Subject: Re EMF Thoughts (by Alasdair Philips)..... (fwd)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 045443 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@mail.llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:13:26 GMT
From: Alasdair Philips
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: EMF Thoughts (by Alasdair Philips).....
Roy
Following an enquiry by Clas T which I have replied to separately, here is
part of my reply to him which others may find useful:
Here is a table of relevant "Standards"
------------------------------------------------------------------
General Public Frequency Efield Efield Power Power
Reference body MHz dBmV/m V/m W/m2 uW/cm2
------------------------------------------------------------------
INIRC, 1988 900 152 41 4.5 450
1800 155 58 9 900
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI, 1990(USA) 900 153 47 6 600
1800 156 66 12 1200
------------------------------------------------------------------
NRPB, 1993(Current UK) 900 161 112 33 3300
1800 166 194 100 10000
------------------------------------------------------------------
CENELEC, 1995 900 152 41 4.5 450
(Proposed Europe) 1800 155 58 9 900
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two USA military 30-100000 126 20 1 100
research bases
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Various experts" 100-2500 129-139 9-3 0.2-0.02 20-2
Prudent avoidance
------------------------------------------------------------------
N.South Wales 1997 800-2000(?) 96 0.06 0.00001 0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------
The natural thermal background level at 1.8GHz is somewhere between 20 and
50 microvolts/metre (26 dBuV/m and 34 dBuV/m).
The "man-made electrosmog" level is usually below 100 uV/m, (40 dBuV/m),
with strong broadcast TV (500 MHz) and FM radio (100MHz) signals normally
not exceeding 0.1 V/m (100 dBuV/m) unless you are close to a large broadcast
transmission mast where they still rarely exceed 2 or 3 volts/metre (130
dBuV/m). These are, of course, continuous signals at these levels, whereas
GSM signals consist of short pulses of similar signal strengths and have
much lower average powers.
The maximum (peak) levels in public places from a single operator (service
provider) base station mast are usually between 100 and 120 dB dBuV/m (0.1
to 1.0 V/m), with average levels between 90 and 110 dBuV/m. (0.03 to 0.3 V/m).
Even if we treated these as continuous signals their power levels are tiny.
If fact I do not think it is an issue of power, but of information. Our
bodies pick up the pulsing of these signals and this may interfere with
complex cellular processes. Proving this will be difficult.
If we accept an unusually high "ambient" level of 0.1 volts/metre we see
that cell-phone base-station pulse signals can poke up to 100 times higher
than this - so, of course, our bodies will detect them. The official
agencies say "so what, there is not enough power to be dangerous". Dr Von
Klitzing says they change our brainwave patterns, though his work has not
been successfully replicated. You pay your money, use your intuition, and
in the end have to make your choice.
If it is coherent interference from the regular 217 Hz pulsing then
Litovitz's work seems to show that if we introduce pseudo-random electric
field noise spanning the frequency to mask (say 70 to 500 Hz) at about the
same signal strength levels then the body will cease to "tune-in" to the
regular pulsing.
Hmmm.
Cheers
Alasdair
Alasdair Philips (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
.-
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html