some of the article .
I guess we can talk about how close the Blackberry is to the upper bound .
It still seems like a boring , non-story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rankings still put the phones well within federal guidelines and rules.Wait... so I guess that makes this a complete non-story?Or maybe we should have an enthralling debate about how these devices are within legal spec.Or perhaps it's flamebait: We're supposed to bring out the apple fanboys and where the iphone ranks.Current FCC regulations permit SAR levels of up to 1.6 W/kg for partial body (head) exposure, 0.08 W/kg for whole-body exposure and 4 W/kg for exposure to the hands, wrists, feet and ankles.The BlackBerry Bold 9700 scores an overall 1.55 SAR in the new rankings.
The Motorola Droid came in at 1.50 while the LG Chocolate scored a 1.46, the Nexus One ranked a 1.39 and the Apple iPhone 3G scored a 1.19.Ok, I read some of the article.
I guess we can talk about how close the Blackberry is to the upper bound.
It still seems like a boring, non-story.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281132</id>
	<title>Re:Brand-name Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267115040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How else are they going to create the ionization trail all the way to the cell tower?</p><p>(A useful fact: if you point your Blackberry Bold at someone near a high voltage source, they will be struck by lighting.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How else are they going to create the ionization trail all the way to the cell tower ?
( A useful fact : if you point your Blackberry Bold at someone near a high voltage source , they will be struck by lighting .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How else are they going to create the ionization trail all the way to the cell tower?
(A useful fact: if you point your Blackberry Bold at someone near a high voltage source, they will be struck by lighting.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281332</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1267117020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and you know if it can denature proteins.</i></p><p>yeah, but there seems to be something else going on, some effect on DNA.  There was that one study about the 1800MHz DNA breakage, the one about the protein expression in skin cells, and the one about a protective effect against Alzheimers in mice.  And those are just a few I happen to recall.</p><p>While you're right about non-ionizing radiation, we want to be careful not to say, "this isn't gamma radiation, so it has no effects".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and you know if it can denature proteins.yeah , but there seems to be something else going on , some effect on DNA .
There was that one study about the 1800MHz DNA breakage , the one about the protein expression in skin cells , and the one about a protective effect against Alzheimers in mice .
And those are just a few I happen to recall.While you 're right about non-ionizing radiation , we want to be careful not to say , " this is n't gamma radiation , so it has no effects " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and you know if it can denature proteins.yeah, but there seems to be something else going on, some effect on DNA.
There was that one study about the 1800MHz DNA breakage, the one about the protein expression in skin cells, and the one about a protective effect against Alzheimers in mice.
And those are just a few I happen to recall.While you're right about non-ionizing radiation, we want to be careful not to say, "this isn't gamma radiation, so it has no effects".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281486</id>
	<title>List of Cell Phones</title>
	<author>LBt1st</author>
	<datestamp>1267119120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CNET has a nice list of just about every cell phone model out there and how much radiation they put out.<br><a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602\_7-291-1.html" title="cnet.com">http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602\_7-291-1.html</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>Click through the pages for lists by manufacture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNET has a nice list of just about every cell phone model out there and how much radiation they put out.http : //reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602 \ _7-291-1.html [ cnet.com ] Click through the pages for lists by manufacture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNET has a nice list of just about every cell phone model out there and how much radiation they put out.http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602\_7-291-1.html [cnet.com]Click through the pages for lists by manufacture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280628</id>
	<title>iPhone had lowest radiation</title>
	<author>carlhaagen</author>
	<datestamp>1267109760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is obviously a plot by Steve Jobs. It can't be for real. Fanboy's have duped the data, and possibly the entire SAR research. Linux Grannies outraged; news at eleven.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is obviously a plot by Steve Jobs .
It ca n't be for real .
Fanboy 's have duped the data , and possibly the entire SAR research .
Linux Grannies outraged ; news at eleven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is obviously a plot by Steve Jobs.
It can't be for real.
Fanboy's have duped the data, and possibly the entire SAR research.
Linux Grannies outraged; news at eleven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281102</id>
	<title>I guess it needs to be said...</title>
	<author>jtollefson</author>
	<datestamp>1267114740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hail to our cell phone mutated Blackberry Overlords!

We can only hope that they do not develop the ability to integrate their Blackberry devices into their personal beings. Their productivity and ability to stay "plugged in" at all times will fuel another 80's style boom, we'll see the resurfacing of large furry boots, bright color shirts, men in "skinny jeans", popped collars, &amp; a small but ferverous following singing Rick Astley's "Never gonna give you up".

We are so screwed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hail to our cell phone mutated Blackberry Overlords !
We can only hope that they do not develop the ability to integrate their Blackberry devices into their personal beings .
Their productivity and ability to stay " plugged in " at all times will fuel another 80 's style boom , we 'll see the resurfacing of large furry boots , bright color shirts , men in " skinny jeans " , popped collars , &amp; a small but ferverous following singing Rick Astley 's " Never gon na give you up " .
We are so screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hail to our cell phone mutated Blackberry Overlords!
We can only hope that they do not develop the ability to integrate their Blackberry devices into their personal beings.
Their productivity and ability to stay "plugged in" at all times will fuel another 80's style boom, we'll see the resurfacing of large furry boots, bright color shirts, men in "skinny jeans", popped collars, &amp; a small but ferverous following singing Rick Astley's "Never gonna give you up".
We are so screwed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281088</id>
	<title>Radiation yes, but non-ionizing radiation folks...</title>
	<author>Audrey23</author>
	<datestamp>1267114680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Folks please don't get wound up about 'radiation' from a wireless device, remember that it is only 'heating' radiation, not ionizing radiation <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing\_radiation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing\_radiation</a> [wikipedia.org].

All it is going to do is warm your skin near where the phone is, or very slow cook for you microwave oven enthusiasts...

Ionizing radiation like gamma rays are quite another story and will cause DNA damage, but are a wholly different type of 'radiation'.

You will get more damage from standing out in the sun every day then you will from the weak signal that is emitted from your mobile.

Now the fact that most mobile phones these days do not have a very efficient antenna is quite the reason that so many of them have such bad SAR values, if people could just stand having a little 'duckie' antenna sticking out of the top of the phone then we would have more efficient emission of the signal and a better SAR value.
But that is not sexy and so we won't see any more antenna's like we did when cellphones first came out and so instead the phone body itself is the antenna and a good portion of the emitted signal is absorbed by the hand and head, its just the way it works...
The best thing is to educate yourself and make your own decisions <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile\_phone\_radiation\_and\_health" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile\_phone\_radiation\_and\_health</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Folks please do n't get wound up about 'radiation ' from a wireless device , remember that it is only 'heating ' radiation , not ionizing radiation http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing \ _radiation [ wikipedia.org ] .
All it is going to do is warm your skin near where the phone is , or very slow cook for you microwave oven enthusiasts.. . Ionizing radiation like gamma rays are quite another story and will cause DNA damage , but are a wholly different type of 'radiation' .
You will get more damage from standing out in the sun every day then you will from the weak signal that is emitted from your mobile .
Now the fact that most mobile phones these days do not have a very efficient antenna is quite the reason that so many of them have such bad SAR values , if people could just stand having a little 'duckie ' antenna sticking out of the top of the phone then we would have more efficient emission of the signal and a better SAR value .
But that is not sexy and so we wo n't see any more antenna 's like we did when cellphones first came out and so instead the phone body itself is the antenna and a good portion of the emitted signal is absorbed by the hand and head , its just the way it works.. . The best thing is to educate yourself and make your own decisions http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile \ _phone \ _radiation \ _and \ _health [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Folks please don't get wound up about 'radiation' from a wireless device, remember that it is only 'heating' radiation, not ionizing radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing\_radiation [wikipedia.org].
All it is going to do is warm your skin near where the phone is, or very slow cook for you microwave oven enthusiasts...

Ionizing radiation like gamma rays are quite another story and will cause DNA damage, but are a wholly different type of 'radiation'.
You will get more damage from standing out in the sun every day then you will from the weak signal that is emitted from your mobile.
Now the fact that most mobile phones these days do not have a very efficient antenna is quite the reason that so many of them have such bad SAR values, if people could just stand having a little 'duckie' antenna sticking out of the top of the phone then we would have more efficient emission of the signal and a better SAR value.
But that is not sexy and so we won't see any more antenna's like we did when cellphones first came out and so instead the phone body itself is the antenna and a good portion of the emitted signal is absorbed by the hand and head, its just the way it works...
The best thing is to educate yourself and make your own decisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile\_phone\_radiation\_and\_health [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281056</id>
	<title>Re:no comprende</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267114320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three reasons come to mind:</p><p>1.  Even though it's within limits, there are people who intentionally look for units that emit the least RF possible, so that if it does turn out there was a risk they are minimizing their risk.  It's at least more rational than sleeping in a Faraday cage and suing neighbors for WiFi radiation or wearing tinfoil underwear.  If you need a cell phone but have some concerns about RF exposure, picking the cell phone that emits the lowest levels of RF just seems like a rational middle ground.</p><p>2.  Some will intentionally seek out phones with high RF because more RF means the radio has more juice or the antenna is more efficient, which means it'll get "more bars in more places".  I know my Blackberry Curve 8310 gets awesome signal in a lot of places that iPhones don't, so I'm sure that also means it's putting out more RF and/or has a more efficient antenna.</p><p>3.  If it's GSM, one of the side effects is the annoying clicky-buzzing sound every nonshielded electronic device within ten yards emits.  Less RF means less of that interference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three reasons come to mind : 1 .
Even though it 's within limits , there are people who intentionally look for units that emit the least RF possible , so that if it does turn out there was a risk they are minimizing their risk .
It 's at least more rational than sleeping in a Faraday cage and suing neighbors for WiFi radiation or wearing tinfoil underwear .
If you need a cell phone but have some concerns about RF exposure , picking the cell phone that emits the lowest levels of RF just seems like a rational middle ground.2 .
Some will intentionally seek out phones with high RF because more RF means the radio has more juice or the antenna is more efficient , which means it 'll get " more bars in more places " .
I know my Blackberry Curve 8310 gets awesome signal in a lot of places that iPhones do n't , so I 'm sure that also means it 's putting out more RF and/or has a more efficient antenna.3 .
If it 's GSM , one of the side effects is the annoying clicky-buzzing sound every nonshielded electronic device within ten yards emits .
Less RF means less of that interference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three reasons come to mind:1.
Even though it's within limits, there are people who intentionally look for units that emit the least RF possible, so that if it does turn out there was a risk they are minimizing their risk.
It's at least more rational than sleeping in a Faraday cage and suing neighbors for WiFi radiation or wearing tinfoil underwear.
If you need a cell phone but have some concerns about RF exposure, picking the cell phone that emits the lowest levels of RF just seems like a rational middle ground.2.
Some will intentionally seek out phones with high RF because more RF means the radio has more juice or the antenna is more efficient, which means it'll get "more bars in more places".
I know my Blackberry Curve 8310 gets awesome signal in a lot of places that iPhones don't, so I'm sure that also means it's putting out more RF and/or has a more efficient antenna.3.
If it's GSM, one of the side effects is the annoying clicky-buzzing sound every nonshielded electronic device within ten yards emits.
Less RF means less of that interference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31283786</id>
	<title>Don't worry</title>
	<author>cntThnkofAname</author>
	<datestamp>1267192260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple's up and coming iPhone will be able to easily compete with the Bold. Hell, with the 25 watt microwave transmitter they are installing it should be able to heat a bowl of noodles in 6 hours. Sadly the battery will only last 5-10 minutes on "iNuk" setting, but Jobs is confident that this will lead to further gains in the smart phone market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's up and coming iPhone will be able to easily compete with the Bold .
Hell , with the 25 watt microwave transmitter they are installing it should be able to heat a bowl of noodles in 6 hours .
Sadly the battery will only last 5-10 minutes on " iNuk " setting , but Jobs is confident that this will lead to further gains in the smart phone market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's up and coming iPhone will be able to easily compete with the Bold.
Hell, with the 25 watt microwave transmitter they are installing it should be able to heat a bowl of noodles in 6 hours.
Sadly the battery will only last 5-10 minutes on "iNuk" setting, but Jobs is confident that this will lead to further gains in the smart phone market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31283132</id>
	<title>Re:Oh good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267183380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I <i>hope</i> you're talking about engineering the cell phone reception and not how to focus all that radiation into your cortex with less scatter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you 're talking about engineering the cell phone reception and not how to focus all that radiation into your cortex with less scatter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you're talking about engineering the cell phone reception and not how to focus all that radiation into your cortex with less scatter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282464</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31312282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31290128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31283132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31296042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31294060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31283738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_0057254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31293078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31282464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31283132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31296042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31294060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31293078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31283738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31281056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31290128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31284080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_0057254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31280796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31285478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_0057254.31312282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
