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).
