Chuffed

[Tel]

Initial E10 impact, mpg down 5% & my car is designed for this fuel grade.

2 Mates are reporting 10% on their 2018 non Lexus cars.

Do not think many peeps saw this coming save for the Eco Purists

Tel

[paulrnx]

This is interesting. Thanks for reporting this.

[Tel]

@ very slow reverse speeds my car emits a brake squeal sound that is said to warn pedestrians that I am reversing.

Is this a new Safety 2 + feature ?

Tel

[DanD]

I believe it is and that it is now a legal requirement for all new cars. I also believe it should work going forward too, up to a certain speed. Some manufacturers allow you to select from different sounds... not sure Lexus does.

[ColinBarber]

It will only make the noise if the petrol engine isn't running. My neighbour's NX makes more noise in EV mode than it does with the engine running, which is annoying when he leaves for work early in the morning 😴

[Tel]

Thanks Colin & Dan,

Mine "squeals" @ slow speed in reverse whether the ICE is operational or not.

Tel

[paulrnx]

14 hours ago, Tel said:

Thanks Colin & Dan,

Mine "squeals" @ slow speed in reverse whether the ICE is operational or not.

Tel

You’re not running over the neighbour’s cat every time you reverse perchance? 😀

[Tel]

2 Questions re apple Car Play,

I have said before the Factory ACP works seamlessly with the Steering wheel controls etc but upon completing a phone call the System plays apple Music. overriding my previous MLS radio selection.Easy to resolve but I am sure my £80 System did not do this.

Secondly is the CarPlay 2 really worth it as it can be a bit of a faff when the Boss is seated beside me & I do forget the phone is in the car occasionally .

Tel

[Malc]

10 hours ago, paulrnx said:

You’re not running over the neighbour’s cat every time you reverse perchance?

this could be quite serious ...  a couple of years ago on a cruise we stopped off in ....... Bremen was it ? .......  and watched a silent silent EV huge BMW in the town square actually CRUSH a family of ducks ? that didn't hear or see it coming .......  ah the eco-purists that don't mind knowing these things happen in order to save the planet eh  .........

Malc

[spacenase]

On 8/13/2021 at 9:11 AM, Malc said:

this could be quite serious ...  a couple of years ago on a cruise we stopped off in ....... Bremen was it ? .......  and watched a silent silent EV huge BMW in the town square actually CRUSH a family of ducks ? that didn't hear or see it coming .......  ah the eco-purists that don't mind knowing these things happen in order to save the planet eh  .........

Malc

I think that says more about the driver than the EV, animals get run over by combustion engine cars too.

 

On 8/13/2021 at 8:24 AM, Tel said:

Secondly is the CarPlay 2 really worth it as it can be a bit of a faff when the Boss is seated beside me & I do forget the phone is in the car occasionally .

Tel

I'd say definitely worth it. The ability to have ACP kick off and start playing music without touching the phone is worth the cost. The only thing I've found is that the GPS in my phone isn't always reliable when my phone is in my pocket, but that might be the phone or my pocket.

 

[paulrnx]

Phones radiate a considerable amount of rf. More so when they lose contact with a mobile cell. They’ll steadily increase the power of the rf being emitted until they get contact with a cell again. It’s the way they work.

The human body has zero protection from powerful rf so keeping a phone in one’s pocket is not a great idea because the rf is being radiated directly into the human body.

[spacenase]

4 hours ago, paulrnx said:

Phones radiate a considerable amount of rf. More so when they lose contact with a mobile cell. They’ll steadily increase the power of the rf being emitted until they get contact with a cell again. It’s the way they work.

The human body has zero protection from powerful rf so keeping a phone in one’s pocket is not a great idea because the rf is being radiated directly into the human body.

The FDA and National Cancer Institute in the US, the WHO and Cancer Research UK tend to disagree with you. All say that the rf radiation emissions are low and the only scientifically proven impact is a heating of the tissue surrounding the device, which in my experience is less than holding a cup of tea. Of course if it concerns you, then keep the phone away from your body, but I'll go with the scientific evidence for the time being.

 

[royoftherovers]

11 minutes ago, spacenase said:

The FDA and National Cancer Institute in the US, the WHO and Cancer Research UK tend to disagree with you. All say that the rf radiation emissions are low and the only scientifically proven impact is a heating of the tissue surrounding the device, which in my experience is less than holding a cup of tea. Of course if it concerns you, then keep the phone away from your body, but I'll go with the scientific evidence for the time being.

 

Science doesn`t accept that there are significant clusters of cancer incidences amongst populations living in or around areas local to Nuclear Power Plants, but local populations beg to differ.

Ask the first group of BT Engineers which wore Mobile Phones close to their person for their views on radio frequency induced radiation.

All I am saying is that Official views are not always or necessarily correct Spacenase.

[paulrnx]

5 hours ago, spacenase said:

The FDA and National Cancer Institute in the US, the WHO and Cancer Research UK tend to disagree with you. All say that the rf radiation emissions are low and the only scientifically proven impact is a heating of the tissue surrounding the device, which in my experience is less than holding a cup of tea. Of course if it concerns you, then keep the phone away from your body, but I'll go with the scientific evidence for the time being.

 

It’s more the impact of long term exposure to constant use. Phones are constantly radiating with all manner of apps constantly connecting to the internet via the mobile signal when no WiFi is available. Not to mention the phone constantly radiating to its local cell for phone purposes. No authority states continual use of a mobile phone is safe.

Once the data for the effects of long term use and exposure to mobile phones is available the scientific evidence will change. 

[dublet]

5 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

Science doesn`t accept that there are significant clusters of cancer incidences amongst populations living in or around areas local to Nuclear Power Plants, but local populations beg to differ.

Ask the first group of BT Engineers which wore Mobile Phones close to their person for their views on radio frequency induced radiation.

All I am saying is that Official views are not always or necessarily correct Spacenase.

"Science" isn't "a thing" that accepts something. It's more a process. If you have data for these "significant clusters" from nuclear power plants, then that would be very interesting. However, radiation around nuclear power plants is heavily monitored. If "science doesn't accept", then it means that "there is no data to indicate" that, which means it's just an opinion.

Radon is a much more likely cause of cancer incidences. Some of the plants, like Sellafield, are in Radon areas: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/sellafield-radiation-alarm-radon-gas-nuclear-reprocessing

If you have any evidence of your hypotheses, then I'm sure Public Health England would love to know!

A side note is that mobile phone RF has gone through quite a few iterations, and different frequencies and as pointed out, there is simply not an observed link between mobile phone RF and cancer: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html

Quote

Like FM radio waves, microwaves, visible light, and heat, RF waves are a form of non-ionizing radiation. They don’t have enough energy to cause cancer by directly damaging the DNA (genes) inside cells. RF waves are different from stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) rays. Ionizing radiation can break the chemical bonds in DNA, which might lead to cancer.

That's not to say that there couldn't be a link but rather that if there is one, it's unknown what it is. Perhaps it could be that the plastic in mobiles is a cause of cancer.

As someone who works for a company closely partnered to BT, I won't offer my opinion on their engineers 🙊

[Phil xxkr]

11 hours ago, dublet said:

"Science" isn't "a thing" that accepts something. It's more a process. If you have data for these "significant clusters" from nuclear power plants, then that would be very interesting. However, radiation around nuclear power plants is heavily monitored. If "science doesn't accept", then it means that "there is no data to indicate" that, which means it's just an opinion.

Radon is a much more likely cause of cancer incidences. Some of the plants, like Sellafield, are in Radon areas: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/sellafield-radiation-alarm-radon-gas-nuclear-reprocessing

If you have any evidence of your hypotheses, then I'm sure Public Health England would love to know!

A side note is that mobile phone RF has gone through quite a few iterations, and different frequencies and as pointed out, there is simply not an observed link between mobile phone RF and cancer: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html

That's not to say that there couldn't be a link but rather that if there is one, it's unknown what it is. Perhaps it could be that the plastic in mobiles is a cause of cancer.

As someone who works for a company closely partnered to BT, I won't offer my opinion on their engineers 🙊

I note you use an article from the Guardian, 2014 in support of your case but have perhaps overlooked this article also from the Guardian in 2018 that LED off by stating "On the 28 March this year, the scientific peer review of a landmark United States government study concluded;

" that there is clear evidence” that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer, specifically, a heart tissue cancer in rats that is too rare to be explained as random occurrence". 🤔

Rather than a process I tend to think of science as permanent state of scepticism and accepting there is no such thing as "settled" science which, for example, the weather change zealots refuse to accept. Call me a cynic but I also tend to want to know who funds this myriad of "scientific papers" and is there an unknown agenda, witness the tobacco industry as a prime example. Actual "on the ground knowledge" as John referred to often has an uncanny knack of proving to be right over time. Over 55 years ago I recall reading of a treatment called acupuncture which the entire medical/scientific community thought hilarious bit like using leeches and maggots - and where are we now? 

 

 

 

[Malc]

12 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

a heart tissue cancer in rats

it's quite incredible that it can affect and choose those dreadful people amongst the population that are " rats " ........  mafioso, murderers, and the like 

......... try to lighten up a bit eh ! this is getting a tad tooooo serious for a car forum methinks

Malc

[LenT]

9 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

note you use an article from the Guardian, 2014 in support of your case but have perhaps overlooked this article also from the Guardian in 2018 that led off by stating "On the 28 March this year, the scientific peer review of a landmark United States government study concluded;

" that there is clear evidence” that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer, specifically, a heart tissue cancer in rats that is too rare to be explained as random occurrence".

I take it Philip, that you – or rather The Guardian – is referring to the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies TR-595 (Rats) and TR-596 (Mice) Exposed to Whole-Body RF Radiation that are actually dated November 2018.

I wonder if you’ve actually read these Reports, or even the Abstracts? To simply claim that “there is clear evidence” that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer” strikes me as ‘data mining’.

Firstly, does the Guardian report make it clear that, in the 28 Day Study for example, these test animals are subjected to up to 18 hours and 20 minutes per day of intense RF Radiation? And in the Two-year Study, it’s daily exposure for up to...well, two years!

Does it mention that the rats and mice were each separated into two groups? That one group – the Sham group – were in identical conditions, except they weren’t radiated? Does it mention that in one Sham group three animals developed carcinomas while in the partnering radiated group there were none?

I note that in the conclusions of the Two-year Mice Study, for example, under the four parameters of carcinogenic activity, the worst that could be established was that the evidence was ‘equivocal’!

I can only find the phrase ‘Clear evidence’ applying to two of the parameters for the Two-year rat study. And that, remember, involves high levels of radiation too.

I’d also point out that in most cases the radiated and unradiated animals had the same survival rates – although I did note one instance in which some of the radiated animals lived longer.

In short, I would suggest that this ‘Landmark US Government Study’ is probably best regarded as ‘equivocal’.

 

[paulrnx]

About 12 years ago I was told that mobile phone companies were making substantial provision for future claims regarding the impact of long term mobile phone use. I don’t know how true this was or is now but it came from a reliable source within the industry. Could have well have been but equally could be the truth.

Edited August 16, 2021 by ColinBarber

[dublet]

16 hours ago, LenT said:

I take it Philip, that you – or rather The Guardian – is referring to the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies TR-595 (Rats) and TR-596 (Mice) Exposed to Whole-Body RF Radiation that are actually dated November 2018.

I wonder if you’ve actually read these Reports, or even the Abstracts? To simply claim that “there is clear evidence” that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer” strikes me as ‘data mining’.

Funny thing is that in scientific research quite a few different cancers have been curable in mice. Sadly much of that research has not born any fruit in terms of treatment of humans, largely for the reason that, in the eyes of the scientific community at least, mice are, in fact, mostly not human.

[Tel]

Attempting to return this excellent Post back to normality, just filled my tank again with Asda E10 fuel.

Mpg down c.2.5 equating to a 6% reduction in efficiency on an engine designed for its use.

Also I am convinced the MK 2 NX looks too much like like our current model which is disappointing to say the least.

Tel

[paulrnx]

48 minutes ago, Tel said:

Attempting to return this excellent Post back to normality, just filled my tank again with Asda E10 fuel.

Mpg down c.2.5 equating to a 6% reduction in efficiency on an engine designed for its use.

Also I am convinced the MK 2 NX looks too much like like our current model which is disappointing to say the least.

Tel

That’s quite a difference! Early days I suppose but not great if it continues. Fuel prices increasing and can’t go as far in e10 for each litre / gallon. A double whammy!

[Tel]

Re ACP,

Fitted a 2021 Carlink Gismo which has transformed my NX Media System that now works perfectly with phone calls, the MLS System & erased all wired connectivity issues.

Iphone needs to be on the Charrging Pad as even a 70 mile journey consumes the Battery.

Tel

[Phil xxkr]

On 8/17/2021 at 11:02 AM, dublet said:

Funny thing is that in scientific research quite a few different cancers have been curable in mice. Sadly much of that research has not born any fruit in terms of treatment of humans, largely for the reason that, in the eyes of the scientific community at least, mice are, in fact, mostly not human.

From the National Institutes of Health "Specific DNA sequence differences linked to diseases in humans often have counterparts in the mouse genome. Genes whose expression patterns are related in one species also tend to be similarly related in the other species. These findings validate the importance of using mouse models to study certain human disease"

 

[Phil xxkr]

On 8/16/2021 at 6:50 PM, LenT said:

I take it Philip, that you – or rather The Guardian – is referring to the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies TR-595 (Rats) and TR-596 (Mice) Exposed to Whole-Body RF Radiation that are actually dated November 2018.

I wonder if you’ve actually read these Reports, or even the Abstracts? To simply claim that “there is clear evidence” that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer” strikes me as ‘data mining’.

Firstly, does the Guardian report make it clear that, in the 28 Day Study for example, these test animals are subjected to up to 18 hours and 20 minutes per day of intense RF Radiation? And in the Two-year Study, it’s daily exposure for up to...well, two years!

Does it mention that the rats and mice were each separated into two groups? That one group – the Sham group – were in identical conditions, except they weren’t radiated? Does it mention that in one Sham group three animals developed carcinomas while in the partnering radiated group there were none?

I note that in the conclusions of the Two-year Mice Study, for example, under the four parameters of carcinogenic activity, the worst that could be established was that the evidence was ‘equivocal’!

I can only find the phrase ‘Clear evidence’ applying to two of the parameters for the Two-year rat study. And that, remember, involves high levels of radiation too.

I’d also point out that in most cases the radiated and unradiated animals had the same survival rates – although I did note one instance in which some of the radiated animals lived longer.

In short, I would suggest that this ‘Landmark US Government Study’ is probably best regarded as ‘equivocal’.

 

I was referring to the later 2019 report "

As a follow-up, NTP published an article in October 2019 that evaluated DNA damage in three regions of the brain, the liver, and in blood cells in rats and mice that were removed at an earlier timepoint from the ongoing 2-year toxicology study. DNA damage, if not repaired, can potentially lead to tumors. This work was also included in NTP’s published Technical Reports, but this study includes analyses of the data in the supporting information not included in the Technical Reports.

NTP scientists found that RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage. Specifically, they found RFR exposure was linked with significant increases in DNA damage in:

• the frontal cortex of the brain in male mice,
• the blood cells of female mice, and
• the hippocampus of male rats.

There are many factors that influence whether damaged DNA will lead to tumors. NTP plans to conduct additional studies to learn more about how RFR might cause DNA damage. Please see the FAQs below for more information about the specific studies and NTP’s cell phone RFR program."

Now I assume Len you know more about this subject than most lay men like me but that sure sounds like an unequivocal pointer towards at the very least one of concern? As Robert Burns poem says," The best laid schemes o' mice an' men/Gang aft agley" 😎