Subject: (Philips) Re (Curry) Re (Brown) Re REQUEST YOUR help (fwd)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 062409 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 21:58:33
From: Alasdair Philips
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: (Curry) Re: (Brown) Re: REQUEST YOUR help (fwd)
I have had a look around the site listed - quite interesting.
However, I have a real problem as to how 'straight' RF engineers
can advise for ES/subtle levels of RF/microwaves.
Earlier this year I suggested that 1 Volt/metre at 900 & 1800 MHz
might be a reasonable prudent level. The cellular companies have
indicated to me that they MIGHT accept 3 V/m (2 uW/cm2).
Now 1 V/m is equivalent to 0.3 microwatts/cm2 compared to the
LOWEST international standard for the public of 450 uW/cm2.
However, I was shouted at by a number of the ES community who
said that my "so called prudent avoidance" levels were FAR TOO
HIGH for ES people. This is difficult as we are surrounded by
up to 1 uW/cm2 throughout many industrialised cities from
many sources, including radio and TV masts.
So, folks, I do need some further help as to what sort of levels
PRACTICALLY we should be working towards. "As low as possible"
isn't a practical answer in my books. We need to be more specific,
maybe defining "zones" of EMF levels suitable for different
groups of people. Eventually I would like to see almost zero
fields everywhere but that isn't a realistic possibility for the
foreseable future.
My personal view is still that 1 V/m (0.3 uW/cm2) maximum, and 300
metres distance from the nearest residential housing and schools
where this possible (in most rural and probably most urban areas),
are adequate for most people. we will have to fight to get that -
which is basically the AUSSIE and NZ positions.
On Iridium handsets - I gather that I was wrong recently. The
Motorola handsets in Iridium mode are 7 Watts transmit power with
an 11:1 TDMA mark-space ration giving an average power of 0.65W.
Most of this power is directed upwards using a novel antenna
design which focusses the power skywards and actually results
in less microwave energy going into the users head than when
the phones are used in their GSM local base-station mode. I
have this information on what I consider to be very good
authority.
Alasdair
--------------------------------------------------------------
At 16:47 29/09/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:51:49 -0600
>From: "Bill P. Curry"
>To: "Roy L. Beavers"
>Subject: Re: (Brown) Re: REQUEST YOUR help (fwd)
>
>Roy and Gary,
> I think there are probably several people on this list who have made
>emissions measurements on cell phone towers. I am not one of these, but I
can
>give you a web site of a consultant who does so, though his work is primarily
>for the industry. It is http://www.radhaz.com/. The reason I have mentioned
>this individual is because he also sells computer codes for industry
people to
>be able to design multiple antenna installations and still keep radiation
>under FCC emission guidelines - notwithstanding the apparent inadequacy of
>those guidelines to protect the public adequately against mirowave exposure.
>Presumably, then, the need for emission measurements arises because hanging
>multiple antennas on structures can result in "hot spots" that exceed FCC's
>guidelines. This can potentially be a problem with several companies putting
>antennas on the same structure or else on towers that are close to each
other..
> In my state, there is either a state law or else a strong push from the
>legislature for cell phone companies to mount their antennas in an area where
>there are already public utilities structures - water tanks, electric
>transmission lines, telephone poles, etc. This is has occurred in an attempt
>to prevent placement of antennas in residential areas, because there have
been
>effective demonstrations to the politicians that placing antennas in
>residential zones can adversely affect property values on the basis of
>perceived health hazards. If a utility is unavailable, the next best thing
>(in the minds of the authorities) is to mount on an existing cell phone
tower.
> This is somewhat unpalatable to the cell phone companies, because it means
>cooperating with their competitors. Nevertheless, they occasionally do so.
>These temporary remedies, of course, may serve the first need to keep
antennas
>out of desireable residential areas, but they have little or no consideration
>for their impact on future health problems.
>----
>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