We've faced this issue numerous times in the Fixed Wireless industry. Send me your fax number and I will send you a study we commissioned from an MIT professor 5 years ago comparing our fixed wireless 24 Ghz to higher frequency Cellular and Paging stations. Although not completely dead on point, it will implicitly exonerate wi-fi because your ERP power output falls below ours at 24 Ghz.
I also included the President of the Wireless Communications Industries Association Andrew Kreig www.wcai.com on this email with hopes he might further provide you more insight on this issue. Before transitioning into Sales, I handled Teligent's zoning work representing the company in various public jurisdictional hearings. Because we deployed our Fixed Wireless Antennas on rooftops, everyone tried to lump us in with higher RF emitters like PCS and Cellular. We correctly argued that we remain less than almost every household appliance in power output so we obtained a categorical exemption from the FCC under Federal Bulletin OET-65 which you can download from at www.fcc.gov You can find the attached documentation on Chapter 15 of the CFR's at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov /cfr_2002/octqtr/47cfr15.209.htm and http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov /cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr15.109.pdf We provide numerous universities with their aggregated last mile backhaul from a carriers POP, so I can easily state this remains an apples to apples comparison. To hammer the point home, get a baby monitor. Hold it up and show the differences in power output. Hopefully, it will make people get the message or freak out about how close they put baby monitors to children. Of course, I once appeared in San Diego where a woman worried really long and hard about the health risks to the birds that come in contact with our antennas. I so wanted to say, "our antennas make them crispy on the outside, yet still so juicy, you'll love the taste of 'em" But I digress... Wi-Fi transmits in an omnidirectional path, unlike Fixed Wireless. Therefore, it's power output remains much lower, especially as you extend further from that 3M point. Since most Wifi antennas rest on the side or top of a structure, the amount of emissions remains really, really low. At the laptop, the emissions also fall under Chapter 15 of the 47 CFR from the FCC. Check the links below for documentation based on the ERP for the general public. The threshold for ERP falls at 1.0 mw/cm2 at a distance of 3M. Because fixed wireless falls well below this ERP threshold, we qualified for a categorical exemption from the FCC. You easily could argue that because we've got an exemption and you fall below fixed wireless, you qualify for the exemption as well. 'til then. Carpe Diem. Make it a Great Day. --John MacKinnon Sales Manager Teligent www.teligent.com -----Original Message----- From: Scott Weeks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] wireless health risks : The best approach is point to the cellular issue. As you know wi-fi emits : considerably less RF than cellular and their is an exponential factor : reduction the further you move away from the body...most wi-fi is used at Definitely and the power of the signal falls off, roughly, as one over the radius squared. Graph p = 1/(r^2) and you can see the power falls off very rapidly on the positive side of the graph. The WAPs are feet away, not fractions of an inch... scott : arms length, unlike cell phones.. : Attached is the latest on the cellular issue... : : : : : : Court Upholds Cell Phone Cancer Suit Dismissal : By Mark Rockwell : October 23, 2003 : WASHINGTON--A federal court dealt another blow yesterday to the plaintiffs : in a fading $800 million cancer liability case against the wireless phone : industry. : : In a ruling yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in : Richmond, Va., backed a previous ruling by a U.S. District Court in : Baltimore that there was 'insufficient evidence to support allegations that : wireless phones cause brain cancer.' : : The ruling was probably inevitable, says Rebecca Arbogast, analyst at Legg : Mason in Washington, because the circuit court is fairly conservative and : likely to uphold the district court's decision. Probably more important, : says Arbogast, is a class action suit making its way through the same : district court that's seeking modifications of wireless handsets to shield : against radio waves. The plaintiffs in that collection of cases are arguing : that the district court unfairly kept the suits from the federal court : system, which is considered a more favorable environment than state courts : in class actions. : : The Richmond court of appeals issued a short ruling on the $800 million : cancer case brought by Christopher Newman, who alleged that prolonged use of : a wireless phone caused his brain cancer. In the ruling, the court said the : previous court's reasoning that there was insufficient evidence in the : phone's contribution to the disease was sound. : : The court's action marks yet another blow to the case that has been fading : since last year. Last October, District Court Judge Catherine Blake, who had : presided over the case for months, granted a summary judgment--essentially : dismissing the case. Blake said there wasn't enough evidence to prove the : wireless phone was responsible for the cancer. : : Verizon Wireless, one of the defendants in the case, said in an official : statement that it 'was pleased the appellate court upheld the district : court's decision' that the plaintiff's expert witnesses 'failed to provide : any scientific support' for their assertions that wireless phones cause : cancer. : : A fellow defendant, Motorola, also heralded the decision in a statement. : 'The courts have spoken and again the message is loud and clear: These : claims of health risks from mobile phones have no basis in accepted science. : Anyone pursuing such claims at present or considering them in the future : should take careful note.' : : Newman's attorney John Angelos didn't return phone calls concerning the : case. CTIA hailed the appeals court decision as a reaffirmation that there : is insufficient evidence to support cancer allegations against wireless : phones. : : ------------------------------------ : E.J. von Schaumburg : Executive Vice President : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : 3175 Route 10 East : Suite 300 : Denville, NJ : tel: (973) 659-9009 : mobile: (973) 879-4408 : ------------------------------------ : : : -----Original Message----- : From: Steve Blair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:09 PM : To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] wireless health risks : : : As I understand it 802.11b wireless LAN technology emits : non-ionizing radiation. Several years ago I looked for reports : of non-ionizing radiation on the human body. At that time there : wasn't any conclusive evidence of any negative effect. I have : not kept up with this issue so I cannot say if more conclusive : data is now available. : : -Steve : : Michael Griego wrote: : : >My standard response to something like that goes something like this: : > : >A standard wireless NIC in your laptop computer transmits at roughly : >30mW, a miniscule amount of energy. Your cellphone, on the other hand, : >transmits up to 600mW. That's 20 times the energy being radiated right : >next to your brain. How worried are you about holding that cell phone : >near your head? : > : >Not only that, our wireless LAN access points also transmit at the same : >30-60mW range. Cell phone basestations, on the other hand, routinely : >transmit at around 100 WATTS (not milliWatts). : > : >The biggest of the two points, though, is the first one. The amount of : >radiated energy is much less from a standard off-the-shelf wireless NIC : >than your cell phone. Many many people are using cell phones these : >days. : > : >-- : > : >--Mike : > : >----------------------------------- : >Michael Griego : >Wireless LAN Project Manager : >The University of Texas at Dallas : > : >********** : >Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent : Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/. : > : > : : -- : : ISC Network Engineering : The University of Pennsylvania : 3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A : Philadelphia, PA 19104 : : : voice: 215-573-8396 : fax: 215-898-9348 : : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : : ********** : Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent : Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/. : : ********** : Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/. : ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/.
