Re: [at-l] the dreaded cell phone (nasty)

["W F Thorneloe, MD" <thornel@ibm.net>]

And not all that reliable insurance, given the distances from cell towers, 
and interference from mountains, rocks and other clutter. As another hiker 
mentioned, it can be a temptation that leads to other poor decisions, such 
as failing to alert friends of schedule and hiking plans, bringing a 
whistle or first aid gear, or other such foolishness. (I know I've never 
done anything foolish in the woods!)

There was another question initially about the power of phones. There are 
the usual tiny hand held cell phones, and bag phones or transportable 
phones. The former has a fairly weak 3 V signal (if I remember correctly) 
to avoid microwaving your brain excessively, as the antennae is aimed 
straight for your temporal and parietal lobes. (I like mine toasted to a 
golden tan.)

The larger phone has the antennae further from the handset, a larger 
battery, and 9 V (I think). The bag phones are heavy as a brick, usually 
with short life batteries, as they are usually designed for installation 
and hardwiring into a car. There may be kits to boost the signal, but at 
the cost of additional weight.

Heck, when we get into that many ounces, we might as well get really 
controversial and discuss firearms and umbrellas!

Have we beaten this dead horse sufficiently, or must more pioneers perform 
graveyard calisthenics?

OrangeBug
Atlanta, GA

At 08:09 AM 9/22/1999 -0400, Gammara2@aol.com wrote:
>my guess is that the early pioneers would have welcomed any invention that
>would have made their life easier.Unlike us, they had no need to pretend in
>being the wilderness, they were in the wilderness.Personally I carry my
>cell`phone deep in pack, in the off position.If I need it, it's there,If not,
>it's just insurance. Jim

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================