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).
