Lantzelot said:

Hi,

I got the article if you still want it and haven’t got it, drop me an email.

Best wishes,
Lantzelot

Actually I now have a copy but thanks

I got the article if you still want it and haven’t got it, drop me an email.

Best wishes,
Lantzelot

For some reason it seems to me like this was discussed at length – the thermal effects, the long history of biophysical research, the historical evidence from radar usage, the whole issue of dialectic heating.

It’s funny that I had that impression, because the poster “David Ehm” seems to think that the author is totally unaware of these topics and that the information is “Excellent and rare info you cannot get anywhere else.” I would have thought you could have gotten it on previous posts here, but what do I know?

        David Ehm said:

It seems pretty clear that the owner of this site is not up on current science…During 1955 biophysics researchers…

This is priceless; I nearly fell out of my chair.

As for this study nonsense, I’d be amazed if it passes statistical rigor. Keep us posted!

But okay… one quarter watt… about as much as you could reasonably expect ever to get to a region of your body from a consumer grade device…

That is 900 joules in one hour.

That is about 215 calories (thermal, not nutritional)

That is enough to heat 215 grams of water one degree Celsius.

So lets say this all goes into your brain. The human brain is about 80% water and has roughly the same thermal mass as water (actually a little bit more than water, so I’m being generous here) and is about 1.25-1.5 liters in volume. So.. if we assume that 100% of that energy is converted to heat with 100% effeciency and there is ZERO circulation, ZERO convection, ZERO radiation and ZERO conduction, the brain being 100% perfectly insulated, then this energy would be enough to raise the temperature by about .17 degrees Celsius or .3 degrees ferinheight.

You are not going to get a burn of any kind from that kind of change in temperature. It’s actually entirely normal for the core body temperature of a human to very from 97.9 all the way to 99.8 and even a temperature of 100 F does not mean you have a fever. So this is nothing, nothing to worry about at all.

        David Ehm said:

http://emfbioeffects.org/

Excellent and rare info you cannot get anywhere else.

During 1955 biophysics researchers under contract with the U.S. Navy reported that in order to prevent deep-tissue burning, radiofrequency radiation exposures should not take place when an exposed individual is wearing or carrying any metal objects such as hair pins, metal implants, buckles, coins, or metal-framed eye glasses, “[a]s any of these objects may concentrate the field and cause burning.”

I know this already. Anyone who understands this stuff knows this. If you’re in a high field of RF radiation, then there can be RF burns associated with that and nobody will dispute this. Metal items can cause this to happen at lower levels than it would otherwise, because it is denser and more conductive than the human body is. When you stand in a powerful VHF field, most of that energy will pass through your body without doing anything. However, a metal object will work as a fairly descent antenna and will receive that energy more effectively. Therefore, it can heat up more than tissue alone will.

But this needs to be taken in context. The thermal effects are all but non-existent when you’re talking about a few watts or less. This information pertains to technicians who Would be working on mutli-kilowatt systems.

Funny, this topic has come up before many many times and nobody has disputed the potential thermal effects. This can’t be applied to low power devices because the amount of heat that something like a half a watt per kilogram can impart to tissue is minuscule – it’s well within the natural variations in human body temperature and even with poor circulation it would not be an issue.

Thermal damage only becomes an issue when the energy is enough to raise the temperature of tissue more than a few degrees. You can raise the temperature of tissue (temporarily) quite easily. Run your hands under warm water and the tissue in your hands is heated a bit. Drink hot coffee and your mouth and stomach become a bit warmer. It happens. It’s no big deal. You would get signifficantly less than this from any consumer-grade RF device.

Again, this is well known – the effects are not immediately apparent and that is why high power RF can be dangerous. yet even without good circulation, the minuscule effects from a cell phone would be well within the bounds of lymphatic fluid convection or even radiation from the body.

Oh damnit… I’m going to have to go look up the numbers and do the thermal calculations, aren’t I?

        drbuzz0 said:

There have been double-blind studies on the acute effects of RF radiation, but not the chronic.

Yet this is what they seem to be claiming in the abstract to the study under discussion. I would very much like to see this paper, and I am doing my best to get a copy in hand.

        Brian-M said:

That’s an idea… they could set-up mobile-phone towers operating in the low megahertz radio frequency range and hand out a bunch of identical looking phones to nearby residents, some of which will operate in the megahertz (radio) band, others in the gigahertz (microwave) band.

If these phones were identical in appearance and all of them only worked locally, you’d have blinding for a large scale study. They could offer the locals free (or cheap) calls in exchange for participating, and keep track of usage in order to get an accurate estimate of exposure.

I assume nobody’s done anything like this?

Uh… that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to do. First of all, even if you could do it, it would only demonstrate the difference in frequency (if any). Secondly, there would be enormous problems with getting that kind of technology to work. The low Mhz range is already cluttered and has very little bandwidth. Absolutely no way you could use any 3G or multimedia features on it. It would be very low bandwidth and noisy and that would make an obvious difference in QOS. Also, they could never leave the relatively small area where the service was provided.

Then there would be big issues with the size of the phone. An antenna for HF reception and transmission would be at least a few feet long to be resonant. This could be overcome by using a loop antenna or heavy inductive loading, but that would also mean the phone would be large physically and also need to be powerful to overcome the inherent inefficiency of an inductive loop antenna.

There have been double-blind studies on the acute effects of RF radiation, but not the chronic. I don’t see the need for it anyway. It’s an enviornmental effects study so it would not have as much of a placebo factor.

        david ehm said:

It seems pretty clear that the owner of this site is not up on current science. i don’t want to waste my time here as your readers

Gee Ehm, first you’re going to say nothing, and then you say something moronic that is completely out of context. No one has ever argued here that high levels of RF is harmless, but this is not high power. Please take your own advice and stop wasting our time here, you are an idiot with nothing of value to say trying to drive traffic to your site which is nothing but a collection of paranoid rubbish.