A person¹s viewpoint is critical to know. Several decades ago the keynote speaker at one of the USA IEEE EMC Symposia was a noted medical doctor who worked in this EM bio-effects field. I don¹t recall what all he said in detail, but here¹s the sum and substance.
Thermal effects are not the whole story. Interactions at the molecular level below thermal levels are important. We have measured effects. Any effects are bad, even if they cannot be tied to health issues. We operate under the concept of ³prudent avoidance.² Prudent avoidance means if you can¹t prove something is safe beyond a reasonable doubt, you assume it¹s dangerous. Now here¹s the kicker. Mankind evolved in a world where manmade electromagnetic energy did not exist. So we must avoid any manmade sources above the ambient background that exists without man¹s use of the EM spectrum. But that ambient does exist so you can¹t hide in a shield room with no ambient, because you didn¹t evolve for that, either. That¹s what I remember him saying. Here¹s what I remember saying to whoever I was with listening to this keynote. Mankind evolved in a world where he was old or dead by age 35, and a grandparent by that time, as well. When Neanderthal man was first discovered, they drew him as all hunched over and monster-like, because they didn¹t recognize at the time these people had severe rheumatoid arthritis, from sleeping in cold caves. The state of nature is not an idyllic garden of Eden, as these people imagine (well, at least since Eden was closed off to human habitation). Life in an aboriginal setting, outside maybe the South Sea islands, is nasty, brutal, and short. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 From: Manny Barron <[email protected]> Reply-To: Manny Barron <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 19:28:17 -0700 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PSES] Will 5G Be Bad for Our Health? This is a very good question. There's a myriad of opinions on the topic of non-ionizing radiation hazards, some justified and others not. When I read an article on this topic the first thing I want to try to understand is who wrote it and what is their motivation for writing it. Not saying there's anything nefarious going on, I just want to understand some background that will help me interpret what the writer is saying and why they're saying it. And then there's the standards, how they were developed, what they are based on, plus their validity. Every country seems to have one, some are identical while others are different. The noted article is very interesting but the article referenced in it is even more interesting because it addresses the topic more quantitatively and brings some standards into focus for comparison. Here's the link to the referenced article for those who want to go directly to it: 5G Communication Systems and Radio Frequency Exposure Limits: https://futurenetworks.ieee.org/tech-focus/september-2019/5g-communications- systems-and-radiofrequency-exposure-limits?highlight=WyJzeXN0ZW1zIiwicmFkaW9 mcmVxdWVuY3kiLCI1ZyIsIjVnJ3MiLCInNWciLCJjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9ucyIsImV4cG9zdXJlIiw ibGltaXRzIiwiNWcgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbnMiLCJleHBvc3VyZSBsaW1pdHMiXQ== About 10 years ago when I worked for a major military defense contractor I had to investigate a potential non-ionizing radiation hazard at a small production facility where a ground level transmitting antenna was located external but near to the building. The antenna was there first, when the building was empty, then later there was a need to establish a production facility in the building, of course with people inside. At the time I used the C95.1 (2005) standard as my guide. When I was done I used the collected test data to establish a keep out zone around the antenna. In the end I doubled the keep out zone radius to account for whatever unknown uncertainty that might exist in my analysis. There's uncertainty with my measurements and there's uncertainty with the standard exposure limits, and that's why I doubled the keep out zone. There are a lot of factors to consider relative to 5G radiation hazards: frequency, radiation pattern, power level, distance, obstacles, exposure time, plus most importantly the effect on the human body, much of which is not well known (my opinion). And no doubt there are other factors that I can't think of right now. I am hoping that all those directly involved with expanding the 5G technology use scientific methods to develop safety measures that work to minimize the exposure and potential adverse effects on the human body. Just my 2 cents. Manny Barron EMC Engineer On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:24 AM Richard Nute <[email protected]> wrote: > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/will-5g-be-bad-for-our-health > <https://spectrum.ieee.org/will-5g-be-bad-for-our-health> > > > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc > discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to > <[email protected]> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at > http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used > formats), large files, etc. > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to > unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Scott Douglas <[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher <[email protected]> > David Heald <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
