RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
It might be a little useful to look at another contentious issue. Are cigarettes hazardous or not? Certainly, studies point in both directions. And both sides of the issue tout their own experts. The manufacturers are aghast that sticking burning leaves into your mouth could possible hinder your heath, and any studies to the contrary are just plain inconclusive. Those opposed to smoking have studies that they claim clearly show a direct link. (And then of course you California banning outdoor smoking in places where you can see the air). The problem is, as the note below suggests, science and statistics, are often used for economic and political gain rather than for knowledge and understanding. Add to that legitimate scientific disagreement and uncertainty and you end up with reasons for the current debate pro and con hear. One sometimes has to take any report with a small grain of salt, and act upon you best belief. I don't smoke but it certainly doesn't seem real helpful to me, so I tend to believe those studies some of you those of you who do smoke may prefer to believe the others. I hate cell phones guess which study I lean towards. Gary -Original Message- From: rbus...@es.com [mailto:rbus...@es.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 2:12 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Interestingly enough, today on one of the independent radio networks, a commentator interviewed numerous persons associated with the investigation of radiation on the human body from Cell phones. One professor from the University of Washington (Seattle) claims to have evidence that radiation in rats has been proven to alter chromosomes. Another claims that no one in the US would test Cell Phones for power output and report on them by brand name. The phones were taken to Europe for testing. Yet another claims that research money was granted to study the issue and then withheld once the evidence started to point towards this destructive chromosome problem. Another man whose wife spent 150 hrs a month on the cell phone believes that her fatal brain tumor was a direct cause of the phone. He claims that the tumor (CAT scan) when held near the antenna was a halo of the antenna itself. He went on to say that the US government had evidence for the risk of radiation published in Mil Hdbk 239. This document was subsequently withdrawn and the replacement document no longer addresses that risk. Who knows... Just wanted to add more fuel to the discussion. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
Speaking of Microwaves, you may have read an account of a person, on Christmas eve, keeping warm in front of a Microwave horn on the Darwin Awards. If you would like to read this good, (albeit fictional) story go to the following site and search on microwave. You can locate the story under Urban Legends (1988). Rick http://official.darwinawards.com/ http://official.darwinawards.com/ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
Same as Charles, I have also seen near field measurements at a couple of centimeters from the phone antenna, with fields up to about 700 V/m. The measurements were taken on a GSM phone, with small EMCO isotropic field probe (the one based on Kanda's design, with resistive dipoles about 7 mm long). Neven Pischl - Original Message - From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com To: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com; 'Pettit, Ghery' ghery.pet...@intel.com; mkel...@es.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 6:38 PM Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? If you solve the radar eqn for the field intensity at 1 cm from the antenna, using Ghery's Ptmax = 600 mW, you get 600 V/m. This is a completely erronoeus calculation however, because it relies on far field gain and this is very near field. If you assume the antenna is a 50 Ohm load, the 600 mW eak power is 5.5 Volts at the antenna. if the antenna is a quarter wave stub at 850 MHz, the potential gradient near the stub will be (potential divided by stub length) near 70 V/m. -- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) gra...@louisville.stortek.com To: 'Pettit, Ghery' ghery.pet...@intel.com, 'mkel...@es.com' mkel...@es.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Date: Thu, Dec 9, 1999, 4:34 PM Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM To: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts. Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is the maximum. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones? Just on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low. Anyway know the power output on cordless phones? Thanks, Max Max Kelson Peripherals Engineer Evans Sutherland 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 http://www.es.com/ http://www.es.com/ Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 mailto:mkel...@es.com mailto:mkel...@es.com -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one of my red flags was the eyes. The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave radiation. Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct. The typical levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much greater than cell phones. I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas. He was responsible designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong fields for years. These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far stronger that a cell phone. He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a daily basic. At age 43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general population. Now he is fine today, retired a few years back. What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took over 20 years to damage the most sensitive part to the body. Were talking about 5 watts of power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts at 800 MHz. In summary: I think a lot of Bad Science has been applied. The levels and frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage being reported. P.S. I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work with 3.5 Kilowatt microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts. Al Patrick -Original Message- From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM To: 'Patrick, Al' Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Al, You've posted a very intriguing statement. Why the eyes go first? (In the past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity tests). microwave engineers understand the risks - than what the fuss is all about? Or are you saying that since one has not got cataract, he/she is safe? Regards -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM To: 'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Yes Martin, Lets
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
WOW If one could interpolate this for 10mm. What was the old European limit for field strength? -Original Message- From: Price, Ed [SMTP:ed.pr...@cubic.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 1:33 PM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' 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 ed.pr...@cubic.com 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:ral...@igs.net] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:04 PM To: Edward Fitzgerald; 'Robert Macy' Cc: mkel...@es.com; 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 edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com To: 'Robert Macy' m...@california.com Cc: mkel...@es.com; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org 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, RD, purchasing and stores) one evening showed a high EMF concentration level in one stairway linking RD 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
Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
Hi Barry: Thanks for the URL. An even better paper at the FCC web site is: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#56 OET Bulletin Number 56 (Fourth Edition August 1999) Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields This is an informative bulletin written as a result of increasing interest and concern of the public with respect to this issue. The expanding use of radiofrequency technology has resulted in speculation concerning the alleged electromagnetic pollution of the environment and the potential dangers of exposure to non-ionizing radiation. This publication is designed to provide factual information to the public by answering some of the most commonly asked questions. It includes the latest information on FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF energy. This document includes a very good and comprehensive description, annotated, of the various health effects of RF energy, including the non-heating effects. It includes information on power output of cell phones and possible health effects. It appears to answer all of the questions brought up here in this discussion. Best regards, Rich - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
I'd love to see how they performed that measurement. At a typical user to antenna distance, one is pretty close to the near field / far field boundary. The measurement method must have been interesting. Ghery -Original Message- From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) [mailto:gra...@louisville.stortek.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 2:34 PM To: 'Pettit, Ghery'; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM To: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts. Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is the maximum. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones? Just on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low. Anyway know the power output on cordless phones? Thanks, Max Max Kelson Peripherals Engineer Evans Sutherland 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 http://www.es.com/ http://www.es.com/ Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 mailto:mkel...@es.com mailto:mkel...@es.com -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one of my red flags was the eyes. The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave radiation. Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct. The typical levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much greater than cell phones. I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas. He was responsible designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong fields for years. These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far stronger that a cell phone. He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a daily basic. At age 43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general population. Now he is fine today, retired a few years back. What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took over 20 years to damage the most sensitive part to the body. Were talking about 5 watts of power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts at 800 MHz. In summary: I think a lot of Bad Science has been applied. The levels and frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage being reported. P.S. I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work with 3.5 Kilowatt microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts. Al Patrick -Original Message- From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM To: 'Patrick, Al' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Al, You've posted a very intriguing statement. Why the eyes go first? (In the past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity tests). microwave engineers understand the risks - than what the fuss is all about? Or are you saying that since one has not got cataract, he/she is safe? Regards -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM To: 'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is Bad Science. People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his name too badly) with CBS has had several news shows on Bad Science. Now there is one, in the press, that understands. Those of us that were/are microwave
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! -Original Message- From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:ghery.pet...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM To: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts. Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is the maximum. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones? Just on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low. Anyway know the power output on cordless phones? Thanks, Max Max Kelson Peripherals Engineer Evans Sutherland 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 http://www.es.com/ http://www.es.com/ Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 mailto:mkel...@es.com mailto:mkel...@es.com -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [mailto:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' Cc: 'emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one of my red flags was the eyes. The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave radiation. Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct. The typical levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much greater than cell phones. I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas. He was responsible designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong fields for years. These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far stronger that a cell phone. He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a daily basic. At age 43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general population. Now he is fine today, retired a few years back. What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took over 20 years to damage the most sensitive part to the body. Were talking about 5 watts of power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts at 800 MHz. In summary: I think a lot of Bad Science has been applied. The levels and frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage being reported. P.S. I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work with 3.5 Kilowatt microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts. Al Patrick -Original Message- From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:vgorodet...@canoga.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM To: 'Patrick, Al' Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Al, You've posted a very intriguing statement. Why the eyes go first? (In the past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity tests). microwave engineers understand the risks - than what the fuss is all about? Or are you saying that since one has not got cataract, he/she is safe? Regards -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM To: 'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is Bad Science. People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his name too badly) with CBS has had several news shows on Bad Science. Now there is one, in the press, that understands. Those of us that were/are microwave engineers understand the risks. I have been exposed the microwave radiation many times, but I know the eyes go first. If people that use cell phones were getting cataracts, you bet I would pay attention. I better quit talking before I get upset. Al Patrick
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
Interestingly enough, today on one of the independent radio networks, a commentator interviewed numerous persons associated with the investigation of radiation on the human body from Cell phones. One professor from the University of Washington (Seattle) claims to have evidence that radiation in rats has been proven to alter chromosomes. Another claims that no one in the US would test Cell Phones for power output and report on them by brand name. The phones were taken to Europe for testing. Yet another claims that research money was granted to study the issue and then withheld once the evidence started to point towards this destructive chromosome problem. Another man whose wife spent 150 hrs a month on the cell phone believes that her fatal brain tumor was a direct cause of the phone. He claims that the tumor (CAT scan) when held near the antenna was a halo of the antenna itself. He went on to say that the US government had evidence for the risk of radiation published in Mil Hdbk 239. This document was subsequently withdrawn and the replacement document no longer addresses that risk. Who knows... Just wanted to add more fuel to the discussion. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
Hi, Introduced by our local EMC chapter (SCVemc.org), I visited http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/rfsafety/ and surfed to FCC OET Bulletin 65 Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to RF Electromagnetic Fields from there. Those who are concerned may go there. Barry Ma Anritsu __ 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 majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
We are talking about two different kinds of radiation. X-rays are of the category called ionizing radiation. They do their damage by stripping electrons off of atoms. Non-ionizing radiation, such as radio waves, do their (known) damage by heating tissue beyond its ability to dissipate the heat. Two different effects. Ghery Pettit Intel -Original Message- From: Danny Falkoff [mailto:dfalk...@netphone.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 12:32 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Maybe someone said this already, but I think it is a ridiculous assumption that the level of energy has to necessarily be enough to cause heating in order to be dangerous. Just look at X-rays! (on second thought don't). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
-Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 12:56 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? . . . The newer questions being investigated may take 10-50 years to fully answer. Remember that it took over 40 years for the U.S. goverment to admit that the men/women selected to take part in the early nuclear experiments (observers and soldiers) might have actually been harmed by the radiation. George Alspaugh (all of the above based on personal files and opinion) Actually, 10-50 years doesn't seem all that bad, when you figure it took software engineers at least 25 years just to learn to handle the year 2000 : : : Max Kelson Peripherals Engineer Evans Sutherland 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 http://www.es.com/ http://www.es.com/ Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 mailto:mkel...@es.com mailto:mkel...@es.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
I'll ask our county supervisors (they occupy this building, too) - Robert - -Original Message- From: Bailin Ma b...@anritsu.com To: 'Robert Macy' m...@california.com; Edward Fitzgerald edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:01 AM Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Rober, I'm wondering about the high voltage towers which are gone now. Is it possible to see if there is statistical difference in the cancer rate since the towers were tore down? Barry -- Original Text -- From: Edward Fitzgerald edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com, on 12/8/99 4:49 AM: 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, RD, purchasing and stores) one evening showed a high EMF concentration level in one stairway linking RD 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:m...@california.com] Sent: 04 December 1999 00:15 To: mkel...@es.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 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
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
Just to provide a balance here: My father is Professor of Pathology at Surrey University in England. He has been involved in cancer research for most of his professional life. I have grilled (metaphorically) him on this issue. To date, he belives that there is no conclusive evidence of cell phones and damage to human tissues -Original Message- From: b...@anritsu.com [mailto:b...@anritsu.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 10:35 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards? I think the most important point made by the article of Is your cell phone killing you? in Zdnn is this: We found evidence of genetic damage in human blood, said George Carlo, WTR's chairman. We have suggestions of excessive mortality from brain cancers among wireless phone users, and we have very clear evidence of a statistically significant higher risk of neuroepithelial tumors. ... and Many signs point to DNA damage as the likely culprit. Adey has found a link between low-intensity microwaves and DNA damage in rat brain cells. It is not important, on the other hand, whether or what analogy exists between Microwave fields from cell phone and silicone breast implants, tobacco, and Low Frequency EM Fields from power lines. If we already have very reliable statistic data showing the hazard to cell phone users. Let's try to prevent the damage first before finding the real biological mechanism behind the damage. Barry Ma -- From: geor...@lexmark.com, on 11/30/99 12:13 PM: The referenced article ponders why there might be a health effect if there is little or no heating of human tissue. The present standards for safe levels of RFR for the Western world are predicated on the assumption that biological effects are only due to the heating effect. There have been many published articles about cancers caused by those who worked with or near high powered X-ray or radar equipment that can effect heating of body tissues. In fact, RF generators have been used over patients arms or legs to intentionally apply heat therapy to the inner portions of these limbs. Oddly, only Russia focused on the possible biological effects of long term exposure to low level radiation. As a result, they set limits that were two orders of magnitude below those of the Western world. The truth is that no one knows what the health effects might be from long term exposure to low level radiation. As some have pointed out, distance is a critical element of exposure. Cellphone antenna are often virtually touching the users skull. Even with very low RF power out, they can produce levels within the head that are far higher than that from radio and TV transmitters that are a mile or so away. It is a recent phenomena for the average person to be exposed to long term low level radiation via the use of cheap personal transmitters. Even laborers who have used two way radios for decades did not spend the same time with the antenna pressed to their face as the typical cellphone user. Only time and more studies will reveal the truth. However, once all of the class action money has been rung out of the tobacco companies, do not be surprised if next BIG class action suits head in the direction of cellphone users. George Alspaugh -- On Tue, 30 November 1999, rbus...@es.com wrote: The following article was presented this morning on ZDNET with regard to the safety of Cell phones. Thought some of you might be interested. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2401220,00.html - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
The following comment is being forwarded on behalf of a fellow engineer who is not on this list -Original Message- I read a Science News article about using electric current pulses (conducted or induced) in human tissues to promote healing. Frequency and pulse shape are critical. Wrong frequency or shape is detrimental to healing. This technique is targeted to bone mostly and is used for arthritis and fracture treatment - but Europe is using it for immune system treatment as well. Another thought food. - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
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: mkel...@es.com mkel...@es.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org 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:barry...@altavista.com] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 11:48 AM To: jgri...@i-spec.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 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 majord...@ieee.org
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is Bad Science. People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his name too badly) with CBS has had several news shows on Bad Science. Now there is one, in the press, that understands. Those of us that were/are microwave engineers understand the risks. I have been exposed the microwave radiation many times, but I know the eyes go first. If people that use cell phones were getting cataracts, you bet I would pay attention. I better quit talking before I get upset. Al Patrick -Original Message- From: Martin Green [mailto:martin.gr...@iti.co.uk] Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 4:09 AM To: 'Patrick, Al'; 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? I agree, there has always been a knee jerk reaction by the press to anything bad. Mad cow disease is a typical example. We banned sales of beef on the bone in UK because someone suggested that there might be link with new form CJD. No proof, just a suggestion, and that gave rise to a ban on its sale in UK and a further drop in confidence about the safety of food. Now we have the bizarre situation where the UK government want to allow it to be sold again, but the Scottish and Welsh parliaments do not (they represent 15% of the total UK population), so the ban continues. And of course we now have a documented case of new form CJD in a young girl who has always been a vegetarian - bad science? And the press loved it all - they sold millions of papers and we killed millions of cows. The good news out today in UK is that a group of eminent researchers headed by the UK most prestigious epidemiologist, Sir Richard Doll from Oxford University, have concluded that there is no evidence of cancer being caused by electric power lines, so the heated blankets are OK. I have not read the report yet so there may be some stings in the tail. This is just hot off the morning news. Martin Green Technology International (Europe) Ltd. (44) 1793 783137 Fax (44) 1793 782310 -Original Message- From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:al.patr...@sciatl.com] Sent: 03 December 1999 07:34 To: 'mkel...@es.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? Max, I remember seeing the same show and years later a show on PBS about that show. Bottom line: although the rate of cancer seemed high, it was still within the statistical norm for the population. Now many years ago, and I mean decades ago a statistical type was studying Leukemia rates among Line Men (High Tension Line works) for an insurance company, to find out why they had double the rate of Leukemia for the general population. His conclusion was? That the electrical fields somehow were the problem. He went on to conclude that all electrical workers and ham radio operators were being harmed. Bottom Line: Years later and with no fanfare in the press it was found that the PCB's which were in the wire insulation and transform oil (which were spilled all over the place) were the real cause of the Leukemia. By the time the Bad Science was over, even sleeping with an electric blanket would kill you. Did you throw yours away? (By the way, PCB's were banned after that Good Science). And the bottom of Boston harbor is still covered two feet deep in PCB's oils to this day. The press loves Bad Science because it could be true! and it sell newspapers or better ratings on the nightly news. There's my two cents and change for a dollar. Al Patrick Note! These opinions are my own and not of my employers. The names have been changes to protect the guilty. Batteries not included. -Original Message- From: mkel...@es.com [mailto:mkel...@es.com] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 3:38 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: Cell Phone Hazards? I remember seeing a television show quite a while ago
Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
Further to the items regarding Luekaemia and power lines the following press release was given today. Friday December 3, 8:37 AM Child Cancer And Pylons 'Not Linked' A Department of Health-supported study says there are no links between child cancers and electricity pylons. The independent UK Childhood Cancer Study found no evidence to link childhood cancer with exposure to magnetic fields from electricity supply after examining more than 2,200 cases. The report says: This study provides no evidence that exposure to magnetic fields associated with the electricity supply in the UK increases risks for childhood leukaemia, cancers of the central nervous system or any other childhood cancer. The independent study was supported by the Department of Health and the UK's main cancer charities. Its management committee chairman and leading epidemiologist is Sir Richard Doll, who is credited with discovering the link between smoking and lung cancer. He concluded after the study: I believe there is now no justification for further epidemiological studies on exposure to magnetic fields and childhood cancer in Britain. The new report follows the publication of research by Bristol University scientists who said that people living and working near high voltage lines were up to three times more at risk from airborne cancer-causing pollutants being deposited on the skin. The researchers, who made some 2,000 measurements in fields near the city, said ionisation of the air around the cables spread the increased-risk effect up to several hundred metres from the lines. Presenting two papers published in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, the scientists suggested that this might explain the well-chronicled association between power lines and childhood leukaemia. But electricity industry chiefs welcomed the findings of the UK Childhood Cancer team and said other surveys should now be carried out to establish what is linked to childhood cancers. RCIC - http://www.rcic.com Regulatory Compliance Information Center - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
You have raised a good point. Here are the three impotant parameters: 1. radiated power 2. distance from radiator to receptor 3. exposure (time of use) Radiated power--I am unsure of the standard radiated power of cordless versus cellular phones. Typically cordless phones are designed to work (well) only within 100 feet or so of the base station, while cellulars must work with distant cell antennas. However, the cell antennas may be more sensitive, allowing for lower radiated power at the source. Distance--Most cordless phones have antennas that extend above the users head, while small cellulars either have internal or external antenna that are more likely on the same level as and closer proximity to the head. Exposure--From what I observe on the road, parking lots, malls etc., I believe cell phone users spend a LOT more time on their cellphones than I ever spent on my cordless phone. It was never my default phone of choice in my home. There was a recent Dateline? or similar show that had to go outside the U.S. to find a firm willing to test cellphones for their radiation levels within a simulated brain. No firm that does this type work for the big cellphone mfrs was going to help in an expose. The test uses a cavity shaped like a 1/2 of a human skull, as if lying on its side. The cavity is filled with a fluid designed to simulate the brain's viscosity etc. The receiving probe is suspended withn the fluid. The cellphone is held under the cavity in postitions designed to simulate the many ways users hold phones to their heads. Many models were tested. Nearly all failed to meet the stated requirements in at least one position. Some did not meet in any reasonable position. Notable: The best results were obtained with a newer Motorola model that opens to form a 135o or so angle. The result is that the antenna extending from the lower portion is inverted away from the head, moreso than the usual straight-line design. The measured results were very good, again pointing out the importance of the distance involved. If the antenna is viewed as a point source, the power diminishes with the cube of the distance, i.e. 1/d**3. The program pointed out that the standard to be met may or may not be safe, but only addressed actual measurements compared to the standard. George Alspaugh mkelson%es@interlock.lexmark.com on 12/01/99 02:10:56 PM Please respond to mkelson%es@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? In a follow up to the same article a reader asks: What about 900+ MHz cordless phones? Are they in the same microwave frequency? They seem to be more common than cell phones, and people tend to talk longer with cordless phones. What's the health risk of those? I have often been curious about possible health hazards with these also. I do suppose, though, that the amount of power coming from a cordless phone is at least several magnitudes smaller than from a cell phone. Max Kelson Evans Sutherland - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
In a follow up to the same article a reader asks: What about 900+ MHz cordless phones? Are they in the same microwave frequency? They seem to be more common than cell phones, and people tend to talk longer with cordless phones. What's the health risk of those? I have often been curious about possible health hazards with these also. I do suppose, though, that the amount of power coming from a cordless phone is at least several magnitudes smaller than from a cell phone. Max Kelson Evans Sutherland -Original Message- From: b...@anritsu.com [mailto:b...@anritsu.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 10:35 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: Cell Phone Hazards? I think the most important point made by the article of Is your cell phone killing you? in Zdnn is this: We found evidence of genetic damage in human blood, said George Carlo, WTR's chairman. We have suggestions of excessive mortality from brain cancers among wireless phone users, and we have very clear evidence of a statistically significant higher risk of neuroepithelial tumors. ... and Many signs point to DNA damage as the likely culprit. Adey has found a link between low-intensity microwaves and DNA damage in rat brain cells. It is not important, on the other hand, whether or what analogy exists between Microwave fields from cell phone and silicone breast implants, tobacco, and Low Frequency EM Fields from power lines. If we already have very reliable statistic data showing the hazard to cell phone users. Let's try to prevent the damage first before finding the real biological mechanism behind the damage. Barry Ma -- From: geor...@lexmark.com, on 11/30/99 12:13 PM: The referenced article ponders why there might be a health effect if there is little or no heating of human tissue. The present standards for safe levels of RFR for the Western world are predicated on the assumption that biological effects are only due to the heating effect. There have been many published articles about cancers caused by those who worked with or near high powered X-ray or radar equipment that can effect heating of body tissues. In fact, RF generators have been used over patients arms or legs to intentionally apply heat therapy to the inner portions of these limbs. Oddly, only Russia focused on the possible biological effects of long term exposure to low level radiation. As a result, they set limits that were two orders of magnitude below those of the Western world. The truth is that no one knows what the health effects might be from long term exposure to low level radiation. As some have pointed out, distance is a critical element of exposure. Cellphone antenna are often virtually touching the users skull. Even with very low RF power out, they can produce levels within the head that are far higher than that from radio and TV transmitters that are a mile or so away. It is a recent phenomena for the average person to be exposed to long term low level radiation via the use of cheap personal transmitters. Even laborers who have used two way radios for decades did not spend the same time with the antenna pressed to their face as the typical cellphone user. Only time and more studies will reveal the truth. However, once all of the class action money has been rung out of the tobacco companies, do not be surprised if next BIG class action suits head in the direction of cellphone users. George Alspaugh -- On Tue, 30 November 1999, rbus...@es.com wrote: The following article was presented this morning on ZDNET with regard to the safety of Cell phones. Thought some of you might be interested. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2401220,00.html - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your
Cell Phone Hazards?
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 i-Spec IT - The IEC 60950 Compliance Guide http://www.i-spec.com From: geor...@lexmark.com The referenced article ponders why there might be a health effect if there is little or no heating of human tissue. The present standards for safe levels of RFR for the Western world are predicated on the assumption that biological effects are only due to the heating effect. There have been many published articles about cancers caused by those who worked with or near high powered X-ray or radar equipment that can effect heating of body tissues. In fact, RF generators have been used over patients arms or legs to intentionally apply heat therapy to the inner portions of these limbs. Oddly, only Russia focused on the possible biological effects of long term exposure to low level radiation. As a result, they set limits that were two orders of magnitude below those of the Western world. The truth is that no one knows what the health effects might be from long term exposure to low level radiation. As some have pointed out, distance is a critical element of exposure. Cellphone antenna are often virtually touching the users skull. Even with very low RF power out, they can produce levels within the head that are far higher than that from radio and TV transmitters that are a mile or so away. It is a recent phenomena for the average person to be exposed to long term low level radiation via the use of cheap personal transmitters. Even laborers who have used two way radios for decades did not spend the same time with the antenna pressed to their face as the typical cellphone user. Only time and more studies will reveal the truth. However, once all of the class action money has been rung out of the tobacco companies, do not be surprised if next BIG class action suits head in the direction of cellphone users. George Alspaugh (Views are based on personal knowledge and opinions.) - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
I think the most important point made by the article of Is your cell phone killing you? in Zdnn is this: We found evidence of genetic damage in human blood, said George Carlo, WTR's chairman. We have suggestions of excessive mortality from brain cancers among wireless phone users, and we have very clear evidence of a statistically significant higher risk of neuroepithelial tumors. ... and Many signs point to DNA damage as the likely culprit. Adey has found a link between low-intensity microwaves and DNA damage in rat brain cells. It is not important, on the other hand, whether or what analogy exists between Microwave fields from cell phone and silicone breast implants, tobacco, and Low Frequency EM Fields from power lines. If we already have very reliable statistic data showing the hazard to cell phone users. Let's try to prevent the damage first before finding the real biological mechanism behind the damage. Barry Ma -- From: geor...@lexmark.com, on 11/30/99 12:13 PM: The referenced article ponders why there might be a health effect if there is little or no heating of human tissue. The present standards for safe levels of RFR for the Western world are predicated on the assumption that biological effects are only due to the heating effect. There have been many published articles about cancers caused by those who worked with or near high powered X-ray or radar equipment that can effect heating of body tissues. In fact, RF generators have been used over patients arms or legs to intentionally apply heat therapy to the inner portions of these limbs. Oddly, only Russia focused on the possible biological effects of long term exposure to low level radiation. As a result, they set limits that were two orders of magnitude below those of the Western world. The truth is that no one knows what the health effects might be from long term exposure to low level radiation. As some have pointed out, distance is a critical element of exposure. Cellphone antenna are often virtually touching the users skull. Even with very low RF power out, they can produce levels within the head that are far higher than that from radio and TV transmitters that are a mile or so away. It is a recent phenomena for the average person to be exposed to long term low level radiation via the use of cheap personal transmitters. Even laborers who have used two way radios for decades did not spend the same time with the antenna pressed to their face as the typical cellphone user. Only time and more studies will reveal the truth. However, once all of the class action money has been rung out of the tobacco companies, do not be surprised if next BIG class action suits head in the direction of cellphone users. George Alspaugh -- On Tue, 30 November 1999, rbus...@es.com wrote: The following article was presented this morning on ZDNET with regard to the safety of Cell phones. Thought some of you might be interested. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2401220,00.html - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
Cell Phone Hazards?
The following article was presented this morning on ZDNET with regard to the safety of Cell phones. Thought some of you might be interested. http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2401220,00.html http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2401220,00.html - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
