Subject: (Philips) (Scherer) Setting levels for field density (fwd)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 063954 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:27:22
From: Alasdair Philips
To: "Roy L. Beavers" , emfguru
Cc: "Wolfgang W. Scherer "
Subject: Re: (Scherer) Setting levels for field density (fwd)
This is a briefish comment following my longer response to Class's
uwave level settings. In that reply I agreed that human sensitivity
might well extend down to a few uV/m or a few pW/cm2 ....
... however .... when it comes to uwave hearing there really is not
ANY evidence for hearing at 100 pW/cm2 levels. The military did lots
of work on this because they didn't want fighter pilots (etc) to be
distracted from their task of killing people and they came up with
minimum levels of about 1 milliwatt/cm2 as the threshold.
Good old Alan Frey has done some excellent work in human reactions
to EMFs (see his good paper last year on headaches which appeared
on EMF-L) and in early 1962 (yes, ..62) published an interesting
paper "Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic
energy" J.Applied Physiology 17(4) 689-692, 1962.
Here he states that "Peak power density is a critical factor and,
with accoustic noise of approximately 80dBA, a peak power density
of approximatelt 275 milliwatts/cm2 is needed to induce the
perception at carrier frequencies of 425 and 1,310 MHz. The
average power density can be as low as 400 microwatts/cm2."
He tried a number of pulses/sec (27,244 and 400) and a number of
pulse widths (1, 2.5, 6 ,125, 250, 500, 1000 and 2000 microsecs).
In his test subjects he did not find ANY hearing perception at
levels under a couple of hundred milliwatts/cm2 peak pulse
energy levels.
Theoretical hypothesising is not enough. Wolfgang should gather
any people who claim to hear noises and get them tested in a
suitable lab. These days generating known levels of pulsed
microwaves is easy and you can even hire suitable equipment
by the day.
At present I can not find ANY practical evidence of hearing
at low levels of exposure. .... however, there are some
anecdotal reports of people apparently hearing radio stations.
These are usually traced to mixed metal teeth fillings causing
rectifying diode junctions in the mouth and they disappear when
then fillings are replaced with new homogenous ones. Sometimes
metal wire teeth braces in contact with teeth fillings cause
the problem I am told.
Oops, this has become a rather long comment. I hope readers find
it helpful.
Good wishes to all (including Wolfgang,of course!)
Alasdair
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
Director, UK Powerwatch,
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 22:03 22/02/99 -0600, Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>
>........Be sure you read the next message after this one.......
>
>Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
>rbeavers@llion.org................
>...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...
>.................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:22:40 -6000
>From: "Wolfgang W. Scherer "
>To: EMF-Network@connect1.reach.net
>Cc: rbeavers@llion.org
>Subject: Setting levels for field density
>
>Hi all
>since we have now Alexandre's "rights and law" translation on our
>EMF-list , I would really like to ask everyone here about the
>fundamental legal implications in the USA and Canada
>only with the one quote of CBC's "Cone of Silence"
>
>>> BOWLING: My concern I guess is worst-case.
>>> If the best scientists in the world can't agree that it's safe,
>>> who is anybody else to say that it is?
>
>Any lawyer or our Vancouver bureaucrat ready to answer?
>
>On the other hand in response to Alasdair I like to point out again
>the electrophonic effect - microwave hearing - was explained as a
>strictly THERMAL phenomenon
>and the physiological acoustic energy-equivalent came
> - as I calculated it using "established scientific knowledge -
>to the low value of 15.8 picoW/sqcm for the bio-effect threshold.
>
>My demand of 100 picoW/sqcm for maximum exposure
> was already an upward 8-10 dB compromise, but even here on our list
>nobody seemed ready to accept or even discuss that low a value and
>the rationale behind it.
>
>If Roy's idea of "avoidance" is legislative regulation so that
>exposure for the general public is below that value -
> we are quite on the same train.......
>
>But most discussions in legislative gremiums are about levels up to
>10 000 times higher. All those people - including Repacholi - they
>should all have to answer to Bowling's question before they are
>allowed to set any value , but reality is the other way around -
>maybe because not only "politicians but also many scientists and most
>lawyers and consequently often "justice" are only found were the
>money is.
>
>Facing this reality I say again : Anything lower than the current
>values is better - no matter what argument anyone may have against
>that reasoning. If you don't agree - get your politicians to do
>better. I have the highest respect for those who against all
>pressures took at least a step in the right ("downward") direction.
>We should support them - not complaining to them it was not enough -
> or else they may not be able to even hold on to that - those who
>don't let them set lower standards are the "enemy"..
>
>Greetings
>Wolfgang
>
>
>Wolfgang W. Scherer
>
>http://www.reach.net/~scherer/p/
>
>Join the EMF mailing list contact Roy Beavers
>rbeavers@llion.org
>visit http://www.feb.se/
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alasdair Philips (aphilips@gn.apc.org)
Director, UK Powerwatch,
EMC Engineer and EMF-bioeffects researcher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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