At what age are they safe ?(14 Messages)

Soeren.
Posts: 1
From: Denmark

18 May 2001 1:54 PM
Hi John and others,



> I heard that younger people are at greater risk from the
> radiation emissions because their skulls are thinner (not
> as thick skulled !!!).



There are various reasons as to why children are more at risk than adults, the thickness of the skull might be a factor, but afaik, it is more of a concern that the brain is more easily damaged during the development (sort of more open to "mutation"), than one which is fully developed (and on the down-slide anyhow



> At what age should we consider them safe ?

Around the 99 year mark I would say then there won't be much to damage anymore.



Cellulars (as we know them now, and probably a good many years onwards) cannot be made SAFE! we can only talk about grades of safety... Like: It's never safe to cross the street, but with concern, we can make it reasonable safe.



Sadly it seems like it's very hip to glue a tiny microwave owen to the side of your head and leave it to boil for hours...

Play it (reasonably) safe... Buy a headset... each time you double the distance from the antenna to your head, the resulting radiation which reaches your brain will be reduced by 4 times. If eg. your antenna is 1 cm from your head and you move it to a belt holster, say 50 cm from your head, you would have reduced the emission into your brain by a factor of (50/1)^2 = 2500.



Cellular phones with internal antennas has the antenna even closer to your head when used without a head set and will therefore only add to the boil.



In a couple of decades we'll probably see the sad facts of how "sweet nothings" into one ear might squeeze the brain out through the other.





Take care (and wear an earthed tin foil hat



Soeren

• Reply |
• Quote

Chris.
Posts: 1
From: UK

30 Jan 2002 3:05 PM
Saying mobile phones are dangerous is pure speculation, it has not been proven that the frequencies mobile phones use are harmful to humans yet. Also vodafone and cellnet are on the GSM900 frequency, does this mean "microwave" I think not. People make judgements to what is safe and what isnt safe themselves, its true that a child is more vunerable to RF, but does it damage anything, well, we dont have a clue. As for the skull thickness, thats a perfect answer, a child will have the RF field through approx 50% of the brain, where as an adult is looking at approx 38%, so if it does do any damage it is going to harm younger children more. The truth is, mobile phones might not damage your health, or they could, we have no idea really, good to see people inventing things they havent really had a good think about though isnt it, we will probably find that electricity in our houses causes somthing next, but we all have to live. If you are thinking about safety, is it safe to allow your children to have a mobile? Well in my opinion, its safer to give a child a mobile than not, what if he/she gets into trouble and cant get help, the mobile would save their life.

I guess we are all going to have to wait for proof either way, but as mobile phones alter there signal strength constantly, depending on how far they are away from the nearest "transmitter", as long as you have a provider with a big coverage area, the output power should be low and not harmful to anyone. You complain about operators putting up masts near you, well they are actually reducing the power next to your head, which is the bit that matters (assuming the mobiles will damage anything).

And before you say anything, I am nothing to do with any mobile company what-so-ever, this is my own opinion and opinions of other Radio(walkie talkie type radio!!) and electronics engineers I know and work with.

Chris

• Reply |
• Quote

Chris.
Posts: 1
From: UK

1 Feb 2002 9:56 PM
HI again,



Let me draw your attention to a few web sites



http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact193.html

http://www.doh.gov.uk/mobilephones/mobilephones.htm



I have worked in the mobile industry for many years and can say what you say is utter rubbish. You in Denmark obviously have different phones and I totally agree that 1800Mhz is dangerout, we however have phones that work at 800Mhz, which is a long way from the resonance of water and therefore couldnt really be considered dangerous. As for boiling your head at a few hundred Mhz, do you actually believe what you are saying? Police have been using radios on 400MHZ (law stops me being specific) right next to there head and at up to 10 watta, they are fine. A lot of the world does use 1800 and 1900 Mhz agreed, but the case of this being damaging is still unproven.



Nokia are only covering themselves with there ideas as if they did actually say that this sheild is to prevent brain tumours, dont you think there would be uproar about it?



As you say "Severel independent _scientific_research_teams_ have found cell phones unsafe" thats fine, but the research has also proven its fully safe too!



You say you know about children being more vunerable to RF, this isnt even possible as at the moment there have been no studies to prove children are any more vunerable, the only guide we have is the fact they have smaller heads and thinner skull and tissue. I belive you are tryig to scare people into thinking you are right, and are actually clueless yourself, as you have given no scientific reasons why you "KNOW" RF will be harming anyone. As you say my figures were picked from the air, people in the UK will now not belive you anyway, there was a TV program on 2 days ago regarding RF from mobiles and these were the figures given from all the scientific tests, not frequency dependant, but frequency is not an issue really its the absorbtion rate.



I have studied myself and have read most studies on the subject of RF from mobiles phones causing harm to humans, I myself am a fully quallified RF and mobile technology engineer and feel that what you are saying is probably taken from the studies taken from China which were proven to be invalid due to the tests not being monitored properly, nearly all tests so far have been inconclusive, the truth is nobody knows the effects of Mobile phones on humans, not even you, whoever you think you are, you seem to be stating that you know better than the top scientists in the world, I doubt this very much.



Your point of electric distribution units is perfectly true, but this is due to the fields of mangetism and not RF.



And, what do you think wearing your headset is going to do, wearing a headset is not stopping the RF entering your head, this is PROVEN to be false, RF can easily travel up the headset and into your ear, thats a fact.



As for your ending, I dont belive for a second you have reseached this subject what-so-ever, you`ve probably just read 1 site and decided to spread the word of rubbish. I am not connected with any mobile company but have worked with RF technology and mobile communications for many years, as for your comment of people only passing with "below average grades", the same works both ways!!! If people want to believe you then thats up to them, I dont actually think people are stupid enough to in honesty, they can read the reviews and other articles. As for you designing microwave circuits, I dont think so really, most are made and designed in japan and to be honest "microwave" circuits dont really need designing, as there is a very limited amount of uses for them at the moment.



The people are intitles to make their own opinion, until facts are given, do you really think governments and health services would allow phones to still be sold if they were "proven" to be harmful, well I know ours wouldnt anyway, there is a great amount of info on the subject here and what you are saying has no proof anywhere, you probably just found some site somewhere that says its proven to be harmful and wanted your piece of the action!!



If anyone still wants to email me direct please leave notes here with your addresses and I will contact you as soon as possible, thanks for your support.



Chris

• Reply |
• Quote

chris.
Posts: 1
From: UK

4 Feb 2002 4:59 PM
Right i`m sorry for the long post, there didnt seem like another way to do this, but if you want the truth, please visit the sites I listed previous to this, or visit the newsgroup at uk.telecom.mobile and ask one of our resident experts. If you want to believe this guy, then by all means do, but he is worrying you with no evidence. I`m not saying it's not true mobiles wont harm you, but until its proven or any decent scientist says it is, then let's just not worry ourselves when we don't need to.





> > "Police have been using radios on 400MHZ (law stops me being specific)"





> Nahh, all frequencies are public, since the EU made one of their "harmonization" laws (or whatever ´they're called), so probably you don't know jack about it.



Probably dont know jack all?? OK, whatever you think, I spent 2 years repairing them and can tell you I cant tell you the frequencies unless I want to be in a lot of trouble. And who knows "jack all", your even guessing with the law name



> > "right next to there head and at up to 10 watta, they are fine"



> Police walkies at 10W... I have my serious doubts (depending on the technical ways in which they're applied), but anyway, they use them only briefly (contrary to many youngsters use of cell phones).

Danish police officers even use mikes on their walkies now and then, with the walkie mounted in the belt.



They have radios which transmit up to 10W, most are tuned to transmit at 6-8 as then it wont burn out the RF-PA as fast as radios such as the HT600 and MT6000 commonly do. As for the mics on their shoulders, even noticed the cable running up to the mic?? if you actaully do look you`ll see a funny thing called an antenna sat on top of it, which is where the RF is radiated.Funny that isnt it, right next to their head too and they are all fine.





> > "Nokia are only covering themselves with there ideas as if they did actually say that this sheild is to prevent brain tumours, dont you think there would be uproar about it?"



> No, they claimed that it wasn't harmfull and they were wery hush-hush about the patent application, and the wording were just discovered by "accident".



I dont think a multi billion pound company makes those sort of mistakes do you?





> > "and I totally agree that 1800Mhz is dangerout"

"A lot of the world does use 1800 and 1900 Mhz agreed, but the case of this being damaging is still unproven"



> I assume you can't agree with others, when you can't even agree with yourself !



Obviously I didnt make it clear what I meant, 1800 is a dangerous frequecy, if transmitted from a high power, this is where the limits about how long you can stay in the field and the distance away from the antenna you should be when keying up. I meant just in case you were wondering, at the power mobiles transmit at, its still not proven to be harmful, by anyone who has a clue anyway.





> > "You say you know about children being more vunerable to RF, this isnt even possible [...] the only guide we have is the fact they have smaller heads and thinner skull and tissue"



> Actually, it's the least of it, the real reason, is the fact, that a young (not yet fully evolved) brain, is much more vulnerable to altertions, which you will find plenty of proof on, if you study any kind of brain damaging illness or accidents.



Your are either very slow, or just a kid yourself, the reason why it would be even affecting the brain is doe to the thinner tissue and skull, if you read any medical books you`ll see for yourself, try Prof. Mike jackson`s book called "entry level biology" you`ll understand then, its pretty basic for ya





> > "I belive you are tryig to scare people into thinking you are right"



> To what purpose would that be ? I stand to gain absolutely nothing from it.



Funny as I was wondering that myself for a few minutes, then I lost interest.





> > "and are actually clueless yourself, as you have given no scientific reasons"



> If you know just a slight tad about science, you probably know of thesises and anti-thesises. You can either prove your thesis or disprove the anti-thesis.

Since you have allready proven a deep lack of knowledge in the field of RF, I wouldn't wanna waste a lot of breath on you, as you would probably not understand it anyway, so I stick to disproving the anti-thesis, which means I only have to prove you wrong (and on that, you are allready doing half the work yourself



Are you for real?? Surely you want to try and prove your theory?? I dont want to prove i`m an electronics/RF engineer, I couldnt care less if you believe me or not, as RF is not fully discovered and utilised yet it would be hard to know everything about it, but I find that you probably know much less than a normal everyday person.





> > "As you say my figures were picked from the air, people in the UK will now not belive you anyway, there was a TV program on 2 days ago regarding RF from mobiles"



Th > en they were picked from the air *Grin*



First funny thing you`ve said!!!





> > "and these were the figures given from all the scientific tests, not frequency dependant, but frequency is not an issue really its the absorbtion rate"



> You obviously believe the TV flat out and no questions asked ? (who paid for the show, who were lobbying where)



I am not actually sure of the funding behind the tests, I am lead to believe it was actually private and funded from the BBC, but they were mostly UK and USA scientists, which as i`m sure you know are the best your going to find anywhere!



> > Frequency is pretty important, as nothing emits at DC (if that's proof enough for you). Absorption rate is a function of frequency.



Nothing will transit at DC as then it couldnt be RF as the definition of RF means it is using AC.



> > "I myself am a fully quallified RF and mobile technology engineer"

> Oh well, in your last post, you were just knowing and working with some engineers (and 27MHz walkie talkie guys).

Fast promotion ?



I didnt want you thinking I worked for nokia or anything now did I!! I actually worked with > Vhf radios and emergency services radios for 2 years and then came into mobiles from there if you must know!





> > "Your point of electric distribution units is perfectly true, but this is due to the fields of mangetism and not RF."

> Now I don't believe you to be an electronic engineer, especially not a qualified one

Whatever do you think RF (Radio Frequency) is ?

A cell phone (and every other transmitter emits a magnetic field which is how you get your signal through (by modulating the field) It's also the electromagnetic field which you use to cook in a microwave oven.



Do you actually know the difference between ionic and none ionic radiation, I think not. Magnetic it maybe, but are you saying that 50Hz and 1800Mhz are in anyway similar, they even work in different ways, who doesnt know what there on about? The only good comparison you could make between the 2 is they both use AC.



> > "And, what do you think wearing your headset is going to do, wearing a headset is not stopping the RF entering your head, this is PROVEN to be false, RF can easily travel up the headset and into your ear, thats a fact."



> No, that's not a fact, it's a very uneducated guess, which again tells me, that you have no real knowledge of RF, since otherwise, you would have known about correct terminating impedance and the effects of this (and in this case a severe mismatch, which will quench any UHF and beyound.



In a perfect world I`d agree, we arent making a prefect antenna here though are we, stub matching is important in the field but not when it comes down it, many factors come into play here, kinks in the cable etc, and how do you actually know they arent stub matched, there are too many factors to be able to give a definite answer here, your jumping the gun a little!







> > "I am not connected with any mobile company "



> So you say.



I dont want people thinking i`m a nokia rep or anything now do I!!





> > "but have worked with RF technology and mobile communications for many years"



> Obviously not.



If I were to guess at you, Id say you were probably between 18 and 20 and had possibly just passed or failed the first year electronics course, as you have some good ideas but not backed up by anything. This is not intended as a personal dig at you are anything, just how my students act sometimes.





> > "As for you designing microwave circuits, I dont think so really, most are made and designed in japan and to be honest "microwave" circuits dont really need designing, as there is a very limited amount of uses for them at the moment."



> Once again you display your lack of knowledge, e.g. at the danish branch of Nokia, a lot of design goes on (and in the Finnish as well of course), I'm not designing cell phones myself, but instead some specialized devices in very limited series... If you were a qualified EE, with RF as your specialty, you would know how much in demand this is... Have you ever used striplines and waveguides (ha, you probably don't know what it is.



I do know how much in demand this is, and its hardly in demand at all except for mobiles really as bigger and better things are not appearing. I have to say that anyone doing electronics would know simple terms, butI honestly dont want to sink to your level and play at "do you know what this means" games, anyone can find anything on the internet these days, it means nothing.



> > Besides... You need to be qualified in microwave these days, even if you "just" want to develope fast computers.



Thats not true either, all you need as a good engineer who knows how to dissipate or counteract the fields generated in a PCB, have you ever seen the motherboard or a PC, or even a radio for that matter?





> > "The people are intitles to make their own opinion, until facts are given"



> Actually, people are entitled to form their own opinions at any time, regardless of the facts... And sadly, many do.



As you have proven





> > "do you really think governments and health services would allow phones to still be sold if they were "proven" to be harmful, well I know ours wouldnt anyway"



> Well, are tobacco proven (enough) to be harmful ?

Are tobacco outlawed in Britain ?

Yeah... I'm really convinced your government is looking out for you > :- > (Or is it the interests of the "big money", which are nursed, as everywhere else in our "glorious" and "civilized" world ?)



Funny how tobacco have warnings on the packets isnt it, have you seen them on mobiles then too? Our government will be sure to tell us as they tell us about anything dangerous, they even told us not to eat eggs a while back, they keep us informed, if not with every little detail and as a few members of my family work in hospital, I imagine even if the full details dont appear, i`ll find out and tell everyone that it is harmful etc etc, bear in mind i`m not saying it is now, im just saying its unlikly and still unproven, why do you think the USA have just paid for in depth studies of the effects of mobiles on humans, if they knew the answer your giving then they wouldnt have had to waste billions of dollars on research would they!





> > Obviously you don't wanna learn, but that's your problem, just a pity, that some people are bound to believe your nonsense.



> Me, however, have got plenty of other ways to spend my time... Like on that qute little 6.2GHz thingy, which is winking to me from my desktop...



and how technical is a thingy???? And if you are working with microwave and believe it to be a theat to humans, why are you still doing it??



So E.O.D. from me



Yeah, me too

Good luck with whatever your doing and I look forward to your reply, although I dont think we should turn this into an on going slagging match!



Regards

Chris

• Reply |
• Quote

Anastasia.
Posts: 1
From: Liverpool, UK

5 May 2002 4:58 AM
Thanks Soeren!

My friends think I'm paranoid and hysterical because I'm complaining about the risks of mobile phone use...

At least, there are some people out there who are informed.

• Reply |
• Quote