Subject: (Curry) Re (Jonsson) A loaded question....... (fwd)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 182810 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:03:41 -0700
From: "Bill P. Curry"
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: (Jonsson) A loaded question.......
Roy and Suzanne,
The fellow who wanted to compare exposures is ignoring the fact that the
exposure levels vary with the square of the distance from the source.
Allowing for this and the fact that cell phone base stations put full power
into many frequency channels simultaneously (so that the "50 watt light bulb"
analogy that attorneys and PR people often quotemust be multiplied by the
number of simultaneously active channels to get the total power output of the
antenna) and that cell phone antennas often are high gain devices (meaning
that the effective radiated power in three specific directions will be 10-20
times higher at the expense of the power radiated into other directions), I
made some crude comparisons: living 50 -100 feet (slant distance from the
diating source) from a cell phone tower is equivalent to living 1 or 2 miles
from a 10 megawatt (effective radiated power) TV or FM station in terms of
exposure level. Both will give you an exposure of a few microwatts per square
centimeter - and this is the range of exposure - 8 microwatts per square
centimeter - that the Soviet Union used to irradiate the U.S. Embassy for
several months, leading to several fatal cancers. (See J.R. Goldsmith's
article in Environmental Health Perspectives late in 1997.) It is also in the
range of exposure (3 microwatts per square centimeter on the average measured
by local people) that was found in the Lookout Mountain, Colorado situation to
correlate with the fact that 5 residents out of 1800 (who had lived there 10
years or more) got (mostly fatal) brain cancers, when less than 1 case would
have been expected from random chance. (See the report of the Colorado Dept.
of Public Health on the web site www.C.A.R.E..org.)
Roy L. Beavers wrote:
>
> Hi everybody:
>
> This one is REAL interesting....
>
> ......It's a loaded question, Suzanne!! Science does not know that
> the EMF bioeffects -- which are known -- are more closely related to
> (1) "signal strength" (the measures asked below) or (2) the signal
> frequencies or (3) the **duration** of the exposure.....
>
> Item (3) could be the most important association..... In fact, what
> few studies have been done (Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, etc.) have
> actually looked at "duration." They have compared leukemia, etc.,
> incidence within a population of people **living** in the vicinity
> of antennas over a number of years!!!...... Those studies (well
> summarized in the Goldsmith paper) have found higher incidence in
> the homes of those closer to the antennas....
>
> Proximity and duration may have little to do with the " signal strength"
> which that person (below -- with his loaded question) wants you to
> measure..... If proximity and duration of exposure are the more
> important, the measurements below will tell you little about the actual
> risk......
>
> The question about the microwave oven, for example, is a real "red
> herring." You will get your highest readings there. (In our house
> we get readings that are 20 times or so higher than anywhere else.
> We DO make it a rule to stay at least 4 feet from the oven when
> operating. (At that distance, we get less than 1 mG.)
>
> Don't let "these industry guys" **snow** you, Suzanne!!!!! They love to
> act "all wise" and you poor little old citizens are just supposed to be
> humble and thankful that you get your electricity or TV or mobile phone,
> etc.....
>
> All of which IS nice and desirable!! I am not opposed to any one of
> them.... Just as I am NOT opposed to martinis......But, I know that
> my exposure to martinis HAS to be limited by something that is within
> reason considering the risk...... That is how it MUST be with EMF/EMR
> for all of us in this "blue world" of today!!.....
>
> That guy who is asking those loaded questions sounds to me like one
> of these "don't sweat it" industry types who will do everything he can
> to divert attention from "the problem" in order to prevent us (society)
> from finding out what Mother Nature's "blue world" risks really are......
>
> 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...............
>
> .......DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST?????...........
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:48:32 +0000
> From: azul@flash.net
> To: "Roy L. Beavers"
> Subject: Help! Town Meeting Mar. 29, Need all our ducks in a row!
>
> I received the following email from a member of our coalition. Thanks to
> all of you who have already responded. If you have already answered some
> of this, I will (hopefully) find it.
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
> Town Meeting started last night, and someone distributed information to
> members saying we should provide answers to this question:
>
> provide exposure level maps inside and outside based on
> measurements, and compare cell phone antenna exposures with, other
> RF frequency sources including: cordless phones, TV
> transmitters/UHF, FM radio transmitters, taxi dispatchers, police
> radio, ham radio transmitters, local area networks, and microwave
> ovens.
>
> The argument is posed that exposures around cell phone antennas are a
> fraction of a millionth of a Watt/sq., as compared with these which are
> potentially more by hundreds to thousands, because of the direction and
> shape of the cellular antenna signal.
>
> Can anyone supply materials or sources which come anywhere close to
> doing such a comparison with these RF sources?
>
> Thanks so much!
>
> Suzanne Jonsson
> The Lexington Coalition on Cellular Communications Impact
--
----
Bill P. Curry, Ph.D. |Physics is fun.
EMSciTek Consulting Co. |Trying to make a living!
22W101 McCarron Road, |Phone: (630) 858-9377
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 |Fax: same, but require prior notice
Home page: http://www.EMSciTek.com
____________________________________________________
| Analysis, experiment design & software development |
| for engineering and the physical sciences |
----------------------------------------------------
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