Subject:  (Philips) About safety levels of microwaves  (fwd)
Date:     Wed, 24 Feb 1999 090414 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------

Hi everybody:

.......I propose to end this technical discussion at this point -- for
the full list.....I urge the engineers who are conducting this discussion
to continue among themselves.....  It is important and worthwhile, I know.

But we lose good "lay people" when we stretch their tolerance of matters
they do not understand (or even read, in some cases) too far......

I just received an answer from Clas -- to this message -- which I
will forward....  That will end the "allowable standards" discussion
for now......  Let's get some "real world numbers" about exposure
effects.....

Cheerio.....

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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:30:39
From: Alasdair Philips 
To: Clas Tegenfeldt 
Cc: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: About safety levels of microwaves 

Roy - please post this one too, thanks.
Clas

I apologise for the extra 's' in your name last time!

I think we agree very closely in these matters. In the UK the
government allows 15m masts without planning permission so that
most of the masts in this country, especially those near houses
and schools, are only 15m high. The local planners also prefer
that as they are not so ugly to look at (??). Probably 90% of
UK masts are around only 15m high.  It sounds like Sweden is more
sensible in these matters. That sort of difference will screw up
any simplified epidemiology! The latest city 'micro-cell' antennas
are mounted on shop walls only about 2 to 3 metres above the heads
of passing pedestrians walking in the street!

'RMS' is ONE way to assess a signal. Unfortunately you could have
   1 V/m for 1 second every second = 1 V/m rms.... but also
100 V/m for 1 ms ten times every second also = "   "   " (approx)
and the informational content of the two signals would be 
VERY different. One is unlikely to affect brain rhythms and the
other will almost certainly (at 10 Hz) show a brainwave effect.

They are only the same if you are thinking of the signals as 
average power levels.  I though both of us were trying to get 
away from that concept!  Also most 'rms' meters I have tested
badly under-read when measuring pulsed signals with big time
gaps between short sharp pulses.

Good wishes
Alasdair


 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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