Believe me, the 200 milliwatts used with 2.4Ghz non-licensed radio transceivers is way too small to even excite an atom or two a few inches away from the antenna. Scientific American published a very interesting study relating to the effects of prolonged cellphone use with the antenna next to one's head. The only thing they could find was localized heating inside the eyeball on the side where the phone was located (as I remember this was a fraction of a degree) but no real tissue damage. But the research and pressure from lawers and doctors "just in case" was enough to severely reduce power levels. Newer cellphone output power is fractional.
Now I will say that police officers used to use radar pistols in a rather avant-garde way, placing the business end between their legs while they waited for a car to come in range. The old guns emitted radar energy at all times, and there was supposedly a link to testicular cancer, although again, nothing concrete or repeatable. No one it seems wanted to sit down in a chair with a radar gun next to their testicles for a while to see if they got cancer. I can understand that.
But legal professionals did put a lot of pressure on the radar gun makers such that the newer ones emit far less energy, and when the button isn't pushed, nothing comes out of the gun.
In summary, don't go out and do anything stupid but so far the jury is still out, and from what I'ver read, will never really come back with a verdict about RF energy and cancer. They can't when everyone BELIEVES it will hurt them and when thousands write their Congressperson, things change even if they didn't need to.
Regards, Jim Darrough
At 12:56 AM 9/22/2003 -0700, you wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:09:48PM -0400, Grigsby, Garl wrote: > James Kaplan talked about this a couple of years ago. Basically said > that 2.5 GHz was nothing to worry about. He knew enough about radios > that I believe him. Also, though I am ont a EE (I am, in fact, a ME), I > know for a fact that the FCC would never allow a radio device to be > legally produced that work "cook" the user. Not even one that would > allow the user to be come warm. > > Dig back in the archives and I'm sure you will find the thread.
A narrow spectrum of 2.5 or 2.6 GHz (don't recall which) will excite water molecules. This cooks your food (sortof) and can cook your body in the same manner, given that you're mostly water.
WiFi operates in the 2.4GHz spectrum. 2.4 and 2.5 might seem close, but we're talking about the difference between two numbers with eight 0's at the end of them.
I suspect that it is possible to link prolonged direct exposure to a 2.4GHz transmitter right next to your head to brain tumors and the like, but it's only a matter of time before they link prolonged direct exposure to the air to some form of cancer. There's no conclusive evidence that there is a connection. If you're worried, I suggest not using a cell phone as a primary means of interaction with those around you in the world and that you not hold a WiFi device up to your head for several hours at a time on a daily basis. =)
-- T. Joseph Carter We can hope for the future, [EMAIL PROTECTED] But there may not be one
*** Topic for #redhat: ReDHaT is the answer to all your problems. It could be the start too! _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003
Jim Darrough, ARS KI7AY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003
_______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
