If you solve the radar eqn for the field intensity at 1 cm from the antenna, using Ghery's Ptmax = 600 mW, you get 600 V/m. This is a completely erronoeus calculation however, because it relies on far field gain and this is very near field.
If you assume the antenna is a 50 Ohm load, the 600 mW eak power is 5.5 Volts at the antenna. if the antenna is a quarter wave stub at 850 MHz, the potential gradient near the stub will be (potential divided by stub length) near 70 V/m. ---------- >From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" <[email protected]> >To: "'Pettit, Ghery'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, [email protected] >Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? >Date: Thu, Dec 9, 1999, 4:34 PM > > > Hi Ghery - I seem to recall that NIST here in Boulder performed > some experiments that measured the field from a cell phone > at a typical usage distance at 700V/m!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pettit, Ghery [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:49 AM > To: '[email protected]'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > The maximum power that a hand held cell phone can use is 600 milliwatts. > Normally, the cell site drops them to a lower level, but 600 milliwatts is > the maximum. > > Ghery Pettit > Intel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 7:42 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > Is 100 milliwatts a good typical figure to use, then for cell phones? Just > on a knee-jerk basis, it seems a little low. > > Anyway know the power output on cordless phones? > > Thanks, Max > > Max Kelson > Peripherals Engineer > > Evans & Sutherland > 600 Komas Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84158 > http://www.es.com/ <http://www.es.com/> > Telephone: 801-588-7196 / Fax: 801-588-4531 > mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick, Al [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 9:55 AM > To: 'Gorodetsky, Vitaly' > Cc: '[email protected]' > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > No, What I was saying was that as a microwave engineer, one > of my red flags > was the eyes. The eyes are the most sensitive to microwave > radiation. > > Now, to apply my statement to cell phone use is not correct. > The typical > levels and frequencies of microwave radiation are much > greater than cell > phones. > > I knew an engineer who worked with big dish antennas. He > was responsible > designing and testing the antennas, so he was in strong > fields for years. > These antennas had 26 dB gain with a narrow beam, far > stronger that a cell > phone. He worked over 20 years with this exposure on a > daily basic. At age > 43 he had cataracts, about 25 years sooner than general > population. Now he > is fine today, retired a few years back. > > What I am saying is that at that level of exposure it took > over 20 years to > damage the most sensitive part to the body. Were talking > about 5 watts of > power at 6000 MHz. which is far worst than a 100 mill-watts > at 800 MHz. > > In summary: I think a lot of "Bad Science" has been applied. > The levels and > frequencies are too low to cause the kinds of brain damage > being reported. > > P.S. I'm an old microware engineer of 51 who used to work > with 3.5 Kilowatt > microwave transmitters for years and I don't have cataracts. > > > Al Patrick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gorodetsky, Vitaly [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:28 PM > To: 'Patrick, Al' > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > Al, > You've posted a very intriguing statement. Why "the eyes go > first? (In the > past, I got watery eyes and a headache while doing immunity > tests). > "microwave engineers understand the risks" - than what the > fuss is all > about? Or are you saying that since one has not got > cataract, he/she is > safe? > > Regards > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick, Al [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 2:30 PM > > To: 'Martin Green'; Patrick, Al; '[email protected]'; > > [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > Yes Martin, Lets just know it for what it is > "Bad Science". > > People like John Stallcel? (I hope I didn't misspell his > name too badly) > > with CBS has had several news shows on "Bad Science". Now > there is one, > > in the press, that understands. > > > > Those of us that were/are microwave > engineers understand the > > risks. I have been exposed the microwave radiation many > times, but I know > > "the eyes go first. If people that use cell phones were > getting > > cataracts, you bet I would pay attention. > > > > I better quit talking before I get upset. > > > > Al Patrick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Martin Green [ > <mailto:[email protected]>] > > > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 4:09 AM > > > > To: 'Patrick, Al'; '[email protected]'; > > [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards? > > > > I agree, there has always been a knee jerk > reaction by the > > press to anything "bad". > > > > Mad cow disease is a typical example. We > banned sales of > > beef on the bone in UK because someone suggested that > there might be link > > with new form CJD. No proof, just a suggestion, and that > gave rise to a > > ban on its sale in UK and a further drop in confidence > about the safety of > > food. Now we have the bizarre situation where the UK > government want to > > allow it to be sold again, but the Scottish and Welsh > parliaments do not > > (they represent 15% of the total UK population), so the > ban continues. > > And of course we now have a documented case of new form > CJD in a young > > girl who has always been a vegetarian - bad science? And > the press loved > > it all - they sold millions of papers and we killed > millions of cows. > > > > The good news out today in UK is that a > group of eminent > > researchers headed by the UK most prestigious > epidemiologist, Sir Richard > > Doll from Oxford University, have concluded that there is > no evidence of > > cancer being caused by electric power lines, so the heated > blankets are > > OK. I have not read the report yet so there may be some > stings in the > > tail. This is just hot off the morning news. > > > > Martin Green > > > > Technology International (Europe) Ltd. > > > > (44) 1793 783137 > > > > Fax (44) 1793 782310 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Patrick, Al > [SMTP:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: 03 December 1999 07:34 > > > > To: '[email protected]'; > > [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone > Hazards? > > > > Max, I remember seeing the same show > and years later > > a show on PBS about > > > > that show. Bottom line: although > the rate of cancer > > seemed high, it was > > > > still within the statistical norm > for the > > population. > > > > Now many years ago, and I mean > decades ago a > > statistical type was studying > > > > Leukemia rates among Line Men (High > Tension Line > > works) for an insurance > > > > company, to find out why they had > double the rate of > > Leukemia for the > > > > general population. His conclusion > was? That the > > electrical fields > > > > somehow were the problem. He went > on to conclude > > that all electrical > > > > workers and ham radio operators were > being harmed. > > > > Bottom Line: Years later and with no > fanfare in the > > press it was found that > > > > the PCB's which were in the wire > insulation and > > transform oil (which were > > > > spilled all over the place) were the > real cause of > > the Leukemia. By the > > > > time the "Bad Science" was over, > even sleeping with > > an electric blanket > > > > would kill you. Did you throw yours > away? (By the > > way, PCB's were banned > > > > after that "Good Science"). And the > bottom of > > Boston harbor is still > > > > covered two feet deep in PCB's oils > to this day. > > > > The press loves Bad Science because > "it could be > > true!" and "it sell > > > > newspapers" or "better ratings on > the nightly news". > > > > There's my two cents and change for > a dollar. > > > > Al Patrick > > > > Note! These opinions are my own and > not of my > > employers. The names have > > > > been changes to protect the guilty. > Batteries not > > included. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] [ > <mailto:[email protected]>] > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 > 3:38 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: Cell Phone > Hazards? > > > > > > I remember seeing a television show > quite a while > > ago where researchers had > > > > found an extremely high cancer rate > in children in > > one neighborhood with a > > > > power substation. The rate for > adults, however, was > > normal. > > > > One researcher said she believed > that the higher > > rate for children might be > > > > due to the fact that they were very > active in > > running back and forth and > > > > playing ball, etc. This caused them > to cut through > > the magnetic fields at a > > > > much higher rate than adults. This > line of thought > > leads to the possibility > > > > that there may be more to consider > than just simple > > warming of tissue. > > > > Max Kelson > > > > Evans & Sutherland > > > > -----Original > Message----- > > > > From: Barry Ma [ > > <mailto:[email protected]>] > > > > Sent: Thursday, > December 02, 1999 > > 11:48 AM > > > > To: > [email protected] > > > > Cc: > [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: > Cell Phone > > Hazards? > > > > > > Jon, > > > > You are right. When > we get in our > > cars we have some risk. By > > > > the same token, when we are home the > risk is still > > not zero. If we go > > > > climbing the risk would go even > higher. The point is > > we know what is the > > > > risk and how to protect ourselves. > But the risk > > related to cell phone is not > > > > as clear as driving, climbing, and > staying home. > > > > Barry Ma > > > > Anritsu Company > > > > ------------- > > > > On Wed, 01 December > 1999, Jon Griver > > wrote: > > > > > It seems to me > quite possible that > > electromagnetic fields > > > > with strengths > > > > > below the 'tissue > heating' level > > may have a detrimental > > > > effect. After all > > > > > we know that > electrical impulses > > are intimately connected > > > > with the brain's > > > > > operation, and we > are dealing with > > fields an order of > > > > magnitude stonger > > > > > than those used in > radiated > > immunity testing for > > > > electrical and electronic > > > > > equipment. We only > expect > > electronic equipment to be > > > > immune to 3V/m, but we > > > > > subject our brains > to 20 to 30V/m > > when we use a cell > > > > phone. > > > > > > > > > > This being said, > the cell phone is > > very convenient, and > > > > has become a part > > > > > of our way of > life. I use a cell > > phone, though as little > > > > as possible, > > > > > knowing that there > is a possible > > risk, in the same way as > > > > I know I risk my > > > > > life every time I > get in my car. > > > > > > > > > > Jon Griver > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > Open your mind. > Close your wallet. > > > > Free Internet Access > from AltaVista. > > > > <http://www.altavista.com> > > > > > > --------- > > > > This message is > coming from the > > emc-pstc discussion list. > > > > To cancel your > subscription, send > > mail to [email protected] > > > > with the single > line: "unsubscribe > > emc-pstc" (without the > > > > quotes). For help, > send mail to > > [email protected], > > > > > [email protected], > > [email protected], or > > > > > [email protected] (the list > > administrators). > > > > > > > > --------- > > > > This message is coming from the > emc-pstc discussion > > list. > > > > To cancel your subscription, send > mail to > > [email protected] > > > > with the single line: "unsubscribe > emc-pstc" > > (without the > > > > quotes). For help, send mail to > [email protected], > > > > [email protected], > [email protected], or > > > > [email protected] (the list > > administrators). > > > > << File: ATT00006.htm >> > > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
