Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"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

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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 -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"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.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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 -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
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.
...

Funny, didn't someone just mention how it was known tobacco was harmful
to us--long before there was "proper proof."

This argument would hold much more water if microwave freqs from .9Ghz
to 20+ Ghz were not so efficient at heating/affecting water and other
polarized molecules. Now, didn't I read, somewhere, that the brain is
mainly composed of "fat"--fat IS a polarized molecule, and the brain
does contain water ...

I think most prudent men would be leery of holding a device emitting
freqs capable of cooking food next to their brain ...

Ever heard of bluetooth?

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:35:10 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I think

I'm not convinced. All I see is banner waving.

If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:35:10 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

I think

I'm not convinced. All I see is banner waving.

If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cryptic, but if reference is made to 30Mhz and below (however, John
Kanzius DOES burn sea water with ~13.56Mhz--and, our blood DOES contain,
roughly, the same concentration of salt as sea water) ... not much worry
here; But then, for decades men have been exposed to TREMENDOUS fields
of these freqs--indeed, hang a turkey on a 5kw antenna, you'll eat a
cold dinner.

On power, my bluetooth is lucky to reach 30ft. I am amazed at how far
my cell phone reaches out to contact a tower ... I do get dropouts
(queued packets are dropped because they have timed out of their "place
in line", loss-of-signal and garble-ing in the valleys in the foothills
and behind hills/mountains.

An ear-set/mic would be the best, however, I always tear the cord loose ...

The phone is always on the console in the car ... when I am home/office,
it forwards calls to the internet phone.

I never claimed I could limit my risks to an absolute zero ... only that
prudent men would worry about this subject--perhaps even enough to take
precautions, which they are capable of.

In summary, if I wish to heat a chicken leg, a burner on the stove is
best (or microwave grin.) However, I DO believe I could accomplish
the same thing with my cigarette lighter, it would just take longer.

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

LOL ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I did "stretch" the facts on one point, blood has about 1/3 the
salt content of sea water (not meaning the content of "sodium chloride"
specifically!--or, any other element ...)--however, the point was not
being made on heating blood until it "burned"--but just to do
"noticeable damage" ... I am sure you will grant me that "writers'
license." grin

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I did "stretch" the facts on one point, blood has about 1/3 the
salt content of sea water (not meaning the content of "sodium chloride"
specifically!--or, any other element ...)--however, the point was not
being made on heating blood until it "burned"--but just to do
"noticeable damage" ... I am sure you will grant me that "writers'
license." grin

Regards,
JS

That's the trouble with you people. You insinuate by "asking a question" or
making up a meaningless phrase like "noticeable damage" or "common sense
laws" in such a way that it panics the ignorant or non thinking people into
running over a cliff or voting, then you sit back and feign ignorance. Just
beware you don't get caught in your own stampede. I submit that power tools
should be rendered safe before exposing them to people with "artistic
license" or who feel themselves "not responsible" for their actions because
they are crazy.

We know that the human body can be harmed by just sitting in the sun too
long. How much RF at what frequency has or has not caused damage to those
who have been or are exposed, has been addressed only by FCC setting an
arbitrary specification without supporting data other than that supplied by
military microwave studies with respect to high powered radar. Nor do the
studies support that there is noticable damage by observing the military
safety standard or by the FCC standard that sets limits much lower, and even
lower still for those who aren't knowlegable on the subject.. So then it is
anything but an objective issue. I too have been exposed, but limited my
exposure based on time averaging, so I have encountered field-densities
thousands of times greater than a cell phone for a several minutes and
hundreds of times, for as much as an hour with no discernible effect in the
long or short term, but have encountered unknown intense fields with short
term issues, such as headache in the evening after exposure, but gone in the
morning. I have certainly encountered the same thing more often from over
exposure to "a day at the beach".

Case in point: As a nonsmoker, I have problems reworking PC boards because
my employer has no plausible deniability that any respiratory ailment I
might succumb to in later years wouldn't arguably be caused by a
self-inflicted lifestyle condition rather than an employment hazard.

In the face of other more serious health risks such as sunstroke, falling
off a tower or electrocution, RF exposure is a common sense issue for hams
and those in the business, and a non-issue for those who will never enter
restricted areas. In fact, there are far more daily hazardous things that
we encounter, as to obliterate any test data. Your Petri dish and sal****er
experiments have less credibility than the anecdotal.

It's like the illegal alien issue. Due to the lack of proper judgment and
widespread hysteria, more housekeepers and migrant workers will suffer than
gangbangers who find prison to be a climate-controlled mailing address with
a few inconveniences, but "three hots and a cot". Deportation gives
opportunity for those with plenty of drug money to do it again. All the
hysteria does is help to polarize nationalism (and foreign nationalism).

With the population of foreign nationalist gringo haters in this country
outnumbering those in Mexico, why do we need fences at all? Perhaps for a
start, we might plant more businesses in Mexico rather than having
everything shipped all the way from China.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:31:53 GMT, "JB" wrote:

then you sit back and feign ignorance.

Oh to be sure it wasn't feigned. In fact, he entirely missed the
boat. After all, upon a succinct observation comparing two exposure
problems:
If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.
Brett couldn't distinguish one as a source of heating from the other
as a source of ionization where his own off-topic and ill-understood
introduction of the problems of ionizing radiation were the primary
issues.

There's really no point in sustaining his illiteracy, and chastising
would be a sin of mocking the afflicted.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:58 -0700, John Smith
wrote:
I never claimed
What you haven't claimed could fill that popular page-turner, the
Congressional Record.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I did "stretch" the facts on one point, blood has about 1/3 the
salt content of sea water (not meaning the content of "sodium chloride"
specifically!--or, any other element ...)--however, the point was not
being made on heating blood until it "burned"--but just to do
"noticeable damage" ... I am sure you will grant me that "writers'
license." grin

Regards,
JS

Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem. So far,
NOBODY has shown that to be the case. Not even in the 2.4 Ghz
ISM Band where BlueTooth operates, with significantly LESS
Power Density. There are enough of these devices around that
should all this "Wild Speculation", actually have Observable Effects,
the researchers into this area wouldn't be needing to do Statistical
Analysis, to Magically try and prove some nebulous Causal Effect.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem. So far,
NOBODY has shown that to be the case. Not even in the 2.4 Ghz
ISM Band where BlueTooth operates, with significantly LESS
Power Density. There are enough of these devices around that
should all this "Wild Speculation", actually have Observable Effects,
the researchers into this area wouldn't be needing to do Statistical
Analysis, to Magically try and prove some nebulous Causal Effect.
====================================
It might be useful to know that the RF power radiated by any cellphone
is dependent on the distance between the device and the nearest base
station.
In a built-up area or along the highway with nearby base stations the
power can be very low ,whereas at remote locations it can be as high as
2 Watts (at least here in Europe).
Living away countryside ,when using my cellphone at home the battery
drains rather quickly compared when using the device in town.
When holding the cellphone near my HF transceiver I clearly hear the
digi-noise.
For this reason I avoid using the cellphone while at home or at other
locations away from a base station.
My home is approx 8 km (5miles) from the nearest base station.


Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH in northern Scotland UK

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:

...
That's the trouble with you people. You insinuate by "asking a question" or
making up a meaningless phrase like "noticeable damage" or "common sense
laws" in such a way that it panics the ignorant or non thinking people into
running over a cliff or voting, then you sit back and feign ignorance. Just
beware you don't get caught in your own stampede. I submit that power tools
should be rendered safe before exposing them to people with "artistic
license" or who feel themselves "not responsible" for their actions because
they are crazy.
...

Yes, I have heard that argument before, with tobacco ... Nicola Tesla
once said chewing gum was more damaging than alcohol ... This URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

This drug was once thought "safe" and marketed/sold in over 50
countries. It was thought so safe, it was given to pregnant women,
causing innumerable birth defects in children (children born without
hands/arms/feet/legs/etc.

Your argument against caution is simply ignorance such we have seen in
the past ... some of us learned. Even when the BEST AUTHORITIES say is
is "OK", use caution!

We know that the human body can be harmed by just sitting in the sun too
long. How much RF at what frequency has or has not caused damage to those
who have been or are exposed, has been addressed only by FCC setting an
arbitrary specification without supporting data other than that supplied by
military microwave studies with respect to high powered radar. Nor do the
studies support that there is noticable damage by observing the military
safety standard or by the FCC standard that sets limits much lower, and even
lower still for those who aren't knowlegable on the subject.. So then it is
anything but an objective issue. I too have been exposed, but limited my
exposure based on time averaging, so I have encountered field-densities
thousands of times greater than a cell phone for a several minutes and
hundreds of times, for as much as an hour with no discernible effect in the
long or short term, but have encountered unknown intense fields with short
term issues, such as headache in the evening after exposure, but gone in the
morning. I have certainly encountered the same thing more often from over
exposure to "a day at the beach".

OK, so do an experiment yourself to test the amount of damage!

1) Cut an opening in the door of your microwave.

2) Insert your hand.

3) Turn on the microwave for 5 seconds.

4) Repeat 1 - 3 until "noticeable damage" occurs.

5) Come up with a time you think it is "OK" to microwave your hand;
quite possibly, you may wish to consider a time MUCH LOWER (as a "test
standard", note that zero seconds will ALWAYS be safer) than the time to
do "noticeable damage."

(Disclaimer, the above is only meant as a warning to demonstrate the
ignorance of the previous posters logic -- i.e., IT SHOULD NEVER BE
ATTEMPTED FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME!) Or, don't do this yourself, EVER!


Case in point: As a nonsmoker, I have problems reworking PC boards because
my employer has no plausible deniability that any respiratory ailment I
might succumb to in later years wouldn't arguably be caused by a
self-inflicted lifestyle condition rather than an employment hazard.

ABSOLUTELY! OTHER things cause cancer/illness, a search of the internet
will provide you with countless and proven substances/tasks/jobs/etc.
which you should provide. If you think there is a real danger with ANY
job you take--QUIT--IMMEDIATELY! But then, you can't protect some from
themselves, those will die for their occupation/job. :-(


In the face of other more serious health risks such as sunstroke, falling
off a tower or electrocution, RF exposure is a common sense issue for hams
and those in the business, and a non-issue for those who will never enter
restricted areas. In fact, there are far more daily hazardous things that
we encounter, as to obliterate any test data. Your Petri dish and sal****er
experiments have less credibility than the anecdotal.

Hey, some will make a trade off and face such serious consequences to
their health and safety in exchange for money -- I only hope their
compensation is justified, at least to them. Again, some people cannot
be saved from themselves ... and then, once they have made such a BAD
decision, they only wish to blame others.

If you are too stupid to protect yourself, am I required to do so? (I
mean I will, but then, I will not let you work at places injurious to
you! I mean, for God sakes man, you will raise insurance premiums
through the roof!)


It's like the illegal alien issue. Due to the lack of proper judgment and
widespread hysteria, more housekeepers and migrant workers will suffer than
gangbangers who find prison to be a climate-controlled mailing address with
a few inconveniences, but "three hots and a cot". Deportation gives
opportunity for those with plenty of drug money to do it again. All the
hysteria does is help to polarize nationalism (and foreign nationalism).

Well, I guess, declines in the American living standards, importation of
3rd world conditions here, lack of medical care for millions, untold
people without home ownership, etc., is nice! -- if you like that sort
of thing ... personally, I would seek other/more-positive solutions.


With the population of foreign nationalist gringo haters in this country
outnumbering those in Mexico, why do we need fences at all? Perhaps for a
start, we might plant more businesses in Mexico rather than having
everything shipped all the way from China.



Well, we could just give them everything, then hate them for having it
and work for slave wages getting it back and just keeping fed, I guess;
again, some people have different ideas.

Personally brother, I would move away from such conditions -- but that
is just me ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:31:53 GMT, "JB" wrote:

then you sit back and feign ignorance.

Oh to be sure it wasn't feigned. In fact, he entirely missed the
boat. After all, upon a succinct observation comparing two exposure
problems:
If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.
Brett couldn't distinguish one as a source of heating from the other
as a source of ionization where his own off-topic and ill-understood
introduction of the problems of ionizing radiation were the primary
issues.

There's really no point in sustaining his illiteracy, and chastising
would be a sin of mocking the afflicted.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Ionizing radiation?

Sorry, I missed the point where that ever came into question ...
however, yes, chuck a neon tube in a microwave, the gases WILL ionize,
but then the bulb will probably explode, LOL!

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:31:53 GMT, "JB" wrote:

then you sit back and feign ignorance.

Oh to be sure it wasn't feigned. In fact, he entirely missed the
boat. After all, upon a succinct observation comparing two exposure
problems:
If you did think, you would be more worried about a 5KW cellphone in
your pocket than a blue LED in your ear.
Brett couldn't distinguish one as a source of heating from the other
as a source of ionization where his own off-topic and ill-understood
introduction of the problems of ionizing radiation were the primary
issues.

There's really no point in sustaining his illiteracy, and chastising
would be a sin of mocking the afflicted.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

But then, perhaps you have a problem with some of data in this URL?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

You wrote:

...
Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
...

Let's say just those figures are correct ...

My Motorola Razar V3 phone is approx. 6mm thick (when opened), and where
the antenna is buried in the phone. This means the antenna can be no
more than 6mm from my head if the phone lies against my head. Now, we
assume the phone is emitting 300mw. This would be equivalent to 1.2w of
power emanating from that same antenna at a distance of 12mm from my
head. And, the latter would be equivalent to 4.8w emanating from the
same antenna at a distance of 24mm from my head. And, the last would be
equivalent to 19.2w emanating from the same antenna at a distance of
48mm from my head ... your higher figure, of two watts, is simply
frightening ...

The lunacy is exposed ... correct any error you see in the above ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:
You wrote:

...
Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
...

Let's say just those figures are correct ...

My Motorola Razar V3 phone is approx. 6mm thick (when opened), and where
the antenna is buried in the phone. This means the antenna can be no
more than 6mm from my head if the phone lies against my head. Now, we
assume the phone is emitting 300mw. This would be equivalent to 1.2w of
power emanating from that same antenna at a distance of 12mm from my
head. And, the latter would be equivalent to 4.8w emanating from the
same antenna at a distance of 24mm from my head. And, the last would be
equivalent to 19.2w emanating from the same antenna at a distance of
48mm from my head ... your higher figure, of two watts, is simply
frightening ...

The lunacy is exposed ... correct any error you see in the above ...

Regards,
JS

I should have clarified "the meaning" in the above ...

Or, to summarize, 300mw sounds both UNGODLY and IRRESPONSIBLE, IMHO ...
I would suspect it to be much nearer 50-100mw ... and I can logic this
by the size of the battery and the time it lasts between charges. (no,
I have NOT taken the time to get the battery specs and do the computations!)

However, doing the math, 50mw is too much. And, an equivalent of 1kw
emanating from the antenna comes at MUCH TOO CLOSE a distance ...

Sorry I had to take two posts to make that clear.

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:

...
However, doing the math, 50mw is too much. And, an equivalent of 1kw
emanating from the antenna comes at MUCH TOO CLOSE a distance ...

Sorry I had to take two posts to make that clear.

Regards,
JS

Well, the 3.7v, 900mah li-ion battery lasts ~2hrs of continuous "talk
time", I have verified this ...

It seems 300mw (actual output!) is NOT unimaginable ... :-(

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:

...
That's the trouble with you people. You insinuate by "asking a
question" or
making up a meaningless phrase like "noticeable damage" or "common sense
laws" in such a way that it panics the ignorant or non thinking people
into
running over a cliff or voting, then you sit back and feign ignorance.
Just
beware you don't get caught in your own stampede. I submit that power
tools
should be rendered safe before exposing them to people with "artistic
license" or who feel themselves "not responsible" for their actions
because
they are crazy.
...

Yes, I have heard that argument before, with tobacco ... Nicola Tesla
once said chewing gum was more damaging than alcohol ... This URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

This drug was once thought "safe" and marketed/sold in over 50
countries. It was thought so safe, it was given to pregnant women,
causing innumerable birth defects in children (children born without
hands/arms/feet/legs/etc.

Your argument against caution is simply ignorance such we have seen in
the past ... some of us learned. Even when the BEST AUTHORITIES say is
is "OK", use caution!

We know that the human body can be harmed by just sitting in the sun too
long. How much RF at what frequency has or has not caused damage to
those
who have been or are exposed, has been addressed only by FCC setting an
arbitrary specification without supporting data other than that supplied
by
military microwave studies with respect to high powered radar. Nor do
the
studies support that there is noticable damage by observing the military
safety standard or by the FCC standard that sets limits much lower, and
even
lower still for those who aren't knowlegable on the subject.. So then
it is
anything but an objective issue. I too have been exposed, but limited
my
exposure based on time averaging, so I have encountered field-densities
thousands of times greater than a cell phone for a several minutes and
hundreds of times, for as much as an hour with no discernible effect in
the
long or short term, but have encountered unknown intense fields with
short
term issues, such as headache in the evening after exposure, but gone in
the
morning. I have certainly encountered the same thing more often from
over
exposure to "a day at the beach".

OK, so do an experiment yourself to test the amount of damage!

1) Cut an opening in the door of your microwave.

2) Insert your hand.

3) Turn on the microwave for 5 seconds.

4) Repeat 1 - 3 until "noticeable damage" occurs.

5) Come up with a time you think it is "OK" to microwave your hand;
quite possibly, you may wish to consider a time MUCH LOWER (as a "test
standard", note that zero seconds will ALWAYS be safer) than the time to
do "noticeable damage."

(Disclaimer, the above is only meant as a warning to demonstrate the
ignorance of the previous posters logic -- i.e., IT SHOULD NEVER BE
ATTEMPTED FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME!) Or, don't do this yourself, EVER!


Case in point: As a nonsmoker, I have problems reworking PC boards
because
my employer has no plausible deniability that any respiratory ailment I
might succumb to in later years wouldn't arguably be caused by a
self-inflicted lifestyle condition rather than an employment hazard.

ABSOLUTELY! OTHER things cause cancer/illness, a search of the internet
will provide you with countless and proven substances/tasks/jobs/etc.
which you should provide. If you think there is a real danger with ANY
job you take--QUIT--IMMEDIATELY! But then, you can't protect some from
themselves, those will die for their occupation/job. :-(


In the face of other more serious health risks such as sunstroke,
falling
off a tower or electrocution, RF exposure is a common sense issue for
hams
and those in the business, and a non-issue for those who will never
enter
restricted areas. In fact, there are far more daily hazardous things
that
we encounter, as to obliterate any test data. Your Petri dish and
sal****er
experiments have less credibility than the anecdotal.

Hey, some will make a trade off and face such serious consequences to
their health and safety in exchange for money -- I only hope their
compensation is justified, at least to them. Again, some people cannot
be saved from themselves ... and then, once they have made such a BAD
decision, they only wish to blame others.

If you are too stupid to protect yourself, am I required to do so? (I
mean I will, but then, I will not let you work at places injurious to
you! I mean, for God sakes man, you will raise insurance premiums
through the roof!)


It's like the illegal alien issue. Due to the lack of proper judgment
and
widespread hysteria, more housekeepers and migrant workers will suffer
than
gangbangers who find prison to be a climate-controlled mailing address
with
a few inconveniences, but "three hots and a cot". Deportation gives
opportunity for those with plenty of drug money to do it again. All the
hysteria does is help to polarize nationalism (and foreign nationalism).

Well, I guess, declines in the American living standards, importation of
3rd world conditions here, lack of medical care for millions, untold
people without home ownership, etc., is nice! -- if you like that sort
of thing ... personally, I would seek other/more-positive solutions.


With the population of foreign nationalist gringo haters in this country
outnumbering those in Mexico, why do we need fences at all? Perhaps for
a
start, we might plant more businesses in Mexico rather than having
everything shipped all the way from China.



Well, we could just give them everything, then hate them for having it
and work for slave wages getting it back and just keeping fed, I guess;
again, some people have different ideas.

Personally brother, I would move away from such conditions -- but that
is just me ...

Regards,
JS

You seem to have a real problem with reading comprehension too.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:
... (no,
I have NOT taken the time to get the battery specs and do the
computations!)
...
Regards,
JS

I am surprised, the BR60 li-ion battery is 3.7v @ 900mah ... the ~2hr
talk time suggests 300mw is well within reason ... I am surprised the
battery packs that kind of punch. :-(

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. All I'm saying, is that you
need to objectively assess risks. If you can't do that you ought to be
institutionalized for the safety of yourself and others.

The statistics of wireless devices causing harm are so off the radar there
are none! And this is the smoking gun - if there were, they would have
come forward by now from the 2 way and uwave industry with complaints, but I
haven't heard of anyone in the business who HAS been harmed in my 30 years
of experience. And that is 15 years under the old standards of RF
exposure - NONE.

I invite anyone from the industry who reasonably thinks they have been
harmed to respond. Particularly from the retired folks. I'm not talking
about RF burns, as they are minor and pain has a way of causing you to limit
that exposure.

You can eliminate the potential of risk entirely by throwing away all RF
devices.

But don't stop there because of all the risks that you failed to account
for, such as rolling out of bed in the morning or burning yourself making
breakfast or tripping on the front steps or getting in a wreck on the way to
work.

THAT is a major risk statistically, whereas the statistics of RF harm are
unknown because no is so stupid, to cut their arm off or cut a hole in the
uwave oven door AS YOU SUGGESTED just to get a chance to GET harmful
exposure, which sort of proves my point about the general public having to
try real hard in order to to be exposed to harmfull levels of energy.

Getting back to the cell phones and Blackberry's - and I thought that's what
we were talking about - DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT! They really don't amount to
squat! Honest!

BTW I put a mouse in a Litton uwave oven in 1983 for 10 seconds and removed
him because I didn't want to push the little guys luck or see him suffer.
NO noticeable or discernable damage or harm was done and he went on to sire
several healthy normal litters.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:
John Smith wrote:
... (no, I have NOT taken the time to get the battery specs and do the
computations!)
...
Regards,
JS

I am surprised, the BR60 li-ion battery is 3.7v @ 900mah ... the ~2hr
talk time suggests 300mw is well within reason ... I am surprised the
battery packs that kind of punch. :-(

Regards,
JS

Of course, our "difference" could stem solely from differing definitions
of the word prudent, such as in "prudent man."

I am using this definition:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Prudent \Pru"dent\, a. [L. prudens, -entis, contr. from
providens: cf. F. prudent. See Provident.]
1. Sagacious in adapting means to ends; circumspect in
action, or in determining any line of conduct; practically
wise; judicious; careful; discreet; sensible; -- opposed
to rash; as, a prudent man; dictated or directed by
prudence or wise forethought; evincing prudence; as,
prudent behavior.

Moses established a grave and prudent law. --Milton.

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. All I'm saying, is that you
need to objectively assess risks. If you can't do that you ought to be
institutionalized for the safety of yourself and others.

The statistics of wireless devices causing harm are so off the radar there
are none! And this is the smoking gun - if there were, they would have
come forward by now from the 2 way and uwave industry with complaints, but I
haven't heard of anyone in the business who HAS been harmed in my 30 years
of experience. And that is 15 years under the old standards of RF
exposure - NONE.

I invite anyone from the industry who reasonably thinks they have been
harmed to respond. Particularly from the retired folks. I'm not talking
about RF burns, as they are minor and pain has a way of causing you to limit
that exposure.

You can eliminate the potential of risk entirely by throwing away all RF
devices.

But don't stop there because of all the risks that you failed to account
for, such as rolling out of bed in the morning or burning yourself making
breakfast or tripping on the front steps or getting in a wreck on the way to
work.

THAT is a major risk statistically, whereas the statistics of RF harm are
unknown because no is so stupid, to cut their arm off or cut a hole in the
uwave oven door AS YOU SUGGESTED just to get a chance to GET harmful
exposure, which sort of proves my point about the general public having to
try real hard in order to to be exposed to harmfull levels of energy.

Getting back to the cell phones and Blackberry's - and I thought that's what
we were talking about - DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT! They really don't amount to
squat! Honest!

BTW I put a mouse in a Litton uwave oven in 1983 for 10 seconds and removed
him because I didn't want to push the little guys luck or see him suffer.
NO noticeable or discernable damage or harm was done and he went on to sire
several healthy normal litters.



That is a lot, and WAY overly complicated, IMHO ... and no, I don't need
do all that ...

I need only "error on the side of caution." (If only I'd done that with
smoking!) But then, that is keeping with the theme of "prudent
man/men", which was my original statements intent.

Besides, Bluetooth improves the whole "phone experience", hands free
digit dial and name dial are very handy. And, it is a law to be
hands-free on the phone while driving an auto in California ... :-) A
win-win situation which has few equals. Your particular mileage may
vary ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:
SNIP

You seem to have a real problem with reading comprehension too.


And you with trimming posts!

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Wymsey - Ten years Old!
www.wymsey.co.uk

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

You wrote:


Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem.

No problem:

http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm


--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Wymsey - Ten years Old!
www.wymsey.co.uk

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

"M0WYM" wrote in message
...
You wrote:


Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem.

No problem:

http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm

Check out Snopes on that. There are some Fake YouTubes on that too. It
seems you can't even do that with a pile of phones. Nor can you receive
police calls on your cell phone by spreading peanut butter on the SIM card.
But if it is any consolation, I can grab on to a 50 watt 2m antenna and feel
it get warm. Again, I can stand in the sun and get warm too. Aside from
the known UV exposure problem, the tissue heating appears to have little
negative impact over the long run when taken in moderation.

Still, people have been killed in their sleep by electric blankets. And I
would question the sensibility of someone who stands in between two 10db 900
MHz 1kw ERP paging antennas just to get warm. But I've seen that done too.

Studies show that the penetration of RF heating into the body is tied quite
a bit to the wavelength, and that the greatest penetration was somewhere
between 400 and 2000 Mhz. The most worrisome issue was found to be the
human eye at those frequencies. There is no blood flow in the Vitreous
solution in the eyeball to cool it, nor in the Cornea tissue. Nor are you
apt to notice if there is heating of that tissue. One of the long term
results of the Military observations, were cataract formation in those who
worked closely with microwave RADAR energy. You should be more concerned
with the 5 watt 440 or 800 HT with the antenna right in your eye than your
earlobe, which has blood flow.

If you notice your earlobe getting warm, reduce your talk time accordingly.
And don't watch the food cook.

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. All I'm saying, is that you
need to objectively assess risks. If you can't do that you ought to be
institutionalized for the safety of yourself and others.

The statistics of wireless devices causing harm are so off the radar there
are none! And this is the smoking gun - if there were, they would have
come forward by now from the 2 way and uwave industry with complaints, but I
haven't heard of anyone in the business who HAS been harmed in my 30 years
of experience. And that is 15 years under the old standards of RF
exposure - NONE.

I invite anyone from the industry who reasonably thinks they have been
harmed to respond. Particularly from the retired folks. I'm not talking
about RF burns, as they are minor and pain has a way of causing you to limit
that exposure.

You can eliminate the potential of risk entirely by throwing away all RF
devices.

But don't stop there because of all the risks that you failed to account
for, such as rolling out of bed in the morning or burning yourself making
breakfast or tripping on the front steps or getting in a wreck on the way to
work.

THAT is a major risk statistically, whereas the statistics of RF harm are
unknown because no is so stupid, to cut their arm off or cut a hole in the
uwave oven door AS YOU SUGGESTED just to get a chance to GET harmful
exposure, which sort of proves my point about the general public having to
try real hard in order to to be exposed to harmfull levels of energy.

Getting back to the cell phones and Blackberry's - and I thought that's what
we were talking about - DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT! They really don't amount to
squat! Honest!

BTW I put a mouse in a Litton uwave oven in 1983 for 10 seconds and removed
him because I didn't want to push the little guys luck or see him suffer.
NO noticeable or discernable damage or harm was done and he went on to sire
several healthy normal litters.



Just to clarify, you seem to imply, a 1.2288KW, equivalent, source of
freqs in the "cooking bands" and at a distance of
384mm/38.4cm/~15-inches from your head is "nothing to sweat." (and
given, the sources antenna is omni-directional)

Surely you can see how some men would withhold agreement ... at least
until a time in the future ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

M0WYM wrote:
You wrote:


Now all you need to prove, is that the RF Power Density of a 300
Milliwatt Cellphone, operating one one of 4 Bands in the 800-900
Mhz, and 1800 - 2000 Mhz, will cause ANY Measurable Heating in
Human Tissue, and therefore cause some sort of problem.

No problem:

http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm



M0WYM:

LOL!

Warm regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:

...
Just to clarify, you seem to imply, a 1.2288KW, equivalent, source of
freqs in the "cooking bands" and at a distance of ...
Regards,
JS

In the above, can we abbreviate "cooking bands" to just "CB?" wink

At first, I failed to catch the level of my own humor! LOL!

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

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

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. ...

I will be honest with you, I have been "dishonest by omission"--I know
the general public is completely unaware of the REAL dangers (well, I am
being kind, they are simply too ignorant to be concerned) ... I know
there are few "experts" who are aware (and "those threats" are being
extinguished with money/lawyers/"orchestrated-studies") ... and those
few who do know are in the medical profession, a couple of them vocal on
the subject ... most say/believe "the government will protect
us"--others say ignorance is bliss (well, I do) ...

Back in the 1980's a "deal was brokered" with the FCC (Hmmm, isn't that
when cell phones "came out?") ... cell phones fall though a "legal
loophole"--they are considered a "low powered device" and unable to do
the damage one needs to fear from a microwave oven--they are exempt,
there really is no Maximum Permissible Levels established which
manufacturers/engineers/industry can EFFECTIVELY be held to ... they
suffer virtually no regulation ... perhaps SAR, but then that is like 4w
per KG? You probably can cook an egg with that! (albeit slowly) LOL!

However, from this URL:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...56/oet56e4.pdf

You will find within, "Table 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible
Exposure (MPE)" and "(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled
Exposure" ...

.... you may draw your own conclusions about a 300mw source of cooking
frequency within 6mm of your cranium (I have been thinking about that,
the antenna is probably embedded in the middle of that case and ~3mm
from my head :-( ) ... personally, I caution my wife from standing too
close, let alone placing her forehead against the microwave door when in
operation! (she does that yanno'!)

Funny, I just always assumed the people here (well, other than the
idiots) would already be taking precautions (headsets--short
exposures/calls.)

I only hope to be here when they hand out the "Darwin Awards" to those
deserving--post mortem-ously for them, most likely ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:
...

Hate to leave that "hanging", like that ...

I found this:

"How can I obtain the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) value for my
wireless phone?

The FCC requires that wireless phones sold in the United States
demonstrate compliance with human exposure limits adopted by the FCC in
1996. The relative amount of RF energy absorbed in the head of a
wireless telephone-user is given by the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR),
as explained above. The FCC requires wireless phones to comply with a
safety limit of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg) in terms of SAR.

Information on SAR for a specific phone model can be obtained for many
recently manufactured phones using the FCC identification (ID) number
for that model. The FCC ID number is usually printed somewhere on the
case of the phone. Sometimes it may be necessary to remove the battery
pack to find the number. Once you have the ID number, go to the
following Web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid. On this page, you will see
instructions for entering the FCC ID number. Type the FCC ID number
exactly as requested (the Grantee Code is the first three characters,
the Equipment Product Code is the rest of the FCC ID number). Then click
on "Start Search." The "Grant of Equipment Authorization" for your
telephone should appear. Read through the grant for the section on "SAR
Compliance," "Certification of Compliance with FCC Rules for RF
Exposure" or similar language. This section should contain the value(s)
for typical or maximum SAR for your phone.

Phones and other products authorized since June 2, 2000, should have the
maximum SAR levels noted directly on the "Grant of Equipment
Authorization." For phones and products authorized between about
mid-1998 and June 2000, detailed information on SAR levels is typically
found in the exhibits associated with the grant. Once a grant is
accessed, the exhibits can be viewed by clicking on "View Exhibit."
Grants authorized prior to 1998 are not part of the electronic database
but, rather, have been documented in the form of paper records.

The FCC database does not list phones by model number. However,
consumers may find SAR information from other sources as well. Some
wireless phone manufacturers make SAR information available on their own
Web sites. In addition, some non-government Web sites provide SARs for
specific models of wireless phones. However, the FCC has not reviewed
these sites and makes no guarantees of their accuracy. Finally, phones
certified by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association
(CTIA) are required to provide SAR information to consumers in the
instructional materials that come with the phones. "

He

http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#4

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

John Smith wrote:
JB wrote:
Well, I can't explain anything rationaly to you because you are jumping
wildly to conclusions like a cartoon character. ...

I will be honest with you, I have been "dishonest by omission"--I know
the general public is completely unaware of the REAL dangers (well, I am
being kind, they are simply too ignorant to be concerned) ... I know
there are few "experts" who are aware (and "those threats" are being
extinguished with money/lawyers/"orchestrated-studies") ... and those
few who do know are in the medical profession, a couple of them vocal on
the subject ... most say/believe "the government will protect
us"--others say ignorance is bliss (well, I do) ...

Back in the 1980's a "deal was brokered" with the FCC (Hmmm, isn't that
when cell phones "came out?") ... cell phones fall though a "legal
loophole"--they are considered a "low powered device" and unable to do
the damage one needs to fear from a microwave oven--they are exempt,
there really is no Maximum Permissible Levels established which
manufacturers/engineers/industry can EFFECTIVELY be held to ... they
suffer virtually no regulation ... perhaps SAR, but then that is like 4w
per KG? You probably can cook an egg with that! (albeit slowly) LOL!

However, from this URL:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...56/oet56e4.pdf


You will find within, "Table 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible
Exposure (MPE)" and "(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled
Exposure" ...

... you may draw your own conclusions about a 300mw source of cooking
frequency within 6mm of your cranium (I have been thinking about that,
the antenna is probably embedded in the middle of that case and ~3mm
from my head :-( ) ... personally, I caution my wife from standing too
close, let alone placing her forehead against the microwave door when in
operation! (she does that yanno'!)

Funny, I just always assumed the people here (well, other than the
idiots) would already be taking precautions (headsets--short
exposures/calls.)

Well I certainly do, although I might be still an idiot.

I don't find a thing wrong with your logic. Fact is, no one would ever
just allow the same RF source to be applied to their temples. They would
say we're crazy to suggest such a thing. And much less to attach such a
thing to their children.

Who here would tape a wire to their child's head with up to a watt of
power running through it at those freq's ? Child protective services
would probably declare you unfit, take the kids away from you, and you'd
probably have to register as something or another so you could be
tracked down if needed.

And yet, millions of parents do essentially the same thing, buying
their children cell phones - and doing it "to keep them safe".


I only hope to be here when they hand out the "Darwin Awards" to those
deserving--post mortem-ously for them, most likely ...


Well, I still don't think they are likely to cause cancer. The
frequency seems a bit low, and it's not as likely to cause cellular
(hehe) problems as the ionizing type radiation.

I would suspect that the effects might be more likely to be involved
with heating, or perhaps a disruption of normal brain activity.

Empirically, I have noticed that a lot of cell phone users behind the
wheel bear a scary resemblance to extremely drunken drivers. Driving
though red lights, sitting in a daze at green lights. Weaving off the
road, erratic driving in general.

I think it is quite possible that excessive cell phone usage
(hours/day) will make a person stupid.


-73 de Mike N3LI -

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
And yet, millions of parents do essentially the same thing, buying
their children cell phones - and doing it "to keep them safe".

I have a simple way of dealing with that. We gave our teenage son a
pay-as-you-go phone and monitor carefully how much money he gets.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
I think it is quite possible that excessive cell phone usage
(hours/day) will make a person stupid.


-73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael:

My original, first post, only advised caution ... and suggested a
"prudent man rule." I hardly seen it as such a statement that would
require this amount of effort to "backup", but then ...

By the way, I do not consider you an "idiot" ... I actually hope my
fears are unfounded and pumping this cooking frequencies into ones skull
will actually provide a here-to-fore unknown benefit(s) ... Do you
think I could really take any pleasure in people being harmed? We
simply need to look out for our own best interests; unfortunately, no
one will do that for us, and the ones being paid to do so are NOT doing
their job(s.)

The tendrils of greed and corruption run deep and chant the mantra "Oh,
he/she/they are just paranoid", it works too well ...

Regards,
JS

Blackberry power level 4.9GHz
 

Just to clarify, you seem to imply, a 1.2288KW, equivalent, source of
freqs in the "cooking bands" and at a distance of
384mm/38.4cm/~15-inches from your head is "nothing to sweat." (and
given, the sources antenna is omni-directional)

Surely you can see how some men would withhold agreement ... at least
until a time in the future ...

Regards,
JS

Just to clarify, I never said that, you did.