Subject:  (Cvijovic) mobile phones / power (fwd)
Date:     Thu, 19 Nov 1998 124144 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------


..........IF ... (I say advisedly) ... we can EVER clear our minds of
the notion that (a) the magnetic field "dimension" and (b) the "strength"
of that dimension are the crucial factors in assessing "what" is causing
the biological "activity," then we may finally start studying those other
"metrics" of the EMF phenomenon:  such as the frequency, the spikes or
"transients," the other induced fields, etc.....

When that happens, it may also be that our models will begin to envision
the possible role of harmonics or "resonance" as the kind of 
electron-interaction "mechanism" that may be involved.......Until that
happens, the question/statement below seems to me to be perfectly
valid......i.e., Don't get "hung up"  on strength measurements -- whether
of milligauss or mW/cm2......

We need to be satisfied (it seems to me) AT THIS POINT in our learning
curve to be able to say:  _environmental levels of exposure_ 'can produce'
the results we are detecting, both in the laboratory and in our
epidemiological studies......guru......

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 17:02:31 +0100
From: "D. S. Cvijovic" 
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: mobile phones / power



Dear Mr. Beavers,
I was just wondering, and I didn't know whom to share my thoughts with:

As the most of us would agree, nonthermal ("low intensity") effects of
microwaves are not "microthermal" (very tiny heating) in their nature. So,
it is, to my opinion, improper to use either power density (mW/cm2), or SAR
(mW/kg) as a measure of "radiation" (or risk), any more! One of the
significant consequences of this would be that the risk (from a mobile
phone tower, for example) doesn't (necessarily) decrease with distance by
square, as believed formerly...

What mechanisms underlay the very well known low intensity effects, it is
hard to say, but some of the proposed mechanisms are likely to be related
to field strength. That could give us another light to the researches with
(sometimes - amazingly) low exposures - if we convert the power densities
into field strengths, it would make them look "less low"...

Anyway, using power densities (or SARs) prejudices that the mechanism is
related to absorption of energy!

I would appreciate any feedback (including disagreements) on this!

With respect,
Drasko Cvijovic,
PECINA@EUnet.yu








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