"Jim Lux" wrote in message
...

The very last study, on the very last page with the second paragraph
offers:
"For an effectively transmitted power of 0.25 W,
the maximum averaged SAR values in both cubic
and arbitrary-shaped volumes are, respectively, about
1.72 and 2.55 W kg-1 for 1g and
0.98 and 1.73 W kg-1 for 10 g of tissue."

The last study gives us more exposure data (the discussion of which
inevitably scatters in the rhetorical wind of debate). I can only
wonder if the reader can draw a conclusion from this quoted sentence
that can be expressed in temperature rise. There's enough data to do
this, only intelligence remains to perform.



that's pretty simple.. Assume that the tissue has the specific heat of
water. 1 Joule will raise the temperature of 1 gram of water about 1/4
degree C..

So, dump 2.55W/kg and you get about 0.0006 degree rise per second.
Hang on the phone for, say, 10 minutes (600 seconds) and you'll get a
temperature rise of a bit less than 1/2 degree C.

For comparison:
putting your head in sunlight results in an incident flux of about
1kW/square meter (peak). Assuming skin reflectivity of 0.36, the flux
being absorbed is about 640W/square meter. Let's assume that the energy
is absorbed in the first centimeter of your skin/bone, and that your
head is a circle about 10cm in radius (e.g. 314 square centimeters)..
That works out to about 20 watts total power being absorbed (compare to
the 0.25W RF in the example above). Again, let's say that the density
is 1g/cc, so the 20W is being dumped into 0.314 kg, or a SAR of 64 W/kg.

That's a rise of 0.015 degree/second, or 10 degrees in 10 minutes. In
reality, you won't see that much rise, because bloodflow carries some of
the heat away, and so does convection.



That was my point restated ever so diligently.

After reading 1/4 of the "Biological studies..." it is interesting. But we
need to remember that experiments only become valid when repeated numerous
times. As these are only summaries, they are hard to compare and we loose
that without having the full experiment laid out before us. I have tended
to throw away those that didn't describe the frequency and field strength in
some way as less than anecdotal.

I have seen data from a few of the experiments before and further
experimentation would be a good thing particularly the ones that seem to
describe low levels with certain modulation specifics. Also we need to
differentiate the studies that involved 60 Hz AC fields which do seem to
have an effect, but again more experimentation is required to try to figure
out why some of these experiments conflict.

I have performed an RF evaluation at my station and recommend prudence when
operating. I am expected to do this because I am in control of the
equipment and can make changes that may result in higher levels of exposure.
Those who go out and buy the wireless device are limited by the FCC approval
of the whole unit, and battery vs. talk time also limit the potential of
exposure and hazard to negligible.

Now as for certain people who equate that with hazards that require the
defeating of safety interlocks to prove their point? Cars are dangerous,
but most of all, people who run off the road into overpasses to prove
the point. God help them.

Real hazards are people trying to expose themselves to exhaust
fumes with the vehicle in reverse or in a closed garage or removing the
guards from lawn mowers and putting their hand in the blade or electing
someone to public office that makes selections on judges, who also pals
around with extremists and radicals, including those who hate the country
they live in and make death threats on those they hate. You can judge a
book by its cover if it is trying to tell you what is inside. Dropping some
friends just because you are running for public office says something too.
Also it seems to me that those who promote "change" without positive
solutions are really seeking to destroy.