On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Jay Gustafson wrote: > This subject line may be a bit off topic for this list, however safe RF exposure > limits is some what of a pet peeve with me so I'll chime in any way. > > Although I can agree with the math and over all fact of the calculations below I > have to disagree with the assumption that FCC guidelines on safe RF emissions near > a persons body are adequate. There is nothing to say that even 150mW is truly > safe when pressed up against human tissue. I'm not trying to dismiss what the FCC > says is safe, I'm just saying that as time goes on we learn more about the effects > of RF against human tissue. Also keep in mind that the FCC has to consider what > impact it would have on the cellular industry if they lowered the safe limit. <RANT mode="scientific"> Note that the cellular industry is _far_ from the only industry that would be effected. Broadcast media, aviation, and police forces all broadcast EM radiation at levels that can fall within the regulations. > > It has been proven that RF heats human body tissue. The effects are accumulative > over time just like defrosting food in a microwave on low power will eventually > cook the food if you run it long enough. This is unmitigated bullshit. Food being thawed/cooked in a microwave has no metabolism, and cannot redistribute/lose the heat being added except by conduction. Your body is heated more, and subjected to more damaging EM radiation lounging on the beach for an hour than by using a cellphone for a month. And don't you _dare_ take a sauna if you are worried about "cooking" your innards. > Obviously a microwave has considerably > more power than your cell phone, but you get the idea. Also, what is safe for one > person may not be safe for another. Just like some people have a higher tolerance > to certain cancer causing substances (like smoking) some people may have higher > (or lower) tolerances to RF. > > I predict that eventually cell phones of today will be found unsafe to use so > close to the human body. Until then I plan use best efforts to lower my exposure > by limiting my talk time, and using my hands-free head set - I urge my friends to > do the same. > I predict that eventually people will learn to make analysis based on proper analogies and real data, instead of wild supposition and alarmist logical leaps. I can conceive of potential interactions, but I have yet to hear of any scientific research that actually tried to identify any possible _mechanisms_ for the RF from a cellphone to be a problem. In my mind this makes the larger volume of the available research on the topic suspect. It is relatively simple to set up an experiment where you beam RF frequencies at a sample representative of the tissue you are interested in and examine the transmitted and scattered frequencies for signs of interaction. Instead I read about experiments where they beam rats to see if they act differently, or survey level studies of cellphone users. These studies are hardly precise enough to detect subtle biological effects within a short time, and are often subject to additional factors that are left unaccounted for by the researchers. The problems attributed to IR and lower RF radiation are often subtle enough to require more rigor than that required to prove or disprove cold fusion. </rant> -- Daniel Taylor dante at plethora.net And Carthage must be destroyed!