The new police radio in the UK uses channel hopping Geoff. That's not the same as commercial radio/TV. Even the users don't like the RF safety aspect from what I've read.
On Feb 1, 7:17 am, "Geoff Wood" <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:hum- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Trev > > Sent: Sunday, 1 February 2009 7:56 p.m. > > To: Hum Sufferers > > Subject: Re: The Cell Phone "Tower of Doom" - Articles > > > You're conveniently forgetting sidebands Geoff! > > What about them ? There are no 'sidebands' as such with FM, and AM has > always had them, apart from SSB channels, which usually also have suppressed > carrier. > > >The channel switching > > that goes on in Tetra for instance produces sharp wave fronts at > > microvave freqs and given the receptiveness of brain tissue to the > > switching rate cannot just be discounted, Where are the safety tests? > > No it doesn't. What comes out of a cell-phone tower is a constant level at a > constant bandwidth , with a constant amount of modulation. There are no > out-of-band emissions, else adjacent channel allocations would be interfered > with and everybody would be most annoyed. > > > Humans are not wideband receivers.They are selective and sensitive > > organisms. > > Bollocks. Humans 'receive' all the frequencies that they are being > irradiated with. > > > The time constant for sickness is 10+ years. In 10 years we'll check > > the Alzheimers and kids Leukemia figures.,sure. > > It will be too late > > And what about the greater levels of RF that have been de rigour for > decades? Cellphone towers are low power, and DTV requires significantly > lower rf levels than analogue TV ever did. > > > The Gov'rt will be very sorry ..... and the taxpayer will pick up the > > bill. > > Profits due will already be banked /spent on some new wheeze. > > You are so complacent.. > > Not complacent at all, just realistic and not neurotic. > > > On another thread here you talk of tripe being spoken just because you > > don't agree. > > No , it is 'tripe' because it is more often than not, patently flawed > factually. > > > Well , your views are tripe- dressed up in techy jargon as you never > > produce an ounce of proof . > > Your views are totally subjective and no more valid than any other and > > often a lot more irritating to boot! > > As you like. I can rationalise ANY of my assertions, and seem to be able to > easily spot basic flaws in many of the other 'theories' and point them out - > which most then summarily ignore/dismiss as 'biased'. Call that subjective > if you like. I call it objective. > > I do not like my Hum any more than anybody here. But it does not make me > feel like some sort of pioneer/hero to champion ideas that are just plain > silly. > > geoff --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hum Sufferers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hum-sufferers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
