WOW If one could interpolate this for 10mm. What was the old European limit for field strength?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Price, Ed [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 1:33 PM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > Ralph: > > A few months ago, I did an RF ambient survey on the San Francisco BART > stations. I found that the strongest fields (between 300 KHz and 18 GHz) > inside a typical station came from cell phones, PCS phones and public > service transceivers carried by system personnel and the public. At a two > meter distance, these sources create a 5 to 10 V/M field strength. > > Ed > > > :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- > ) > Ed Price > [email protected] > Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab > Cubic Defense Systems > San Diego, CA. USA > 619-505-2780 (Voice) > 619-505-1502 (Fax) > Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty > Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis > :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- > ) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ralph Cameron [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:04 PM > > To: Edward Fitzgerald; 'Robert Macy' > > Cc: [email protected]; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) > > Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > > > Edward: > > > > There was a medical assessment donw in a paper entitled," Mdeical > > Equipment > > Interference: "Risk and Minimization", by Bernard Segal. This was > > published in Scientific Progress, under Wireless Phones and Health, > pages > > 283-295, (Kluwer Academic Publishers , Boston) > > > > What the article does is make the very studies of internal reflections > in > > the hospital environment .e.g hallways with and without obstructions > and > > certain types of material walls and inside rooms to show where the > > radiation > > from cell phones is concentrated. From this, planning for isolating > > certain hospital areas has been designed so tht cell phone radiation > > minimizes the impact on radiosensitive equipment. > > > > In my view, at no time has there been a consideration that designers of > > sensitive equipment play a role in the issue. What is perceived as > > "interference" could eaually be argued that it is lack of immunity. > From > > studies done in Canada in 1983, the ambient radiation in large cities > such > > as Toronto and Montreal was deemed to be about 1v/m. Some hospital > > equipment malfunctioned when exposed to one tenth of that amount. > > > > The other concept that seems to prevail is that that only certain > popular > > communication bands such as CB ( 27Mhz), public service ( 150- 170Mhz ) > > and > > 450-470Mhz) could cause disturbance to such devices. In fact, reference > > to > > allocation charts will show many "interfering" sources so that in > > designing > > for freedom from such undersireable effects a swept frequncy approach > will > > uncover anomalies that can and do occur. Such effects become more > > pronounced > > as the physical device size or elements approach resonance in any given > > frequncy range. > > > > The point I'm trying to make is safety can be compromised unless both > the > > emitter and receiving device are designed with this in mind. This is > an > > opinion based on suppressing many devices after they have entered the > > market. Current devices bearing the CE mark have almost total immunity > to > > current users of the spectrum. > > > > Ralph Cameron > > EMC Consultatnt and Suppression of Consumer elelctronic equipment > > (After Sale) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Edward Fitzgerald <[email protected]> > > To: 'Robert Macy' <[email protected]> > > Cc: <[email protected]>; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:49 AM > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > > > > > > > Back in 1991/2 I worked with a design engineer in the UK who had > > > developed (privately) a test meter for measuring the EM fields in open > > > environment. > > > One of his studies was the variations and concentrations of EM fields > > > within buildings. I don't have any of the papers or results he > prepared, > > > but I do recall that a sweep of our office unit (which included > > > manufacturing, test lab, R&D, purchasing and stores) one evening > showed > > > a high EMF concentration level in one stairway linking R&D and the > > > manufacturing floor. There were hiVoltage power lines within 500 > > > meters, but we could only conclude that the modern reinforced concrete > > > construction had some effect on the concentration levels. > > > Digital mobile phones were not around at that time and there wasn't a > > > particularly high density of analogue cellphones in use within the > > > building. > > > > > > On another point, a recent UK press article has been claiming that the > > > use of headsets/ear-pieces typically connected to mobile phones via > > > 2.5mm jack are even worse than using the mobile next to your head. > > > Their claim being that the two core audio cable is induced with > > > radiation from the phone and carried up the length of the upper body? > > > Has anyone heard of this angle in the media within your part of the > > > world, or if any studies on this topic are including handsfree > > > accessories? > > > > > > Having read a number of articles on the subject of ElectroMagnetic > field > > > Radiation that reach essentially two conclusions: - > > > 1. Definite link to effects upon human cell structure > > > 2. Inconclusive or no link. > > > > > > As an engineer I am very sceptical of the validity of any report or > > > study on this subject given the various claims that many reports in > this > > > area over the past two decades have been biased to both sides of the > > > argument! Short of doing your own studies - what is an engineer to > > > believe? > > > > > > Edward Fitzgerald > > > Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22 > > > GSM Tel. : +44 4685 33 100 > > > > > > > > > European Technology Services (EMEA) > > > Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy > > > Regional Offices in Australia, Canada and the UK. > > > > > > Global Telecom / Radio Intelligence Site > <http://www.ets-tele.com/tics> > > > psst... spread the word ! > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Robert Macy [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: 04 December 1999 00:15 > > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > > > > > > > > > Near our building near downtown San Jose, in what are called "the > county > > > buildings", one county building wing had 15 cases of very rare form of > > > brain > > > tumors. The incidence of a single case is very rare but to have so > many > > > in > > > one building and only in one wing of that building is statistically > > > incredible. > > > > > > They did an extensive survey trying to find something different > between > > > the > > > two wings of this building. As I recall, the survey took almost 18 > > > months > > > and the report's results were inconclusive. They looked at building > > > materials, air conditioning and heating systems, water distribution, > > > toilet > > > facilities, and on and on, including emf - which not only included elf > > > from > > > the mains, but included the periodic blast of microwave as the nearby > > > airport radar swept around. They found absolutely nothing different > > > between > > > the wings of their building. > > > > > > According to the epidemiologist, this form of cancer is rare because > it > > > grows so slowly that it takes too long to show up, something like 40 > > > years > > > from onset, which means most people died of something else first. She > > > felt > > > that whatever it was that these people were being exposed to had > "sped" > > > up > > > the cancer turning it from so slow nobody notices to so rapid people > > > died of > > > it. Again, she wondered if something was accelerating the cancer's > > > growth > > > rate (with cancer present in the person anyway, but the exposure did > not > > > cause cancer). > > > > > > The only difference I could see (and was not mentioned in the report) > > > was > > > that people in the west wing (sick building part) tended to park their > > > vehicles directly across Guadalupe parkway under 115KV massive power > > > towers. > > > I thought that perhaps the fluctuation entering and exiting their > > > vehicles > > > (These were the old steel body automobiles) did something to these > > > people. > > > I asked for small amount of funding to pursue this investigation but > > > could > > > not obtain funds. So measuring the situation, and collecting data on > > > the > > > incidences of who parked where, etc is now lost. [The towers are now > > > gone, > > > replaced by underground transmission lines to "beautify" the Guadalupe > > > Parkway corridor. ] > > > > > > At that same time there were some publications claiming the acceration > > > of > > > cancer cells by exposing the cells to a range of magnetic field > > > exposure, > > > including variable amount of exposure. One paper claimed that varying > > > exposure was the key. > > > > > > > > > This is all food for thought. > > > > > > - Robert - > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 1:52 PM > > > 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). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------- > > 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).
