Subject: Re Headphone & Microphone sets (Duffield)(Tegenfeldt)..
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 035230 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
........Clas' sensible answer below appears to be "right on." I
never understood why there was so much "flap" (confusion) about
the "hnads free" alternative in the first place.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru) You gotta SHOWME -- I'm from Missouri....
roy@emfguru.com
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:25:12 +0200
From: Clas Tegenfeldt
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: Headphone & Microphone sets (Duffield)..
At 18:44 2000-06-01 -0500, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 09:48:28 +1200
>From: Jesse Duffield
>To: "Roy L. Beavers"
>Subject: Headphone & Microphone sets
>
...
>I've recently (and in some ways reluctantly) succumbed to the cellphone
>age, and use a head phone & microphone set & hold the phone away from
>my body as I speak, trusting that the 'inverse square law' will reduce
>my exposure to hundreths of what it would otherwise be, and therefore
>what I hope is a 'safe' level.
>
>People have been telling me recently that a study in England found that
>the wire in such sets can act as a large aerial, and in some cases make
>using the phone worse than when it is straight up agains the brain.
>
>I asked a friend who is very knowledgeble on such technology about this,
>and he told me that this will be the case if the phones don't have
>circuitry to block the radio frquency from the socket the set plugs
>into.
First, physics do apply. If you remove the transmitter from your head you
WILL get LOWER exposure. If you then put a wire between the phone and your
head you WILL RISE the exposure again, but never to the same amount as when
the transmitter/antenna itself is pushed against your head.
So, by using a headset the exposure on your head will be lower! But how much
lower? Oh, that depends on a number of things, first as mentioned above, if
the phone properly filters the headset cable from the radiation or not. The
problem is that the WHOLE phone is part of the antenna, even your hand
holding it will be a part of the total antenna, thus even your hand is
emitting radiation... So, the handsfree will also radiate, but of course
less than the antenna on the phone itself!
The missunderstanding and FALSE information spread around that handsfree can
be worse than using the phone at the head is probably due to hasty and
incompetent measurements.
If you use a handsfree and hang it on your belt, the problem is that the
cable for the handsfree is running out from the bottom of the phone, passing
right along the ANTENNA of the phone and going up to your ear... This is NOT
a god solution, it may be better than putting the phone to your ear, but...
Turn your phone upside down! Hang it onto your belt with the antenna
pointing downwards and your exposure to radiation through the handsfree will
be less due to the fact that the cable then doesnīt pick up radiation from
running through the intense antenna field.
Of course we could argue if it is better to expose your internal organs at
hip level than exposing your head... You donīt reduce your total exposure,
you move it downwards. In fact it will increase by a small amount since the
antenna has a harder time reaching the base station from a lower height,
this increase is probably insignificant though.
To summarize, use a handsfree, point the antenna away from the cable and
hold the phone away from the body if possible. But your best method to
reduce exposure is to REDUCE TIME using the phone!
>Is this so? Is it known which phones are safer to use with these sets?
>To me it has always seemed absurd putting the transmitter right up to
>the head when all that is needed is a microphone and speaker. This
>latest study seems to contradict that completely? If this isn't the case
>then why do you think such sets aren't encouraged more?
>
>Another question if I could, how often do GSM phones 'beacon'? I've had
>a number of discussions with people who understand the system about this
>and no-one seems to know, how often does a GSM phone which is turned on
>transmit, and for how long? I don't know about other uses but to me its
>rather important when I'm carrying it near my body.
GSM phones try to make a handshake with the network at regular times to let
the network know it is still there. This "periodic location update" is set
by the network operator, it can be in the intervall of some minutes up to a
maximum of four hours (technical limit). Most operators set this between
half an hour to four hours. The transmission is of the same character as
that when you switch your phone on or off, it is a short handshake of about
one second duration, the handshake is done with full power. The periodic
update is necessary to purge unavavilable/unreachable phones from the
network database.
Hope this helps,
Clas
Clas Tegenfeldt
BEMI
Tornevalla Gamla Skola
S-590 62 LINGHEM, SWEDEN
tegen@bemi.se, http://www.bemi.se
Telephone +46 (0)13-74 000, telefax +46 (0)13-13 47 00
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com