Same as Charles, I have also seen near field measurements at a couple of centimeters from the phone antenna, with fields up to about 700 V/m. The measurements were taken on a GSM phone, with small EMCO isotropic field probe (the one based on Kanda's design, with resistive dipoles about 7 mm long).
Neven Pischl ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Javor <[email protected]> To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) <[email protected]>; 'Pettit, Ghery' <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 6:38 PM Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? > > If you solve the radar eqn for the field intensity at 1 cm from the antenna, > using Ghery's Ptmax = 600 mW, you get 600 V/m. This is a completely > erronoeus calculation however, because it relies on far field gain and this > is very near field. > > If you assume the antenna is a 50 Ohm load, the 600 mW eak power is 5.5 > Volts at the antenna. if the antenna is a quarter wave stub at 850 MHz, the > potential gradient near the stub will be (potential divided by stub length) > near 70 V/m. > > ---------- > >From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" <[email protected]> > >To: "'Pettit, Ghery'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > >Date: Thu, Dec 9, 1999, 4:34 PM > > > > > > > Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed > > some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone > > at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM > > To: '[email protected]'; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > > > > > The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts. > > Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is > > the maximum. > > > > Ghery Pettit > > Intel > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > > > > > Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones? Just > > on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low. > > > > Anyway know the power output on cordless phones? > > > > Thanks, Max > > > > Max Kelson > > Peripherals Engineer > > > > Evans & Sutherland > > 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 > > http://www.es.com/ <http://www.es.com/> > > Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 > > mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick, Al [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM > > To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' > > Cc: '[email protected]' > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > > > No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one > > of my red flags > > was the eyes. The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave > > radiation. > > > > Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct. > > The typical > > levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much > > greater than cell > > phones. > > > > I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas. He > > was responsible > > designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong > > fields for years. > > These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far > > stronger that a cell > > phone. He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a > > daily basic. At age > > 43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general > > population. Now he > > is fine today, retired a few years back. > > > > What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took > > over 20 years to > > damage the most sensitive part to the body. Were talking > > about 5 watts of > > power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts > > at 800 MHz. > > > > In summary: I think a lot of "Bad Science" has been applied. > > The levels and > > frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage > > being reported. > > > > P.S. I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work > > with 3.5 Kilowatt > > microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts. > > > > > > Al Patrick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM > > To: 'Patrick, Al' > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > Al, > > You've posted a very intriguing statement. Why "the eyes go > > first? (In the > > past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity > > tests). > > "microwave engineers understand the risks" - than what the > > fuss is all > > about? Or are you saying that since one has not got > > cataract, he/she is > > safe? > > > > Regards > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM > > > To: 'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; '[email protected]'; > > > [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > > > Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is > > "Bad Science". > > > People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his > > name too badly) > > > with CBS has had several news shows on "Bad Science". Now > > there is one, > > > in the press, that understands. > > > > > > Those of us that were/are microwave > > engineers understand the > > > risks. I have been exposed the microwave radiation many > > times, but I know > > > "the eyes go first. If people that use cell phones were > > getting > > > cataracts, you bet I would pay attention. > > > > > > I better quit talking before I get upset. > > > > > > Al Patrick > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Martin Green [ > > <mailto:[email protected]>] > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 4:09 AM > > > > > > To: 'Patrick, Al'; '[email protected]'; > > > [email protected] > > > > > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > > > I agree, there has always been a knee jerk > > reaction by the > > > press to anything "bad". > > > > > > Mad cow disease is a typical example. We > > banned sales of > > > beef on the bone in UK because someone suggested that > > there might be link > > > with new form CJD. No proof, just a suggestion, and that > > gave rise to a > > > ban on its sale in UK and a further drop in confidence > > about the safety of > > > food. Now we have the bizarre situation where the UK > > government want to > > > allow it to be sold again, but the Scottish and Welsh > > parliaments do not > > > (they represent 15% of the total UK population), so the > > ban continues. > > > And of course we now have a documented case of new form > > CJD in a young > > > girl who has always been a vegetarian - bad science? And > > the press loved > > > it all - they sold millions of papers and we killed > > millions of cows. > > > > > > The good news out today in UK is that a > > group of eminent > > > researchers headed by the UK most prestigious > > epidemiologist, Sir Richard > > > Doll from Oxford University, have concluded that there is > > no evidence of > > > cancer being caused by electric power lines, so the heated > > blankets are > > > OK. I have not read the report yet so there may be some > > stings in the > > > tail. This is just hot off the morning news. > > > > > > Martin Green > > > > > > Technology International (Europe) Ltd. > > > > > > (44) 1793 783137 > > > > > > Fax (44) 1793 782310 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Patrick, Al > > [SMTP:[email protected]] > > > > > > Sent: 03 December 1999 07:34 > > > > > > To: '[email protected]'; > > > [email protected] > > > > > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone > > Hazards? > > > > > > Max, I remember seeing the same show > > and years later > > > a show on PBS about > > > > > > that show. Bottom line: although > > the rate of cancer > > > seemed high, it was > > > > > > still within the statistical norm > > for the > > > population. > > > > > > Now many years ago, and I mean > > decades ago a > > > statistical type was studying > > > > > > Leukemia rates among Line Men (High > > Tension Line > > > works) for an insurance > > > > > > company, to find out why they had > > double the rate of > > > Leukemia for the > > > > > > general population. His conclusion > > was? That the > > > electrical fields > > > > > > somehow were the problem. He went > > on to conclude > > > that all electrical > > > > > > workers and ham radio operators were > > being harmed. > > > > > > Bottom Line: Years later and with no > > fanfare in the > > > press it was found that > > > > > > the PCB's which were in the wire > > insulation and > > > transform oil (which were > > > > > > spilled all over the place) were the > > real cause of > > > the Leukemia. By the > > > > > > time the "Bad Science" was over, > > even sleeping with > > > an electric blanket > > > > > > would kill you. Did you throw yours > > away? (By the > > > way, PCB's were banned > > > > > > after that "Good Science"). And the > > bottom of > > > Boston harbor is still > > > > > > covered two feet deep in PCB's oils > > to this day. > > > > > > The press loves Bad Science because > > "it could be > > > true!" and "it sell > > > > > > newspapers" or "better ratings on > > the nightly news". > > > > > > There's my two cents and change for > > a dollar. > > > > > > Al Patrick > > > > > > Note! These opinions are my own and > > not of my > > > employers. The names have > > > > > > been changes to protect the guilty. > > Batteries not > > > included. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: [email protected] [ > > <mailto:[email protected]>] > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 > > 3:38 PM > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone > > Hazards? > > > > > > > > > I remember seeing a television show > > quite a while > > > ago where researchers had > > > > > > found an extremely high cancer rate > > in children in > > > one neighborhood with a > > > > > > power substation. The rate for > > adults, however, was > > > normal. > > > > > > One researcher said she believed > > that the higher > > > rate for children might be > > > > > > due to the fact that they were very > > active in > > > running back and forth and > > > > > > playing ball, etc. This caused them > > to cut through > > > the magnetic fields at a > > > > > > much higher rate than adults. This > > line of thought > > > leads to the possibility > > > > > > that there may be more to consider > > than just simple > > > warming of tissue. > > > > > > Max Kelson > > > > > > Evans & Sutherland > > > > > > -----Original > > Message----- > > > > > > From: Barry Ma [ > > > <mailto:[email protected]>] > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, > > December 02, 1999 > > > 11:48 AM > > > > > > To: > > [email protected] > > > > > > Cc: > > [email protected] > > > > > > Subject: Re: > > Cell Phone > > > Hazards? > > > > > > > > > Jon, > > > > > > You are right. When > > we get in our > > > cars we have some risk. By > > > > > > the same token, when we are home the > > risk is still > > > not zero. If we go > > > > > > climbing the risk would go even > > higher. The point is > > > we know what is the > > > > > > risk and how to protect ourselves. > > But the risk > > > related to cell phone is not > > > > > > as clear as driving, climbing, and > > staying home. > > > > > > Barry Ma > > > > > > Anritsu Company > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > > On Wed, 01 December > > 1999, Jon Griver > > > wrote: > > > > > > > It seems to me > > quite possible that > > > electromagnetic fields > > > > > > with strengths > > > > > > > below the 'tissue > > heating' level > > > may have a detrimental > > > > > > effect. After all > > > > > > > we know that > > electrical impulses > > > are intimately connected > > > > > > with the brain's > > > > > > > operation, and we > > are dealing with > > > fields an order of > > > > > > magnitude stonger > > > > > > > than those used in > > radiated > > > immunity testing for > > > > > > electrical and electronic > > > > > > > equipment. We only > > expect > > > electronic equipment to be > > > > > > immune to 3V/m, but we > > > > > > > subject our brains > > to 20 to 30V/m > > > when we use a cell > > > > > > phone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This being said, > > the cell phone is > > > very convenient, and > > > > > > has become a part > > > > > > > of our way of > > life. I use a cell > > > phone, though as little > > > > > > as possible, > > > > > > > knowing that there > > is a possible > > > risk, in the same way as > > > > > > I know I risk my > > > > > > > life every time I > > get in my car. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jon Griver > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Open your mind. > > Close your wallet. > > > > > > Free Internet Access > > from AltaVista. > > > > > > <http://www.altavista.com> > > > > > > > > > --------- > > > > > > This message is > > coming from the > > > emc-pstc discussion list. > > > > > > To cancel your > > subscription, send > > > mail to [email protected] > > > > > > with the single > > line: "unsubscribe > > > emc-pstc" (without the > > > > > > quotes). For help, > > send mail to > > > [email protected], > > > > > > > > [email protected], > > > [email protected], or > > > > > > > > [email protected] (the list > > > administrators). > > > > > > > > > > > > --------- > > > > > > This message is coming from the > > emc-pstc discussion > > > list. > > > > > > To cancel your subscription, send > > mail to > > > [email protected] > > > > > > with the single line: "unsubscribe > > emc-pstc" > > > (without the > > > > > > quotes). For help, send mail to > > [email protected], > > > > > > [email protected], > > [email protected], or > > > > > > [email protected] (the list > > > administrators). > > > > > > << File: ATT00006.htm >> > > > > > > > --------- > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], or > > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > > > --------- > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], or > > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > > > > > > > --------- > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], or > > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > > > --------- > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], or > > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
