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).
