Are 5 GHz telephones safe?

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Don Pearce wrote:

I suggest you check the work of Persinger and others concerning effects of low
level mag fields and modulations.


I suggest you try and find any evidence that any mobile phone,
anywhere has ever caused anybody actual harm by way of its RF field.

All you will find is urban myth.

Remains to be seen since cancer takes up to 30yrs to manifest.
I'll let you know the definitive opinion around 2020

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Don Pearce]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:00:18 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

I suggest you check the work of Persinger and others concerning effects of low
level mag fields and modulations.

I'm sorry _ I misread what you wrote here. Mobile phones don't
generate mag fields. The earth, however, does and to modulate it all
you need to do is turn round.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:00:18 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


I suggest you check the work of Persinger and others concerning effects of low
level mag fields and modulations.


I'm sorry _ I misread what you wrote here. Mobile phones don't
generate mag fields. The earth, however, does and to modulate it all
you need to do is turn round.

The implications of Persinger's work goes beyond low level mag fields, and
mainly concerns modulations. I would not have believed effects were possible as
detailed, except that it does seem incontravertible.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:35:37 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

Persinger's work has been comprehensively discredited.

References?


Nature - as good as it gets.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/041206-10.html

I'm familiar with it, as well as Persinger's refutation.

So I really didn't need to tell you, then.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:35:37 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


Persinger's work has been comprehensively discredited.

References?


Nature - as good as it gets.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/041206-10.html

I'm familiar with it, as well as Persinger's refutation.


So I really didn't need to tell you, then.

I don't consider it to be anything like a 'comprehensive discrediting'.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/pf/041206-10_pf.html

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Rich The Newsgropup Wacko]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:41:55 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

Not "vastly more intense" than holding a transmitter next to the brain on a
regular basis for hours a week.
Nor at the more absorbable high frequencies of mobile phones.

This could be "poetic justice". The people who obsessively compulsively
talk on the telephone 24/7 _should_ die.

Preferably sooner than later.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Terry Given]

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:47:29 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:52:23 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:



On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:35:37 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:




Persinger's work has been comprehensively discredited.


References?



Nature - as good as it gets.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/041206-10.html


I'm familiar with it, as well as Persinger's refutation.



So I really didn't need to tell you, then.


I don't consider it to be anything like a 'comprehensive
discrediting'.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/pf/041206-10_pf.html



Nonetheless, it is.


One report in Nature about a researcher who could not reproduce a
result, submitted to another journal?
You think that is all it takes to 'comprehensive discredit' the work
of many people over decades? [Persinger is not alone in getting the
results he gets]



Absolutely, repeatability is what this is all about. The same thing
happened over cold fusion.


Only after numerous prestigious teams had spent months in attempting a
replication. Not because Billybob said he couldn't do it.

Cold fusion might not have been such a good straw man. I forget the
phrase currently used in lieu of cold fusion - but a large amount of
money is currently being spent on it - looks like Pons et al were
nowhere near as "wrong" as the failure to replicate their initial
experiment suggested.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:17:11 +0000, the renowned John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Taylor <ken@home.nz> wrote (in
HX5Sd.2783$1S4.324253@news.xtra.co.nz&gt about 'Are 5 GHz telephones
safe?', on Mon, 21 Feb 2005:

You have no table or other room? Must be a small house!

Maybe he lives in a barrel, like Diogenes.

An orker?

http://www.speff.com/ork.gif



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ian Stirling wrote:

Iwo Mergler <Iwo_dot_Mergler@soton.sc.philips.com> wrote:

Ian Stirling wrote:
Dwayne <ddc762@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Err, you're so far off that it's ridiculous.
Microwaves operate on 2.45 (or is it 54) GHz.

Yep, 2.45GHz. Smack in the middle of the band
for WiFi, Bluetooth and a number of other
wireless toys.

Other way round - bluetooth and ... are all in the band allocated
for microwave ovens.

Yes, the microwave ovens were there first!

--
Beware of those who suffer from delusions of adequacy!

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Treeline <treeline12345@yahoo.com>
wrote (in <3851faF5jpaquU1@individual.net&gt about 'Are 5 GHz telephones
safe?', on Wed, 23 Feb 2005:

One way to greatly reduce any problem is to
use a headset and have the transmission or phone or radio-type part as
far away from the brain as possible, let's say, one the belt would be
reasonable. Then that foot or two from the head buys a whole lot of
safety, yes???????

There have even been reports that indicated that such a separation did
NOT have a good effect, but that was later refuted. If I were worried, I
wouldn't have the phone on a belt but hand-held.

If it's 1/r-cubed, then that should be many orders of magnitude of
safety added. As long as it's not 1/r which only occurs when people live
near wires which are separated for safety in case of storms and above
ground as opposed to ordinary household wires and appliances.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.

Any thoughts? Will I get my usual share of flames now?

Does anyone know the formula for the radiation effect? Antenna people
should know. I know about the high voltage wires, not this low voltage
but high frequency stuff.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Terry Given]

Treeline wrote:

"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C5YRd.1852$OU1.1845@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

Just got a new DSS 3 station 5.x GHz cordless telephone for the house. Boy,
does it work great, but the thought has occurred to me that these handsets
are emitting microwave radiation, right next to the brain, and we all know
what microwaves are good for .... making popcorn SO, am I and my
innocent family turning out brains into popcorn with these things??


Since I have gotten a lot of flack here and given some, let me suggest
some things that I have yet to read in any of the many replies. I read
a little more than half because of my Outlook Express and news supplier.

The radiation, depending on the wires, mayb be at the general
forumla rate over 1/r-cubed. R is the distance, assuming the wires
are close together and cancelling out. Not sure about your high frequency
radiation. I was mostly interested in power lines and low frequencies.
So it was either 1/r-cubed or 1/r-squared, unless one lived beneath transmission
wires. I am not familiar with radio waves. I am a little familiar with the
medical research on both. There's enough smoke here to take a little
precaution for very little effort or expense.

One way to greatly reduce any problem is to
use a headset and have the transmission or phone or radio-type part as far
away from the brain as possible, let's say, one the belt would be reasonable.
Then that foot or two from the head buys a whole lot of safety, yes???????

a badly designed "tumour cord" (as I heard a yuppy refer to it once) can
actually make the problem worse - ie more radiation delivered to head
than by holding cellphone there.

If it's 1/r-cubed, then that should be many orders of magnitude of safety
added. As long as it's not 1/r which only occurs when people live near
wires which are separated for safety in case of storms and above ground
as opposed to ordinary household wires and appliances.

Any thoughts? Will I get my usual share of flames now?

Does anyone know the formula for the radiation effect? Antenna
people should know. I know about the high voltage wires, not this
low voltage but high frequency stuff.

 

[Treeline]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:g6094SBbyYHCFwMe@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Treeline <treeline12345@yahoo.com
wrote (in <3851faF5jpaquU1@individual.net&gt about 'Are 5 GHz telephones
safe?', on Wed, 23 Feb 2005:

One way to greatly reduce any problem is to
use a headset and have the transmission or phone or radio-type part as
far away from the brain as possible, let's say, one the belt would be
reasonable. Then that foot or two from the head buys a whole lot of
safety, yes???????

There have even been reports that indicated that such a separation did
NOT have a good effect, but that was later refuted. If I were worried, I
wouldn't have the phone on a belt but hand-held.

If it's 1/r-cubed, then that should be many orders of magnitude of
safety added. As long as it's not 1/r which only occurs when people live
near wires which are separated for safety in case of storms and above
ground as opposed to ordinary household wires and appliances.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.

I disagree. In fact, all of these laws are extraordinarily applicable
in practical situations, unless you have never tested your assertion.
Have you? I have measured the electromagnetic radiations from
high-power lines and it was indeed 1/r.

I have also tested the 1/r-cubed with wires closely connected
and there is extremely fast drop-off. In fact, just tonight I found
my gauss meter, or tesla, whatever you prefer. And measured
some the radiation from some high-voltage coils. And it dropped
from around 10 milliGauss (1 microTesla) to .6 milliGauss within 2 feet.
In the 60 Hz frequency on this side of the pond.

Do you have a gauss meter? I suggest, since you are a consultant,
you should get one and test. Or just buy a cheap coil and connect
it to a digital voltmeter. As a consultant you have to be brave and
to pretend to know the answers, but come on, dude, what you said
above is completely wrong. But I envy your ability to say that so
flatly. I just can't do that black is white routine as you just did.
I'll be doomed to do research.

Any thoughts? Will I get my usual share of flames now?

Does anyone know the formula for the radiation effect? Antenna people
should know. I know about the high voltage wires, not this low voltage
but high frequency stuff.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.

All of these law are reliable unless you're intoxicated or a Luddite.
I looked at your web site. You have lots of degrees so you must a
good education. At least a master's or equivalent in e.e.? Have you been
drinking or what? This power law is probably the most fundamental
and easiest of ALL THE LAWS to observe in practical situations.
Come on, stop trolling, you must know better than this.

If you don't believe me start with a light bulb and a tape measure...
It works. But in that case it's the square of the distance...

Back into the pub with you

Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:18:58 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


I suggest you check the work of Persinger and others concerning effects of low
level mag fields and modulations.


I suggest you try and find any evidence that any mobile phone,
anywhere has ever caused anybody actual harm by way of its RF field.

All you will find is urban myth.

Remains to be seen since cancer takes up to 30yrs to manifest.
I'll let you know the definitive opinion around 2020


As I said, we have lived in similar, but vastly more intense radio
fields for sixty years. You can voice a definitive opinion right now-
there is no problem.

Not "vastly more intense" than holding a transmitter next to the brain on a
regular basis for hours a week.
Nor at the more absorbable high frequencies of mobile phones.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Don Pearce]

On 22 Feb 2005 11:30:58 GMT, Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
snip
I suggest you try and find any evidence that any mobile phone,
anywhere has ever caused anybody actual harm by way of its RF field.

All you will find is urban myth.

It's caused me harm.
By a bizarre coincidence of events, a mobile ringing on top of a CDROM
drive with its cover off caused the drive to eject, and push a coffee
cup over on my head.

I've always known that coffee is bad for you. This proves it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Treeline]

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.02.25.00.31.52.633076@example.net...

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:59:11 -0500, Treeline wrote:
"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message

Just FYI, Treeline, a magnetometer is not a field strength meter. It
doesn't measure "radiation", it measures the magnetic component of a
field.

So you're not only full of smoke, but out of line denigrating Mr.
Woodgate.

I'm always out of line but I was not denigrating Mr. Woodgate. I was just bringing up the place
where what he said was not true.

The problem is, what he said _is_ true, and your changing the subject in
an effort to make him wrong - or maybe call it "using a different kind of
equipment to refute his statements" is at best marginal, and at worst
fraudulent.

What he said is not true for "ALL" and that's what I was bitching about.
It's not true for ELF which does follow the simple power law because
ELF follows anything. You can't stop ELF. It's like the current administration.
What a great pun, if I may say so.

So I stand behind my original assertion.

Let me give you an anecdote. Mr. Woodgate is a revered fellow.
So is Albert Einstein, so here this goes:

One time Wolfgang Pauli went to the blackboard and said:
"What Einstein says is not so stupid..."

What that has to do with the power law is well empowering

Of course you get different numbers with a magnetometer than you get with
a field strength meter! They're measuring different things!

Like what? Clue me in, that's why I post to the internet.

What's the different between my measuring the milliGauss of an ELF field
and whatever you measure with your field strength meters?

Are you sure it's not the same thing, just a different frequency?

I am measuring the 60 Hz field in terms of magnetism because that is what the meter converts it to
but it is a field measurement. I am really measuring the 60 Hz emanations, discharges, effusions,
et cetera. I am calling it milliGauss because that is what the meter says but it's really measuring
the 60 Hz field.

Now what does your field meter measure and how? I could look this up on the internet but forgive
me. It's snowed out and I have to go and make track in the snow.

Chew on that while you think up more aspersions to cast upon me.

If I'm wrong, then give it to me logically. You're using ad hominem arguments.
That won't work with me. Whoever said I was human?

You're out of line measuring something different from what he is
measuring, and then claiming he's wrong because your numbers don't
match.

That's the same kind of insidious weaseling that got antismokerism
installed as the new national religion.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <421a1b4e$0$25564$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Ian
Stirling wrote:

Dwayne <ddc762@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C5YRd.1852$OU1.1845@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Just got a new DSS 3 station 5.x GHz cordless telephone for the house.
Boy, does it work great, but the thought has occurred to me that these
handsets are emitting microwave radiation, right next to the brain, and we
all know what microwaves are good for .... making popcorn SO, am I
and my innocent family turning out brains into popcorn with these things??


Microwaves opperate at 2x10^14 Hz, this is 42,850 TIMES your cordless phone
(1GHz= 10^9 Hz). Plus you oven is most likely 800-1000Watts, and you phone
is few watts at best.

Err, you're so far off that it's ridiculous.
Microwaves operate on 2.45 (or is it 54) GHz.
3*10^8m/s /2*10^14Hz = 1.5*10^-6m, or what's commonly called infra-red.
(treble the frequency and you get green)

Microwaves operate at 2.4 or so GHz. 2.4 GHz is a popular frequency for
cordless phones.
Other popular frequencies for cordless phones range from a bit under a
GHz to a few GHz but less than 10. Some may be only a few hundred MHz.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Michael A. Terrell
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote (in <421D24CC.9B5A87C4@earthlink.net>
) about 'Are 5 GHz telephones safe?', on Thu, 24 Feb 2005:

Ian Stirling wrote:

Iwo Mergler <Iwo_dot_Mergler@soton.sc.philips.com> wrote:

Ian Stirling wrote:
Dwayne <ddc762@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Err, you're so far off that it's ridiculous.
Microwaves operate on 2.45 (or is it 54) GHz.

Yep, 2.45GHz. Smack in the middle of the band
for WiFi, Bluetooth and a number of other
wireless toys.

Other way round - bluetooth and ... are all in the band allocated
for microwave ovens.

Yes, the microwave ovens were there first!

Information from the IEC:

The new International Standard IEC 62209-1 was developed jointly by the
IEC, by the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
(CENELEC) and by the IEEE, who worked together informally through common
membership in various technical committees. This is the first of a
multi-part series of standards and it covers devices, such as mobile
phones, with a frequency range of 300 MHz to 3 GHz.

This is about measuring SAR by a method compatible with both European
and US exposure provisions.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk