In the late '70's I compiled a large file on the possible health effects of long term exposure to low level radiation. The equipment in question was a digital two-way pager, to be worn on the belt, and operated at reading distance since no audio was involved. It could send/receive while worn on the belt. The issue was whether the unit was safe since transmissions could occur at the waistline, although the power was small. The final product was too large to be "worn", so the issue became moot.
Here is some of what I learned. Not much has changed (to my knowledge) in twenty years except the concerns arising from new devices like cellular phones. Western standards for "acceptable" levels of microwave band (we were using assigned experimental frequency of 939.??? mHz) radiation were based solely on thermal effects on body tissues. Eyes and testicles were most susceptible due to their means of dealing with excess heat. Russia's acceptable levels at the time were based on the assumed long term effects of low level radiation, not thermal effects, and were two orders of magnitude more severe than Western standards. The most consistent doomsayer on this topic is Paul Brodeur, who has authored numerous articles and books over the last 20 years, including a series in the December 1976 New Yorker magazine and the "Zapping of America". Although I have not closely followed this topic since, those articles I have seen raise more questions than they resolve. The common conclusion is that more studies are needed. Although I am a 33 year electrical engineer (techie), I would be reluctant to use a typical hand-held cellular phone so near my brain cells unless it was for infrequent and brief conversations. This choice is possible only because my personal life would not benefit greatly by the use of one. My daughter uses the "transportable" version that, while higher output power, does not emit so close to the body. The effective irradiated power drops off per the cube of the distance from a "point" source. I do choose to use many other potentially hazardous technical marvels that significantly enhance my work or personal life. [above are personal opinions only] George Alspaugh Prior appends: Rich, Moshe - In the US, the FCC issued its Report and Order (96-326) with SAR and MPE requirements for cellular and other wireless devices on August 1, 1996 - see http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/fcc96326.txt Also, please see the related press release regarding our independent SAR testing offering at http://www.aprel.com/news11-22-96.html Since the press release came out, we are several weeks _ahead_ of schedule! Regards, Kathy MacLean APREL Laboratories On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:32:11 -0800, Rich Nute wrote: > > Hello from San Diego: > > > Moshe Valdman asks about possible harm from the radiation of a cellular > phone. > > See the following IEEE web page for the IEEE technical position on > possible harmful effects of portable phone radiation: > > http://www.ieee.org/usab/DOCUMENTS/FORUM/LIBRARY/POSITIONS/portable.html > > The IEEE document cites standards and measurements, and discusses > in detail the actual harm various body organs might incur from the > radiation. It also includes references. > > Here is the conclusion of the IEEE: > > "Data from engineering studies indicate that in most cases SARs > associated with the use of hand-held commercial cellular transportable > and mobile transceivers and telephones do not exceed the maximum > permissible levels specified in existing RF safety standards and > guidelines. Therefore, under conditions of normal use, the general > conclusion is that cellular telephones are considered safe for the users > and the public. Some non-cellular mobile transceivers may emit high > intensity fields for which prolonged exposure near the antenna could > exceed safety criteria. The safety of these devices must be assessed on > an individual basis." > > > Best regards, > Rich > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Nute Quality Department > Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group > San Diego Division (SDD) Tel : 619 655 3329 > 16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : 619 655 4979 > San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: [email protected] > ------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________________________________________ Kathy M. MacLean President APREL Laboratories "Testing for the Wireless Future" 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario, Canada K2R 1E6 Tel (613) 820-2730; Fax (613) 820-4161; Cell (613) 791-3777 email [email protected] http://www.aprel.com
