wagnere@ncar.ucar.edu (Eric Wagner) (10/19/89)
Is there any truth to the rumor that the emissions from the newer
cellular phones can be unhealthy? In particular, I have heard that
hand-held models (with their antennae located right next to the head)
have been responsible for brain/eye damage.
When I did some calculations, this damage didn't seem impossible. I
think the newer models operate on 800MHz (?). If that is true, then
the wavelength would be:
c / f = 186000 mi/sec / 800000000/sec x 5280 ft/mi = 1.2 feet
This results in a halfwave of about 7 inches (just about the size of
the skull). Is this true? Can this cause real damage? Did anyone
consider this before approving the 800MHz frequency?
Eric Wagner (wagnere@gtephx)
AGCS (formerly GTE), Phoenix (602) 582-7150
UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!hrc | att}!gtephx!wagnereillgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) (10/21/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0464m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> asuvax!gtephx!bladder! wagnere@ncar.ucar.edu (Eric Wagner) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 464, message 3 of 9 >Is there any truth to the rumor that the emissions from the newer >cellular phones can be unhealthy? In particular,...hand-held models... >have been responsible for brain/eye damage. I read about the same thing. I personally don't think it would have any effect on an individual unless they had a 7" antenna stuck in their skull. I wonder (seriously!) about individuals that have pins and such in their bodies and the half-wave matching effects around a particular frequency. Any ideas? ken ******************************* ****************************** * "Maybe we should drop an H- * * Kenneth Illgen * * bomb on them".. Hawkeye * * HQUSAF Air Staff LAN * * * * The Pentagon, Washington * * "Don't try to get on my * * good side".. Col Flagg * * * illgen@hq.UUCP *******************************
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/22/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0464m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, asuvax!gtephx!bladder! wagnere@ncar.ucar.edu (Eric Wagner) writes: > Is there any truth to the rumor that the emissions from the newer > cellular phones can be unhealthy? In particular, I have heard that > hand-held models (with their antennae located right next to the head) > have been responsible for brain/eye damage. Everything is harmful today if you ask the right (wrong) person. I have been working around high RF fields of every wavelength for a quarter century. As my posting should reveal, my brain is only moderately messed up, and as of this writing, I have yet to grow my third horn:-) > When I did some calculations, this damage didn't seem impossible. I > think the newer models operate on 800MHz (?). If that is true, then > the wavelength would be: > c / f = 186000 mi/sec / 800000000/sec x 5280 ft/mi = 1.2 feet > This results in a halfwave of about 7 inches (just about the size of > the skull). Is this true? Can this cause real damage? Did anyone > consider this before approving the 800MHz frequency? So if you had done a little more homework, you would have found that the minimal transfer of energy occurs when the transferee is exactly one wave length. The Federal government considers 100 MHz to be the most harmful frequency since the human body is just over 1/2 wavelength, where the most energy is transferred. Now, getting to reality. I work almost daily around FM transmitters of the 20KW variety and effective radiated powers of around 100,000 watts. Using inverse square law, the energy being absorbed by my body is enormously greater than anything you could get from a cellular phone at any distance and is at the more harmful frequency of 100 MHz. I also spend a lot of time in front of STL antennas that emit hundreds of watts ERP at 950 MHz. In short, those of us who have spent our adult life around megawatts of RF are somewhat amused by those that are so upset over the .6 watt from a handheld cellular phone. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) (11/09/89)
The 6-inch warning is because of the imminent proximity of lawyers. The chances of anything happening even from touching the antenna is small, but by including this warning, the company has a better defense against the inevitable lawsuit. - Brian
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/10/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0497m10@vector.dallas.tx.us>, moscom!pyrite.telesci! kindred@cs.rochester.edu (David L Kindred (Dave)) writes: > My $.02 -- is the through glass antenna warning because of harm to a person > sitting too close, or because the inherent equivalent circuit of the > human body would interfere with the through glass coupling?? Now that makes more sense. As a matter of fact, someone from Stanford left a message on my machine (a voice follow-up :-)) indicating that he felt that the concern was really over harm to the cellular transmitter due to high VSWR caused by the detuning of the antenna by a human head. This would be a real concern. But I'm afraid that the real furor is from dweebs who hide under the bed over anything with the word "radiation" associated with it, even if it comes from a micro-power communications transceiver. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) (11/11/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0501m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>,john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Now that makes more sense. As a matter of fact, someone from Stanford > left a message on my machine (a voice follow-up :-)) indicating that > he felt that the concern was really over harm to the cellular > transmitter due to high VSWR caused by the detuning of the antenna by > a human head. This would be a real concern. I think a very likely explanation is that whether or not there is long-term damage done to the human head or the transmitter, the immediate problem with operations close to someone is that the signal will be absorbed to the point where the call gets dropped. This creates for the user the impression that the phone is not working properly -- and leads to complaints that come back to the manufacturer via the dealer etc. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave