Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:23:11 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

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..


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.


Thanx Jim.

Exactly. If this proves anything, it proves that those who are not
worried about stepping out into the sun, but fear exposure to their
cell phone, they will always be worried about their cell phones.

Actually, it's not quite *that* simple..

The simple analysis is just for thermal effects. One has to also ask
whether there are significant "athermal" effects. These can come from
several potential sources. First, one can consider whether the
radiation itself can do anything.. well, the photon energy at microwave
frequencies is so low that it's orders of magnitude below any known
chemical reaction's activation energy.

Or, one can consider E or H field effects. If the E field is high
enough, it can depolarize a neural membrane, for instance, and cause
false neural impulses. That would be an acute effect.

One also needs to consider peak vs average effects. One could probably
power a defibrillator from a cellphone battery quite nicely, and that
can dump a few hundred joules at just the right time to cause some
serious problems. Again, though, that's an acute, not exposure/chronic
effect.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:33:55 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

Exactly. If this proves anything, it proves that those who are not
worried about stepping out into the sun, but fear exposure to their
cell phone, they will always be worried about their cell phones.

Actually, it's not quite *that* simple..

The simple analysis is just for thermal effects. One has to also ask
whether there are significant "athermal" effects. These can come from
several potential sources. First, one can consider whether the
radiation itself can do anything.. well, the photon energy at microwave
frequencies is so low that it's orders of magnitude below any known
chemical reaction's activation energy.

Or, one can consider E or H field effects. If the E field is high
enough, it can depolarize a neural membrane, for instance, and cause
false neural impulses. That would be an acute effect.

One also needs to consider peak vs average effects. One could probably
power a defibrillator from a cellphone battery quite nicely, and that
can dump a few hundred joules at just the right time to cause some
serious problems. Again, though, that's an acute, not exposure/chronic
effect.

Hi Jim,

It IS that simple. The athermal effects you describe such as "photon
energy" is a temperature so low that for all practical purposes could
be called absolute zero. No one has suggested frost-bite induction as
a source of CNS trauma. Besides, thermal effects (or athermal) are
related to phononic energy. Phonon-Photon interaction is the
principle you are implying, and besides myself, I doubt anyone could
follow that discussion. Aside from yourself, no one here showed any
capacity to either calculate a temperature rise, or test it at the
bench. This leaves little room for dialog on the matter - hence the
plunge into shamanism.

As for the E field, a 9 volt battery clipped between the ears hardly
suffices, and electroshock therapy goes a further and most obvious
distance. The arguments put forward by those who cry caution beg for
dramatic and catastrophic effects that are unnoticed - a contradiction
on the face of it: an anticonvulsant taser wound without a mark. The
lack of substantive evidence is begged off as being undetectable (the
same contradiction) or too mysterious to have been thought of (which
is a vanity statement). My allusion to Phonons would certainly fall
into this last category, but it is an old field of established study
that is rare, not unknown.

I've calibrated defibrillators and worked with peak energy delivery
systems from millijoules to kilojoules. A cell phone does not qualify
- not even acute and chronic is several orders of magnitude below
that. Every thing about the design conspires against it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Exactly. If this proves anything, it proves that those who are not
worried about stepping out into the sun, but fear exposure to their
cell phone, they will always be worried about their cell phones.
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Really? You are kidding me, or else you don't know what you are talking
about, again, right? I mean, this is the best apple & oranges
comparison I have ever seen done by an IQ-challenged person!

Ghz cell phones, which cause a oscillations (indeed, complete
turn-abouts of the water molecules) ~one-billion times per/sec is a good
comparison to light? Who said that, the wizard of oz?

You idiot ... such oscillations cause actual changes in the cell walls
of food being cooked which can be observed ... google is your friend
wizard richard ... what was your title again? Excellent kiss-a$$ to the
real experts? "One who stands in the shadow of the big guys hoping
something will rub off?"

I should think, "Brown-Noser-Wannabe" pretty much sums up the title you
deserve, to everyones satisfaction--certainly to mine!

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Jim,

It IS that simple. ...

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Simplier than even that, indeed, causing me to coin a new term to
describe such simplicity demonstrated by a simpleton!

"RICHARD CLARK SIMPLE!"

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"Joel Koltner" wrote in
:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
at just what power intensities should we begin to worry and expect
damage? One-watt, ten-watts, one-hundred-watts, one-kilowatt,
multi-kilowatts?

There are guidelines available for this from the FCC -- it's a
function of exposure time, frequency, and of course power. The
numbers have been around for many decades now, and you might recall
some questions about it showing up on your license exam.

That being said, I'm not suggesting more studies aren't in order, just
that many people have a very mistaken impression that there aren't
already many, many studies that have tried to ascertain "safe"
exposure levels to RF. (Another thing most people aren't aware of is
that cell phone antennas are usually specifically designed to *not*
radiate "into" the head. Ham radio antennas usually aren't, yet you
see plenty of folking holding up a 5W HT to their mouths...)

Some differences are that HT conversations tend to be a lot shorter.

I'll bet my XYL spends 4 hours a day on various wireless and cell phones.
I know some who spend more. But they are convenient, they are handy. You
can walk around with them and do other things whil you are doing it. Its
a "big help" in her business.

That's okay, she thinks I'm nuts with my concern for cellphone use also.
Hopefully I'm wrong.....


Decades of living with "safe radiation levels" established for atomic
elements sources which were "re-evaluated" to downward levels many
times has made me a bit more cautious than yourself ...

We've revised them downward because we've found out more about them.

Life today is far, far safer overall than it was decades ago.

Right. Its a learning process. We've found out about a lot of things
that can do us damage.

- 73 d e Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"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.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote in
:


Thanx Jim.

Exactly. If this proves anything, it proves that those who are not
worried about stepping out into the sun, but fear exposure to their
cell phone, they will always be worried about their cell phones.

Let's approach this from first principles. The battery in the phone
is the only source of power. My own as an example has by the
manufacturers rating -
From Nokia for their 6263 model:
BL-5C 1020 mAh Capacity;
Talk time GSM up to 3 hours 20 min;
Stand-by GSM up to 11.25 days
Dump that capacity at a potential of 3.6V for the full talk time after
a fresh charge gives us 1.10 W PER HOUR.

So,I trust you are not saying that all effects from these wonderful
devices are thermal?

One of the problems I see is that frankly, there is a tactic being used
here that is strangely reverse related to the old creationist argument
of if A is wrong, or cannot be proven, then B must be the answer.

It isn't. The warming feeling I noted is almst certainly NOT an actual
thermal effect. I've touched my ear when this has happened, and it isn't
a bit warmer to the touch - it only feels warm in my "headspace".Sorry,
couldn't think of any other words to describe it.

I'm possibly nuts (not all that likely) psychosomatic (maybe, but I doubt
it) or maybe there is something happening here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:28:27 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in
:


Thanx Jim.

Exactly. If this proves anything, it proves that those who are not
worried about stepping out into the sun, but fear exposure to their
cell phone, they will always be worried about their cell phones.

Let's approach this from first principles. The battery in the phone
is the only source of power. My own as an example has by the
manufacturers rating -
From Nokia for their 6263 model:
BL-5C 1020 mAh Capacity;
Talk time GSM up to 3 hours 20 min;
Stand-by GSM up to 11.25 days
Dump that capacity at a potential of 3.6V for the full talk time after
a fresh charge gives us 1.10 W PER HOUR.

So,I trust you are not saying that all effects from these wonderful
devices are thermal?

One of the problems I see is that frankly, there is a tactic being used
here that is strangely reverse related to the old creationist argument
of if A is wrong, or cannot be proven, then B must be the answer.

It isn't. The warming feeling I noted is almst certainly NOT an actual
thermal effect. I've touched my ear when this has happened, and it isn't
a bit warmer to the touch - it only feels warm in my "headspace".Sorry,
couldn't think of any other words to describe it.

I'm possibly nuts (not all that likely) psychosomatic (maybe, but I doubt
it) or maybe there is something happening here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike,

So, you experience it as a burn, it isn't a burn, and it is as serious
as a burn, but it is otherwise inexplicable? Now THAT is an argument
for the books and sure to defy any measure, qualification, or
solution. We may as well speculate that if you fall out of bed while
dreaming of plunging off a cliff, then you die when you strike the
floor.

This is called an anecdotal report - and the Bible is full of them.
Unfortunately, theologians don't really argue the Bible, they argue
religion which has some very rigorous protocols. I don't see any
protocols observed in the anecdote and is one reason why the Vatican
rarely admits new miracles.

If it worried you as a real problem, you would probably stop it. This
is a common protocol that needs no authorization from the Pope. If
you don't stop, then perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the
diagnosis of being nuts (avoiding a real problem is NOT
psychosomatic).

If it doesn't worry you as a real problem, this is simply navel gazing
and still does not rise to psychosomatic. That's OK too, because hard
science has already finished off the substance of the issue. If you
want the science behind the "perception." I would offer that it is
only remotely associated with Physics as initiator, and backfilled
with the Ape's reflex of drawing away from the fire (the scienz of
psychology that you anticipate above).

Thus it devolves to the allowance that, yes, perhaps you might catch
fire if you used your cell phone in your sleep. That should spawn
traffic in yet another side thread that arcs away from antennas.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

Unless someone comes up with other figures (you will need the
creationist un-approved full four function calculator), it would seem
that nothing less than navel gazing can propel this thread further.

I applied similar calculations to a jalepeno pepper I ate today. I took
it out of the refrigerator in which it had stabilized at around 35
degrees. Popped it in my mouth and munched away. The pepper made my
mouth hot and it burned pretty good.

It isn't possible to do that. Given that the pepper was at 35 degrees,
it in fact should have lowered the temperature in my mouth temporarily
until blood flow could compensate.

Further inspection showed that there were no apparent blisters or
unusual redness in my mouth after eating the pepper, so the only
conclusion I can make is that the sensation I felt, I did not feel.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:28:27 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote in
:

Thanx Jim.

Exactly. If this proves anything, it proves that those who are not
worried about stepping out into the sun, but fear exposure to their
cell phone, they will always be worried about their cell phones.
Let's approach this from first principles. The battery in the phone
is the only source of power. My own as an example has by the
manufacturers rating -
From Nokia for their 6263 model:
BL-5C 1020 mAh Capacity;
Talk time GSM up to 3 hours 20 min;
Stand-by GSM up to 11.25 days
Dump that capacity at a potential of 3.6V for the full talk time after
a fresh charge gives us 1.10 W PER HOUR.
So,I trust you are not saying that all effects from these wonderful
devices are thermal?

One of the problems I see is that frankly, there is a tactic being used
here that is strangely reverse related to the old creationist argument
of if A is wrong, or cannot be proven, then B must be the answer.

It isn't. The warming feeling I noted is almst certainly NOT an actual
thermal effect. I've touched my ear when this has happened, and it isn't
a bit warmer to the touch - it only feels warm in my "headspace".Sorry,
couldn't think of any other words to describe it.

I'm possibly nuts (not all that likely) psychosomatic (maybe, but I doubt
it) or maybe there is something happening here.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike,

So, you experience it as a burn, it isn't a burn, and it is as serious
as a burn, but it is otherwise inexplicable.

Richard, I can stuff words into my mouth easily, I don't need help.

So, you experience it as a burn,

I experience it as a warming sensation

it isn't a burn

It's a warming sensation


and it is as serious as a burn,

I don't know if is a serious matter or not. I just report it. I'm not
the only one



This is called an anecdotal report - and the Bible is full of them.

C'mon, Richard. It follows then that cell phone use is proscribed by the
bible? At least according to the local Amish Bishops...

The last statement was nonsense, ant the quote it replied to wasn't much
above it.

I broke my ankle a few years back. It hurt like hell. Of course that's
anecdotal too. 8^)


If it worried you as a real problem, you would probably stop it. This
is a common protocol that needs no authorization from the Pope. If
you don't stop, then perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the
diagnosis of being nuts (avoiding a real problem is NOT
psychosomatic).

I have to carry a cell as part of my work. My average call is less than
a minute. I use it as little as possible.


If it doesn't worry you as a real problem, this is simply navel gazing
and still does not rise to psychosomatic. That's OK too, because hard
science has already finished off the substance of the issue.

For a very narrow issue. One that is not related to what I am looking at.

Thus it devolves to the allowance that, yes, perhaps you might catch
fire if you used your cell phone in your sleep. That should spawn
traffic in yet another side thread that arcs away from antennas.

From the sublime to....

Does it follow then that since I'm not at all likely to spontaneously
combust due to my cell phone use, that there are no effects?

And to think I had some hope that this might turn into a productive
discussion.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -