Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

"HarryHydro" wrote in message
...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

------------

No power level is "safe". Safe enough is another matter and is subject to
one's beliefs. There is very little science behind the establishment of safe
levels.

Ed, NM2K

Ed Cregger wrote:
"HarryHydro" wrote in message
...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

------------

No power level is "safe". Safe enough is another matter and is subject to
one's beliefs. There is very little science behind the establishment of safe
levels.

True enough, but for the naysayers, I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ed Cregger wrote:
"HarryHydro" wrote in message

...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

------------

No power level is "safe". Safe enough is another matter and is subject
to
one's beliefs. There is very little science behind the establishment of
safe
levels.

True enough, but for the naysayers, I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Why not go out in the sun without a hat?
Show me who has been harmed with a 5w Rf source taped to their head? (unless
they were sniffing exhaust or some other uncounted variable at the same
time)

Now stand in front of an XM terrestrial station - A bit too much I'd say,
but still can't prove it. Never gave the Blackberry sites a second thought.

JB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ed Cregger wrote:
"HarryHydro" wrote in message

...
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry
------------

No power level is "safe". Safe enough is another matter and is subject
to
one's beliefs. There is very little science behind the establishment of
safe
levels.
True enough, but for the naysayers, I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Why not go out in the sun without a hat?
Show me who has been harmed with a 5w Rf source taped to their head? (unless
they were sniffing exhaust or some other uncounted variable at the same
time)

Nope, that isn't the question. I neither confirm nor deny that long term
exposure to FR at frequencies near those used in microwave ovens is
harmful. Heck near field exposure may even be beneficial. I'm not saying
one way or the other.

The great irony is that people buy their children cell phones, and the
kids spend every free minute with them pressed to their head, but if we
were to run an experiment that exposed the kids to RF in an exact analog
of what they are doing anyhow, they would go nuts - as well they should!
Would you?

I'm looking for those who think it isn't dangerous to have the courage
of their convictions.

Haven't found any yet. They actually might be on to something, they just
don't know it.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:00:22 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

I'm looking for those who think it isn't dangerous to have the courage
of their convictions.

Hi Mike,

Unfortunately, by your conjecture
I always issue the challenge of
taping a wire from a 5 watt RF source to their temple.
this implies a co-equivalent risk where neither activity have any data
to support that a risk exists. Merely having a fear does not create
that missing data or Saddam's WMD would have been on display in the
white house rose garden.

Haven't found any yet. They actually might be on to something, they just
don't know it.

They actually might be grossly ignorant is more appropriate. The
positive spin is that with great fortune in luck, desire, or hope that
they (there is nothing "actual" involved) might (the illusions of a
gambler betting against the house) be on to something (a fog of
correlation masquerading as causation).

Those with the courage of conviction have more self-assurance than to
drop their lives to join any contest in a flood of whim. What your
challenge would reveal is quite the opposite: those who lack
faculties, are insecure, and hopelessly embrace the latest
superstition. Some swing their banners here without needing an
inviting challenge.

Let's simply return to:
With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna.
and examine this from first principles.

5 feet away from an uncalibrated antenna (the emission is at twice the
"2.4 gig antenna" whatever that means) is also 15 wavelengths away
(probably more, but 15 is certainly instructive). Is this a gain
antenna? That would remove some of the hot-house steam from this
orchid's appeal. The breathless "yes, 100mW" is the dazzle of looking
at the sun through binoculars.

However, let's put the issue of gain aside and accept this valuation,
along with the only known facts - that same 15 wavelength separation.
A simple model performed using a free version of EZNEC, employing a
clear path, no disturbing environment (like a skull), and perfect,
lossless matching of source and load gives a path loss of 45dB. That
report of "yes, 100mW" requires the Blackberry to source something
closer to 5KW.

It is more likely that -10dbW was "actually" -10dBm; and I am tempting
credulity to even allow that.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

HarryHydro wrote:
Hi Folks:
We've been having intermittent problems with 'interference' on
6.8 gig Alcatel radios and 5.8 gig (freeband) Proxim radios. I just
came into the radio shack, turned on the 'widow maker', a big heavy
spectrum analyzer, and instead of finding 5.8GHz internerence, I
found VERY strong pulses of RF around 4.9GHz. With my Blackberry about
5 feet away, the analyzer is showing a -10dbW (yes, 100mW) on a 2.4
gig antenna. It must be saturating the front ends. This Blackberry
comes through speakers with the preamps, and even televisions a good
10 feet away! It makes the computer monitor's screen shake almost
like the degauss! (when placed close). And, I suspect it does this
with it next to my head also, straight out the front and back of the
phone.
I was just looking at 4.9gig info and it seems to be allocated to
public safety. Is it also WiFi? The WiFi on this phone is off, at
least in the 'Connections', but that doesn't suprise me as laptops
seem to transmit on WiFi while connected to LAN. (Laptops' WiFi
knocks off the Proxim's, also)
Anyone ever scoped out the RF power from a Blackberry? Can this be
safe power levels?
Harry

HarryHydro:

Anyway, none of my previous posts have been directly made to you;
however, I am sure you can "intuit" my fears/worries/considerations and
cautions involving the subject(s) you have introduced here ...

In closing, "Keep On Cookin', Men!" (should be considered equiv. to
"Keep On Truckin', Men!") WINK

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

...
In closing, "Keep On Cookin', Men!" (should be considered equiv. to
"Keep On Truckin', Men!") WINK

Regards,
JS

This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/...=2008&public=0

and is VERY similar to how studies such as the one mentioned he

http://www.rense.com/general26/2yrs.htm

are being ignored.

But then, some will attempt to dismiss all this to "environmental
wackos"--"Darwin Awards" coming soon!

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This problem, IMHO, demonstrates a 1:1 relationship to the problem of
cell phones and why any harm they might exhibit would be "masked" by
financial, power and special/political interests.

"IEEE Spectrum" has had a couple of articles on tumors
caused by cell phones. They don't seem to be life-
threatening but maybe "where there's smoke ..."?

1. Can cell phones promote brain tumors the INTERPHONE study?
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 2, April 2005 Page(s):137 - 138
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1487813

2. The risk of acoustic neuromas from using cell phones
Lin, J.C.; Antennas and Propagation Magazine, IEEE
Volume 47, Issue 1, Feb 2005 Page(s):183 - 185
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2005.1436270

Cecil:

I simply find it "strange", that the presumption that exposure to forms
of radiation (RF in this case) is always considered safe until
proved/proven harmful. The same goes for chemicals not existing in
nature and to which the human body (or any biological organisms for that
matter) has never been exposed. It seems all which is needed is to
chant a "paranoid/wacko" mantra and such forms of thought are naturally
generated in the human mind. The presumption, so generated, seems to
be, "If we have never seen it before, if we have never been exposed to
it before, maybe it is actually good for us!"

I mean, is this prudent thinking/behavior? Am I the only one to think
the proof should rest with those introducing the potential harmful
exposure/materials and their SAFETY--rather than those being exposed
having to prove its' harm in order to effect their own safety?

If you look at the parallels between how tobacco was allowed to
continue, without even a warning and for such a lengthy period, it all
revolved over disputing studies/good-science which kept pointing to the
dangers ... indeed, into the 70' and well beyond, the warning that
"smoking was bad" was met with those chanting the myths of flawed
studies ...

What truly amazes me is the fact that simple "safeguards" are available
to vastly reduce risk (at least with cell phones.) What has become so
ingrained into our thinking/media which can make otherwise responsible
men and women so irresponsible ... money, greed, corruption, insanity?

Someone here has thinking that is "a bit off", if it is me--I only pray
rationality will come home ... I will continue to "re-think my
thinking", maybe I will eventually see it ... until then, I do keep
abreast of the "Rush Limbaugh Manta"--"Things are Good and Getting
Better, don't trust your eyes, mind and thinking--they lie!" It simply
does NOT motivate me "To Believe!"

I am willing to listen to any studies which find that cell phone
radiation is making me smarter, handsomer, wittier, richer and more
sexually attractive to the ladies, etc. ;-) Just show me some honest,
unbiased studies which deal on REAL SCIENCE ... look at Love Canal in
New York and the battle to prove, legally, that these chemicals being
dumped into the environment were harming/killing people! ... how many
examples before one chooses to error on the side of caution?

Let me give you a "hard case example", perhaps 99%+ of the snakes in the
world are NOT POISONOUS--would I be prudent to consider the next snake I
see non-poisonous and of NO danger? I think not ... heck, just a
relatively "harmless bite" will get my attention! (not to mention the
danger of infection.)

Regards,
JS