Mobile phone use after laser eye treatment?

Given that's it's common knowledge that the signal from mobile phones does
heat tissue, I wonder if this could be a factor in healing after treatment,
especially with prolonged use.

Has there been any studies done to see the effects?

They lasered the eyes not the ears.

"serebel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> They lasered the eyes not the ears.

<sigh>

FWIW, here's a link to an article in the Telegraph:
http://tinyurl.com/7uog5

If you want to think that cell phone use harms eyesight then bully for
you.
That article sounds like junk science from the world is flat people.

In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"serebel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If you want to think that cell phone use harms eyesight then bully for
> you.
> That article sounds like junk science from the world is flat people.

The answers about EMF aren't all in. Still, it cracks me up that people
who are concerned about a .1 watt cell phone think nothing of walking
under a power line carrying millions of watts.

--
Dan Abel
(E-Mail Removed)
Petaluma, California, USA

"Dan Abel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dabel-(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
> "serebel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > If you want to think that cell phone use harms eyesight then bully for
> > you.
> > That article sounds like junk science from the world is flat people.
>
> The answers about EMF aren't all in. Still, it cracks me up that people
> who are concerned about a .1 watt cell phone think nothing of walking
> under a power line carrying millions of watts.

I'm an electronics engineer with extensive experience of radio
transmissions. When it comes to the eyes there is potential for damage,
despite what some may think as nonsensical scaremongering. If you, or
Serebel wish, I'll be glad to send you both 10mW microwave transmitters,
which have warnings about the serious damage caused by staring into the
waveguide aperture. If you don't believe this can damage your eyes, you're
welcome to give it a try. The important thing to remember is the frequencies
in use.

As for that study being "junk science" then I'm afraid you're wrong. If you
didn't read the article in full, here's the conclusion from Dr Michael
Clark, a spokesman for the Health Protection Agency here in the UK.
" "This is a good piece of work that is properly published and we are
looking at it carefully," he said. "If future research delivers the same or
similar results then public health practices may need to be re-examined." "

Okay Gary you win, don't use a cell phone. See, it's easy after all.

"serebel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Okay Gary you win, don't use a cell phone. See, it's easy after all.

It's not a case of 'winning'...

People make judgements on things sometimes in ignorance, which is
understandable, but it's important to have an open mind and look at the
facts, rather than leaping to unfounded conclusions, one way or the other.

For example, Dan's analogy is specious, he cannot grasp, or fails to
realise, that there's a huge difference between a power line which is simply
*carrying* power (with minimal resistance, therefore with neglible
dissipation) and a device which is dissipating power directly. If you were
to walk under a source of megawatts being dissipated within a small area,
then, depending on the distance, you'll either be rather warm or totally
fried.

Personally I don't think that brief use of mobile phones is a concern, but
for those who use them for extended periods (and not using a hands-free
system) should certainly be made aware of the the potential risks.

Regards
Gary

In article <dujp7l$nma$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> For example, Dan's analogy is specious, he cannot grasp, or fails to
> realise, that there's a huge difference between a power line which is simply
> *carrying* power (with minimal resistance, therefore with neglible
> dissipation) and a device which is dissipating power directly. If you were
> to walk under a source of megawatts being dissipated within a small area,
> then, depending on the distance, you'll either be rather warm or totally
> fried.


My argument is specious, but not for the reason you state. It is the
absorption of the radiation that is potentially harmful. Many people
feel that 60Hertz is not absorbed. We all know that microwaves are
absorbed by living tissue. Cell phones are getting up into the
microwave frequencies, which makes some people uncomfortable.

--
Dan Abel
(E-Mail Removed)
Petaluma, California, USA