Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Are 5 GHz telephones safe?

R

Rich The Newsgropup Wacko

Not "vastly more intense" than holding a transmitter next to the brain on a
regular basis for hours a week.
Nor at the more absorbable high frequencies of mobile phones.

This could be "poetic justice". The people who obsessively compulsively
talk on the telephone 24/7 _should_ die.

Preferably sooner than later.

Thanks,
Rich
 
D

Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Don said:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:52:23 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax



Don Pearce wrote:



On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:35:37 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax




Persinger's work has been comprehensively discredited.

References?


Nature - as good as it gets.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/041206-10.html

I'm familiar with it, as well as Persinger's refutation.


So I really didn't need to tell you, then.

I don't consider it to be anything like a 'comprehensive discrediting'.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/pf/041206-10_pf.html


Nonetheless, it is.

One report in Nature about a researcher who could not reproduce a result,
submitted to another journal?
You think that is all it takes to 'comprehensive discredit' the work of many
people over decades? [Persinger is not alone in getting the results he gets]


Absolutely, repeatability is what this is all about. The same thing
happened over cold fusion.

Only after numerous prestigious teams had spent months in attempting a
replication. Not because Billybob said he couldn't do it.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
T

Terry Given

Dirk said:
Don said:
Don Pearce wrote:


On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:52:23 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax



Don Pearce wrote:



On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:35:37 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax




Persinger's work has been comprehensively discredited.


References?



Nature - as good as it gets.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/041206-10.html


I'm familiar with it, as well as Persinger's refutation.



So I really didn't need to tell you, then.


I don't consider it to be anything like a 'comprehensive
discrediting'.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/pf/041206-10_pf.html



Nonetheless, it is.


One report in Nature about a researcher who could not reproduce a
result, submitted to another journal?
You think that is all it takes to 'comprehensive discredit' the work
of many people over decades? [Persinger is not alone in getting the
results he gets]



Absolutely, repeatability is what this is all about. The same thing
happened over cold fusion.


Only after numerous prestigious teams had spent months in attempting a
replication. Not because Billybob said he couldn't do it.

Cold fusion might not have been such a good straw man. I forget the
phrase currently used in lieu of cold fusion - but a large amount of
money is currently being spent on it - looks like Pons et al were
nowhere near as "wrong" as the failure to replicate their initial
experiment suggested.

Cheers
Terry
 
D

Dirk Bruere at Neopax

Terry said:
Dirk said:
Don said:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:47:29 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax


Don Pearce wrote:


On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:52:23 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax



Don Pearce wrote:



On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:35:37 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax




Persinger's work has been comprehensively discredited.



References?




Nature - as good as it gets.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/full/041206-10.html



I'm familiar with it, as well as Persinger's refutation.




So I really didn't need to tell you, then.



I don't consider it to be anything like a 'comprehensive
discrediting'.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/pf/041206-10_pf.html




Nonetheless, it is.



One report in Nature about a researcher who could not reproduce a
result, submitted to another journal?
You think that is all it takes to 'comprehensive discredit' the work
of many people over decades? [Persinger is not alone in getting the
results he gets]




Absolutely, repeatability is what this is all about. The same thing
happened over cold fusion.



Only after numerous prestigious teams had spent months in attempting a
replication. Not because Billybob said he couldn't do it.

Cold fusion might not have been such a good straw man. I forget the
phrase currently used in lieu of cold fusion - but a large amount of
money is currently being spent on it - looks like Pons et al were
nowhere near as "wrong" as the failure to replicate their initial
experiment suggested.

I tend to think there may well be new phenomena in 'Cold Fusion', but whether
it's fusion is another matter. The field certainly appears to be picking up once
more.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
I

Iwo Mergler

Ian said:
Err, you're so far off that it's ridiculous.
Microwaves operate on 2.45 (or is it 54) GHz.

Yep, 2.45GHz. Smack in the middle of the band
for WiFi, Bluetooth and a number of other
wireless toys.

Iwo
 
I

Ian Stirling

Iwo Mergler said:
Yep, 2.45GHz. Smack in the middle of the band
for WiFi, Bluetooth and a number of other
wireless toys.

Other way round - bluetooth and ... are all in the band allocated
for microwave ovens.
 
M

Michael A. Terrell

Ian said:
Other way round - bluetooth and ... are all in the band allocated
for microwave ovens.

Yes, the microwave ovens were there first!
 
T

Treeline

Greysky said:
Just got a new DSS 3 station 5.x GHz cordless telephone for the house. Boy,
does it work great, but the thought has occurred to me that these handsets
are emitting microwave radiation, right next to the brain, and we all know
what microwaves are good for .... making popcorn :) SO, am I and my
innocent family turning out brains into popcorn with these things??

Since I have gotten a lot of flack here and given some, let me suggest
some things that I have yet to read in any of the many replies. I read
a little more than half because of my Outlook Express and news supplier.

The radiation, depending on the wires, mayb be at the general
forumla rate over 1/r-cubed. R is the distance, assuming the wires
are close together and cancelling out. Not sure about your high frequency
radiation. I was mostly interested in power lines and low frequencies.
So it was either 1/r-cubed or 1/r-squared, unless one lived beneath transmission
wires. I am not familiar with radio waves. I am a little familiar with the
medical research on both. There's enough smoke here to take a little
precaution for very little effort or expense.

One way to greatly reduce any problem is to
use a headset and have the transmission or phone or radio-type part as far
away from the brain as possible, let's say, one the belt would be reasonable.
Then that foot or two from the head buys a whole lot of safety, yes???????

If it's 1/r-cubed, then that should be many orders of magnitude of safety
added. As long as it's not 1/r which only occurs when people live near
wires which are separated for safety in case of storms and above ground
as opposed to ordinary household wires and appliances.

Any thoughts? Will I get my usual share of flames now?

Does anyone know the formula for the radiation effect? Antenna
people should know. I know about the high voltage wires, not this
low voltage but high frequency stuff.
 
J

John Woodgate

I read in sci.electronics.design that Treeline <[email protected]>
One way to greatly reduce any problem is to
use a headset and have the transmission or phone or radio-type part as
far away from the brain as possible, let's say, one the belt would be
reasonable. Then that foot or two from the head buys a whole lot of
safety, yes???????

There have even been reports that indicated that such a separation did
NOT have a good effect, but that was later refuted. If I were worried, I
wouldn't have the phone on a belt but hand-held.
If it's 1/r-cubed, then that should be many orders of magnitude of
safety added. As long as it's not 1/r which only occurs when people live
near wires which are separated for safety in case of storms and above
ground as opposed to ordinary household wires and appliances.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.
Any thoughts? Will I get my usual share of flames now?

Does anyone know the formula for the radiation effect? Antenna people
should know. I know about the high voltage wires, not this low voltage
but high frequency stuff.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.
 
T

Terry Given

Treeline said:
Since I have gotten a lot of flack here and given some, let me suggest
some things that I have yet to read in any of the many replies. I read
a little more than half because of my Outlook Express and news supplier.

The radiation, depending on the wires, mayb be at the general
forumla rate over 1/r-cubed. R is the distance, assuming the wires
are close together and cancelling out. Not sure about your high frequency
radiation. I was mostly interested in power lines and low frequencies.
So it was either 1/r-cubed or 1/r-squared, unless one lived beneath transmission
wires. I am not familiar with radio waves. I am a little familiar with the
medical research on both. There's enough smoke here to take a little
precaution for very little effort or expense.

One way to greatly reduce any problem is to
use a headset and have the transmission or phone or radio-type part as far
away from the brain as possible, let's say, one the belt would be reasonable.
Then that foot or two from the head buys a whole lot of safety, yes???????

a badly designed "tumour cord" (as I heard a yuppy refer to it once) can
actually make the problem worse - ie more radiation delivered to head
than by holding cellphone there.
 
T

Treeline

John Woodgate said:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Treeline <[email protected]>


There have even been reports that indicated that such a separation did
NOT have a good effect, but that was later refuted. If I were worried, I
wouldn't have the phone on a belt but hand-held.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.

I disagree. In fact, all of these laws are extraordinarily applicable
in practical situations, unless you have never tested your assertion.
Have you? I have measured the electromagnetic radiations from
high-power lines and it was indeed 1/r.

I have also tested the 1/r-cubed with wires closely connected
and there is extremely fast drop-off. In fact, just tonight I found
my gauss meter, or tesla, whatever you prefer. And measured
some the radiation from some high-voltage coils. And it dropped
from around 10 milliGauss (1 microTesla) to .6 milliGauss within 2 feet.
In the 60 Hz frequency on this side of the pond.

Do you have a gauss meter? I suggest, since you are a consultant,
you should get one and test. Or just buy a cheap coil and connect
it to a digital voltmeter. As a consultant you have to be brave and
to pretend to know the answers, but come on, dude, what you said
above is completely wrong. But I envy your ability to say that so
flatly. I just can't do that black is white routine as you just did.
I'll be doomed to do research.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.

All of these law are reliable unless you're intoxicated or a Luddite.
I looked at your web site. You have lots of degrees so you must a
good education. At least a master's or equivalent in e.e.? Have you been
drinking or what? This power law is probably the most fundamental
and easiest of ALL THE LAWS to observe in practical situations.
Come on, stop trolling, you must know better than this.

If you don't believe me start with a light bulb and a tape measure...
It works. But in that case it's the square of the distance...

Back into the pub with you :)
 
T

Treeline

Terry Given said:
a badly designed "tumour cord" (as I heard a yuppy refer to it once) can
actually make the problem worse - ie more radiation delivered to head
than by holding cellphone there.

Who said that? Do you have a reference for such nonsense?
The cord is not carrying any radiation since it is NOT AN ANTENNA.
Furthermore since the wires are closely in parallel, they cancel
out any radiation if there had been radiation which there is not.
The wires are only carrying some extremely low voltage sound
waves. I doubt if you could measure anything whatsoever from the wires.

Somebody was teasing you here.

Or you guys drink and post this stuff just to mess with people's heads?

Troll land USA ;)
 
J

John Woodgate

I read in sci.electronics.design that Treeline <[email protected]>
I disagree. In fact, all of these laws are extraordinarily applicable in
practical situations, unless you have never tested your assertion. Have
you? I have measured the electromagnetic radiations from high-power
lines and it was indeed 1/r.

You are relying on your own measurements while I am relaying on forty
years experience.

Even at 60 Hz, metal structures (not necessarily ferromagnetic) can
grossly distort the electric and magnetic field patterns, even creating
nulls at lest 40 dB deep. As the frequency goes up, the sources become
more and more directional, with deeply lobed polar patterns, and above
300 MHz, both metallic and non-metallic objects distort the already
complex field patterns.
 
R

Rich Grise

I disagree. In fact, all of these laws are extraordinarily applicable
in practical situations, unless you have never tested your assertion.
Have you? I have measured the electromagnetic radiations from
high-power lines and it was indeed 1/r.

I have also tested the 1/r-cubed with wires closely connected
and there is extremely fast drop-off. In fact, just tonight I found
my gauss meter, or tesla, whatever you prefer. And measured
some the radiation from some high-voltage coils. And it dropped
from around 10 milliGauss (1 microTesla) to .6 milliGauss within 2 feet.
In the 60 Hz frequency on this side of the pond.

Just FYI, Treeline, a magnetometer is not a field strength meter. It
doesn't measure "radiation", it measures the magnetic component of a
field.

So you're not only full of smoke, but out of line denigrating Mr.
Woodgate.

Thanks,
Rich
 
C

Charles Edmondson

Treeline said:
Who said that? Do you have a reference for such nonsense?
The cord is not carrying any radiation since it is NOT AN ANTENNA.
Furthermore since the wires are closely in parallel, they cancel
out any radiation if there had been radiation which there is not.
The wires are only carrying some extremely low voltage sound
waves. I doubt if you could measure anything whatsoever from the wires.

Somebody was teasing you here.

Or you guys drink and post this stuff just to mess with people's heads?

Troll land USA ;)

Ok, the problem is that the headset cord runs right next to the antenna,
so a lot of energy is coupled in to it. Since this is coupled common
mode, the radiation is equally on both wires, so they act pretty much as
a single radiator. This then is looped around the nech and head into a
poor termination (at those frequencies) causing a lot of standing waves
and therefore radiation.

Not that I believe a word of it, of course! :cool:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics! Most of these studies are
pure statistics...
 
J

John Woodgate

I read in sci.electronics.design that Charles Edmondson
Ok, the problem is that the headset cord runs right next to the antenna,
so a lot of energy is coupled in to it. Since this is coupled common
mode, the radiation is equally on both wires, so they act pretty much as
a single radiator. This then is looped around the nech and head into a
poor termination (at those frequencies) causing a lot of standing waves
and therefore radiation.

Not that I believe a word of it, of course! :cool:

The point is that **you can get any result you like**. Moving the cord a
few centimetres can alter the field strength at a nearby point by up to
40 dB. Simple 1/r^n calculations are utterly inadequate.
 
T

Terry Given

Treeline said:
I disagree. In fact, all of these laws are extraordinarily applicable
in practical situations, unless you have never tested your assertion.
Have you? I have measured the electromagnetic radiations from
high-power lines and it was indeed 1/r.

I have also tested the 1/r-cubed with wires closely connected
and there is extremely fast drop-off. In fact, just tonight I found
my gauss meter, or tesla, whatever you prefer. And measured
some the radiation from some high-voltage coils. And it dropped
from around 10 milliGauss (1 microTesla) to .6 milliGauss within 2 feet.
In the 60 Hz frequency on this side of the pond.

Do you have a gauss meter? I suggest, since you are a consultant,
you should get one and test. Or just buy a cheap coil and connect
it to a digital voltmeter. As a consultant you have to be brave and
to pretend to know the answers, but come on, dude, what you said
above is completely wrong. But I envy your ability to say that so
flatly. I just can't do that black is white routine as you just did.
I'll be doomed to do research.





All of these law are reliable unless you're intoxicated or a Luddite.
I looked at your web site. You have lots of degrees so you must a
good education. At least a master's or equivalent in e.e.? Have you been
drinking or what? This power law is probably the most fundamental
and easiest of ALL THE LAWS to observe in practical situations.
Come on, stop trolling, you must know better than this.

If you don't believe me start with a light bulb and a tape measure...
It works. But in that case it's the square of the distance...

Back into the pub with you :)

And lets not forget that most real materials are inhomogeneous and
anisotropic. Why do you think FEA is so widely applied in
electromagnetics? because, when considering anything other than
geometrically well conditioned systems (eg toroid), this stuff gets
seriously complex. Alas the authors of textbooks often deliberately pick
such technical "straw men" to demonstrate how "easy" it is to solve
Maxwells equations, thus leading the gullible to the erroneous
conclusion its all easy stuff.

It is also interesting that you firstly asked for:

when of course its all just Maxwells equations. Perhaps some basic
electromagnetism texts would be a good start. And pretty much all of the
so-called "high frequency stuff" is the *same* as the low-frequency
stuff - its just that Cu skin depth is around 10mm at 50/60Hz (which is
one of the reasons that AC line voltages increase as power levels go up)

Cheers
Terry (neither drunk nor trolling)
 
T

Treeline

Terry Given said:
And lets not forget that most real materials are inhomogeneous and
anisotropic. Why do you think FEA is so widely applied in
electromagnetics? because, when considering anything other than
geometrically well conditioned systems (eg toroid), this stuff gets
seriously complex. Alas the authors of textbooks often deliberately pick
such technical "straw men" to demonstrate how "easy" it is to solve
Maxwells equations, thus leading the gullible to the erroneous
conclusion its all easy stuff.

It is also interesting that you firstly asked for:


when of course its all just Maxwells equations. Perhaps some basic
electromagnetism texts would be a good start. And pretty much all of the
so-called "high frequency stuff" is the *same* as the low-frequency
stuff - its just that Cu skin depth is around 10mm at 50/60Hz (which is
one of the reasons that AC line voltages increase as power levels go up)

I do not see the relevance of the copper skin depth here. Are you talking about the excitation of
the what, ions in the brain? I am not sure of that. It's my understand that 10 mm is perhaps enough
to change human metabolism for bone healing and that brain cells don't need much current to be
provoked. In fact picoamperes might do nicely.

I know in the literature you fellows use there is a lot of talk of Cu skin depth. Is copper the
culprit with electromagnetism radiation then? It's interesting but what has this to do with the
power law I was referring to? I was not referring to invasively entering the body.

You are talking about 10mm and I have measured the ELF at 100 meters! So this kind of boggles my
poor brain what you are referring to. Aha, 5 GHz is very low invasively then, that is what you are
referring to? Most likely. Nothing stops ELF short of nu-metal, Faraday cages, and so on. Okay, we
are talking at cross purposes but the basic equations are the same, fine.
Terry (neither drunk nor trolling)

Thanks, I was worried.

I was what, glad to read that it is the same stuff. This is what I suspected
but I have only personally played with, tested, and messed around with
mostly 60 Hz electromagnetic radiation.

I have used the simple power law of 1/r or 1/r[2]squared or 1/r[3]cubed.

It works. I have also seen that taking two lines I can cancel out the radiation
to a large degree because the phase of the waves do cancel each other out.
You know, the right hand rule in physics. High school stuff.

This is not trivial and not what the resident experts and geniuses say BUT
IT IS WHAT THE INDUSTRY HAS DONE TO MINIMIZE THE PROBLEM.

What industry?

Try electric blankets which no longer radiate as they used to.
How? They placed the wires together. It's so simple and safe and effective.
They were ELF generators placed right up against the body.
Not a good idea. And extraordinarily simple to completely well almost completely solve a problem
even if there was not a problem. I forget now. Pregnancies were one of the first indications. Not
getting pregnant, although you all could joke about that, but miscarriages.

Try schools where the children were getting headaches.
An engineer comes in and balances the fields by making sure the neutrals are done correctly.
This actually happened. Nothing complicated. Someone had separated the wires in the walls
unnecessarily when building the school. Just a case history that always stuck in my memory. An
electrician actually, not an engineer, just balanced the neutrals, not even knowing any of this
stuff.

And another thing that is not so funny are the blood disorders on those who work on high power
lines. Yes, electrocution is the first job danger. But the second are the medical issues which
Washington State once studied in detail, yes? You all should know about that.

I do not see why Maxwell has to be brought in here, but if you can direct me to a source, then
fine.
It's a simple power law.

I don't see what the fuss is about except what? Solutions should be as simple as they can be until
they are not correct.

ELF and what you all are discussing may follow the same laws, but the health problems are quite
different since ELF penetrates. I guess we were talking at cross purposes.

As Roger Penrose pointed out, it's amazing that humans ever understand anything anyone else says,
especially when I chime in :)
 
T

Treeline

John Woodgate said:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Charles Edmondson


The point is that **you can get any result you like**. Moving the cord a
few centimetres can alter the field strength at a nearby point by up to
40 dB. Simple 1/r^n calculations are utterly inadequate.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Thanks for the reply. I have to be careful here or someone will suggest I am denigrating you. I am
not.

Are we talking at cross purposes here? You are referring to 5 GHz radiations, which is the subject
of this thread, yes? I was talking about the ELF which started all this decades ago. You remember
that really good fellow who prevented the USA from wiring up the state of Wisconsin with ELF to
detect whatever perceived threats from the old USSR? And they destroyed his career. He wrote the
seminal, to me anyways, books, The Body Electric? He was working for the VA here [veterans
administration] and they took away his lab. The early work was on magnetism and healing of bones
which has become standard in the medical industry, just as an aside. Not quackery. Really works to
heal bones that cannot be healed or are not knitting together as they should.

The power law works wonderfully with ELF since it's so powerful and extremely difficult to contain.
It goes through everything, believe me, unless you live in a Faraday cage.

Well, mu-metal or whatever it's called can stop it but that's way too expensive. I would use
balancing the wires act [which works for ELF {extremely low frequency}] or graphite sprays or
anything because it's a terrible, terrible problem when dealing with delicate equipment for medical
purposes as I was doing.

I don't have the tools or knowledge to start measuring 5 GHz so I'll leave that to you. What you
said makes sense for 5 GHz except for that fellow who fell into the microwave radiation dish as a
practical joke and was about to, well, take apart his fellow soldier who turned it on when he fell
into it. I can assure you that the GHz radiation can boil your blood at those levels. It's a bad
pun but maybe not a pun.
 
T

Treeline

Rich Grise said:
Just FYI, Treeline, a magnetometer is not a field strength meter. It
doesn't measure "radiation", it measures the magnetic component of a
field.

So you're not only full of smoke, but out of line denigrating Mr.
Woodgate.

Thanks,
Rich

I'm always out of line but I was not denigrating Mr. Woodgate. I was just bringing up the place
where what he said was not true. We were talking at cross purposes. I may be full of smoke. I'll
let you know when I peak in a mirror.

Now what you said above is not quite accurate.

Although I used terms that come from magnetism, like Gauss and Tesla, I was referring to radiation,
but a specific type of radiation and IT IS RADIATION. But electromagnetic radiation. So stop
denigrating my type of radiation and I'll stop denigrating whoever you designate as the
non-denigrator.

Whether a magnetometer is a field strength meter, I'll leave for you to figure out. I think you are
wrong here too. Why? The meter I was using only worked in 60 Hz fields because it was built only to
detect ELF which is Extremely Low Frequency radiation, which is a health problem. So for me it's a
field strength meter, literally, but you don't like electromagnetic fields that pulsate at 60 Hz.
They don't exist for you? What a snob!

Now regular magnetism, call it DC as opposed to AC which is ELF, is what you are referring to
above.

I don't see the difference between an ELF meter, and here comes the joke and the whatever field
strength meter you mentioned above. Just different fields, yes? I was jabbering about 50 or 60 Hz
fields and you all are going on and on about 5 GHz fields. Mine come from electromagnetism. I don't
know where yours come from. Mine are oblivous to most obstructions. Yours are not. It's in the same
ballpark. And once you're into medical questions, then well, we'll see.

Personally I don't use a cellular phone except at the most for one hour per month, because that's
all I paid for ;) under the university's contract. Hard to believe that I got out of kindergarten,
right?

So you owe me an apology for denigrating me, harumph, take that you blazing hypocrite :)
 
Top