Subject:  Cell phone emission profiles (Hargreaves)..
Date:     Thu, 25 Nov 1999 162919 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------

.......I'm forwarding this quickly -- while I have but a moment for
my computer.....  Hope someone will thoroughly discuss with Nigel the
problem he is having (we are ALL having) with the SAR values which do
not reflect the latest information in 'science' thinking -- but which
government and industry are willing to defend ... out of their own
interests rather than the publics interest.....

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
                       NEW!!!  Website 
...................People are more important than profits.................

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:00:06 +0000
From: nigel^E 
To: R Beavers 
Subject: Cell phone emission profiles

Dear Roy 

As you know I'm studying the research into the health effects of cell phone radiation and trying to
see if I can make anything of it from a homeopath's point of view. So far I've read only a pile of
research papers but have got a question or two to ask.

To me the area of greatest interest, and as yet least researched, is the so-called non-thermal
biological effects of cell phone transmissions. My reading so far suggests the area we should be
most concerned with lies in the  biological response from tissue irradiated by AM or pulse-modulated
(PM) signals, within the established "safety power levels" set by the various standards agencies. I
get the impression that SARs of 1.6 W/kg or 2.0 W/kg (IEEE & ICNIRB respectively) are as yet derived
from concerns about thermal effects. While thermal effects may indeed be a problem, and reflected in
various research papers, they are often incurred only from using higher intensity and continuous
wave (CW) signals which are uncharacteristic of actual cell phone emissions.

So my questions are: 

1/ What is the typical wave profile of the commonest cell phone? 

2/ Am I right to say that analogue cell phones use lower frequency (~900 MHz) FM signals and that
the newer digital cell phones (~ 1800 MHz) are using either AM or PM signals of 217 Hz? Can somebody
please clarify this and say whether these digital phones have become, or are becoming, the majority
type of handset. 

3/ Am I correct in asserting that most research so far has looked at analogue phone signals around
900 MHz? If so, and non-thermal biological effects are connected to AM or PM signals, then why
hasn't more been done to check out the higher frequency digital phones? 

Any comments welcome.

With kind regards [and happy Thanksgiving]

Nigel Hargreaves




Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com