I'll ask our county supervisors (they occupy this building, too)
- Robert -
-----Original Message-----
From: Bailin Ma <b...@anritsu.com>
To: 'Robert Macy' <m...@california.com>; Edward Fitzgerald
<edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com>
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 9:01 AM
Subject: RE: Cell Phone Hazards?
>Rober,
>
>I'm wondering about the high voltage towers which are gone now. Is it
>possible to see if there is statistical difference in the cancer rate since
>the towers were tore down?
>
>Barry
>---------- Original Text ----------
>
>From: "Edward Fitzgerald" <edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com>, on 12/8/99 4:49
AM:
>
>
>Back in 1991/2 I worked with a design engineer in the UK who had
>developed (privately) a test meter for measuring the EM fields in open
>environment.
>One of his studies was the variations and concentrations of EM fields
>within buildings. I don't have any of the papers or results he prepared,
>but I do recall that a sweep of our office unit (which included
>manufacturing, test lab, R&D, purchasing and stores) one evening showed
>a high EMF concentration level in one stairway linking R&D and the
>manufacturing floor. There were hiVoltage power lines within 500
>meters, but we could only conclude that the modern reinforced concrete
>construction had some effect on the concentration levels.
>Digital mobile phones were not around at that time and there wasn't a
>particularly high density of analogue cellphones in use within the
>building.
>
>On another point, a recent UK press article has been claiming that the
>use of headsets/ear-pieces typically connected to mobile phones via
>2.5mm jack are even worse than using the mobile next to your head.
>Their claim being that the two core audio cable is induced with
>radiation from the phone and carried up the length of the upper body?
>Has anyone heard of this angle in the media within your part of the
>world, or if any studies on this topic are including handsfree
>accessories?
>
>Having read a number of articles on the subject of ElectroMagnetic field
>Radiation that reach essentially two conclusions: -
> 1. Definite link to effects upon human cell structure
> 2. Inconclusive or no link.
>
>As an engineer I am very sceptical of the validity of any report or
>study on this subject given the various claims that many reports in this
>area over the past two decades have been biased to both sides of the
>argument! Short of doing your own studies - what is an engineer to
>believe?
>
>Edward Fitzgerald
>Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22
>GSM Tel. : +44 4685 33 100
>
>
>European Technology Services (EMEA)
>Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy
>Regional Offices in Australia, Canada and the UK.
>
>Global Telecom / Radio Intelligence Site <http://www.ets-tele.com/tics>
>psst... spread the word !
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Macy [mailto:m...@california.com]
>Sent: 04 December 1999 00:15
>To: mkel...@es.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: Cell Phone Hazards?
>
>
>
>Near our building near downtown San Jose, in what are called "the county
>buildings", one county building wing had 15 cases of very rare form of
>brain
>tumors. The incidence of a single case is very rare but to have so many
>in
>one building and only in one wing of that building is statistically
>incredible.
>
>They did an extensive survey trying to find something different between
>the
>two wings of this building. As I recall, the survey took almost 18
>months
>and the report's results were inconclusive. They looked at building
>materials, air conditioning and heating systems, water distribution,
>toilet
>facilities, and on and on, including emf - which not only included elf
>from
>the mains, but included the periodic blast of microwave as the nearby
>airport radar swept around. They found absolutely nothing different
>between
>the wings of their building.
>
>According to the epidemiologist, this form of cancer is rare because it
>grows so slowly that it takes too long to show up, something like 40
>years
>from onset, which means most people died of something else first. She
>felt
>that whatever it was that these people were being exposed to had "sped"
>up
>the cancer turning it from so slow nobody notices to so rapid people
>died of
>it. Again, she wondered if something was accelerating the cancer's
>growth
>rate (with cancer present in the person anyway, but the exposure did not
>cause cancer).
>
>The only difference I could see (and was not mentioned in the report)
>was
>that people in the west wing (sick building part) tended to park their
>vehicles directly across Guadalupe parkway under 115KV massive power
>towers.
>I thought that perhaps the fluctuation entering and exiting their
>vehicles
>(These were the old steel body automobiles) did something to these
>people.
>I asked for small amount of funding to pursue this investigation but
>could
>not obtain funds. So measuring the situation, and collecting data on
>the
>incidences of who parked where, etc is now lost. [The towers are now
>gone,
>replaced by underground transmission lines to "beautify" the Guadalupe
>Parkway corridor. ]
>
>At that same time there were some publications claiming the acceration
>of
>cancer cells by exposing the cells to a range of magnetic field
>exposure,
>including variable amount of exposure. One paper claimed that varying
>exposure was the key.
>
>
>This is all food for thought.
>
> - Robert -
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mkel...@es.com <mkel...@es.com>
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org>
>Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 1:52 PM
>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:barry...@altavista.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 11:48 AM
>> To: jgri...@i-spec.com
>> Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>> 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 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
