References: <%_wk9.52964$1C2.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <7vOrdMA0+9m9EwpL@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 21:38:50 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 21:38:50 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
This topic has been researched in great detail in various quarters, I
believe - in the UK and US. The types of patterns that create different
effects, different energy levels and their effects, different spectral
characteristics and their effects, etc. And I do not believe this is a
recent effort either. All classified, of course. If not, people would be
outraged and shut it down and outlaw it just like in the case of Nazi
eugenics. A lot of researchers, psychiatrists, psycho-guys, technicians,
engineers, planners, etc. would be out of immediate work to do.
"John Michael Williams" wrote in message
> John Woodgate wrote in message
> > I read in sci.electronics.design that John Michael Williams
> > wrote (in <firstname.lastname@example.org
> > ogle.com>) about 'Any ideas on measuring radiation in the home ?', on
> > Wed, 2 Oct 2002:
> > >So, don't believe anyone who says that the human
> > >body is insensitive to RF, except the thermal effects.
> > >There are other effects.
> > >
> > But are you claiming that any of these other effects are harmful?
> I'm not claiming anything in the previous message.
> There is good evidence that they CAN be harmful. Without
> going any further than microwave hearing, merely causing
> someone to hear something when they should be listening to
> something else CAN be harmful.
> You probably are asking, Are the "thermal" safety standards
> too lax? Should one worry about exposures below what the
> FCC claims will be harmful?
> I would say, Yes, one should worry.
> The main problem, on a technical level, is that the
> easy way to deal with RF is to assume one parameter can
> say it all, and to link all safety standards to that one
> parameter. That parameter is temperature rise per something
> or other (second in a certain volume of water, for example).
> Just ignore pulse rate, duty cycle, bandwidth, etc.
> This makes it possible to send a technician out into the
> field, make a simple measurement, and declare everything
> Furthermore, even with complex transmission protocols,
> one always can find conditions under which the temperature
> rise is the same as with a continuous wave. So, it's
> easy to convince onesself that the measurement is "real".
> There is no support for such an approach, except that
> it is easy.
> There are plenty of experiments, performed by EPA
> and others, that show biological harm from RF well
> below the thermal safety levels. Often, these
> experiments are performed with some sort of
> condition other than a shallowly modulated,
> essentially continuous wave at a fixed, highly
> tuned frequency. So, the thermal
> parameter fails to reflect the effect.
> Actually, I am claiming that all RF "safety" standards
> are old and out of date, too simple-minded for anything
> other than FCC license forms, and should be thrown out.
> If regulation were transferred from FCC to some more
> medically-oriented group, one separated from licensing
> profits and perhaps not even a government agency, then
> perhaps realistic RF standards might be drawn up with
> actual concern for biological effects and possible
> physical harm.
> Right now, all we have is a traffic cop who is
> illiterate and thus unable to write a ticket.