Electromagnetic Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Levels
- Thread starter a440
- Start date
Help Support :
Wow, what a scare tactic propaganda video. I couldn't watch anymore after the "Imagine a cell tower placed next to your babies crib"...
Indeed I think there is a lot we don't know about exposure to RF energy, especially in the microwave frequency range. It is indeed prudent to do what one can to minimize exposure.
The most important thing to remember with RF is that the field density falls off at the square of the distance. This means that small amounts of separation between the device and the user radically reduce the amount of energy the body receives. Obviously a device held directly against the head (cell phone) is a big concern due to the proximity. A cell phone also develops a fairly significant amount of RF output power in the range of 1/4 watt or so. Power output is adaptive depending on the received signal strength at the cell tower. If you are close (strong signal) the phone throttles to maximize battery life and minimize exposure.
Now the other devices discussed like the cordless phones and WiFi access points are really in a different category. Both have lower output power then the cell phone in most all cases. Secondly the access point or phone base are generally some number of feet away from the users. The field density is a tiny fraction of what you would receive from a cell phone. Granted some attention should be paid to the duty cycle of these devices that tend to beacon more regularly then a cell phone. It would be wise not to place your WiFi access point on the headboard of your bed.
Again the cell tower energy falls off with the square of the distance and since people are usually hundreds or even thousands of feet out of the aperture of the panel antennas the field strength is pretty low. Again MUCH MUCH lower then the field the body receives from a hand held cell phone. The cellular panel antennas are very directional and don't radiate significant energy off the ends of the panels so even people living in buildings with roof mounted cell sites don't receive significant field density.
The Swiss are being very conservative with their concerns in this regard. And I do agree that some concern is wise and warranted. Hand held devices and especially the phone being held close to the brain are the biggest concern. I wish that the video would have given actual field strength readings both near the devices and at typical usage distances. Also statements like the "Cell tower next to the crib" are a vast exaggeration and strain the credibility of the piece.
I do urge caution and the use of hands free devices with cell phones for lengthy calls. Usage of cell phones by very young children is being questioned also. Provided I'm not sleeping with my WiFi access point or with a Cell tower next to my bed, I really don't believe the field intensity from those devices is dangerous. Perhaps time will prove me wrong, but for now i'm not kicking the WiFi plug out of the wall
Indeed I think there is a lot we don't know about exposure to RF energy, especially in the microwave frequency range. It is indeed prudent to do what one can to minimize exposure.
The most important thing to remember with RF is that the field density falls off at the square of the distance. This means that small amounts of separation between the device and the user radically reduce the amount of energy the body receives. Obviously a device held directly against the head (cell phone) is a big concern due to the proximity. A cell phone also develops a fairly significant amount of RF output power in the range of 1/4 watt or so. Power output is adaptive depending on the received signal strength at the cell tower. If you are close (strong signal) the phone throttles to maximize battery life and minimize exposure.
Now the other devices discussed like the cordless phones and WiFi access points are really in a different category. Both have lower output power then the cell phone in most all cases. Secondly the access point or phone base are generally some number of feet away from the users. The field density is a tiny fraction of what you would receive from a cell phone. Granted some attention should be paid to the duty cycle of these devices that tend to beacon more regularly then a cell phone. It would be wise not to place your WiFi access point on the headboard of your bed.
Again the cell tower energy falls off with the square of the distance and since people are usually hundreds or even thousands of feet out of the aperture of the panel antennas the field strength is pretty low. Again MUCH MUCH lower then the field the body receives from a hand held cell phone. The cellular panel antennas are very directional and don't radiate significant energy off the ends of the panels so even people living in buildings with roof mounted cell sites don't receive significant field density.
The Swiss are being very conservative with their concerns in this regard. And I do agree that some concern is wise and warranted. Hand held devices and especially the phone being held close to the brain are the biggest concern. I wish that the video would have given actual field strength readings both near the devices and at typical usage distances. Also statements like the "Cell tower next to the crib" are a vast exaggeration and strain the credibility of the piece.
I do urge caution and the use of hands free devices with cell phones for lengthy calls. Usage of cell phones by very young children is being questioned also. Provided I'm not sleeping with my WiFi access point or with a Cell tower next to my bed, I really don't believe the field intensity from those devices is dangerous. Perhaps time will prove me wrong, but for now i'm not kicking the WiFi plug out of the wall
In the above video we see NO figures about the amounts of radiation emitted by those common devices.As KB0nes says--another "Chicken Little" scare thing.Don't worry so much the radiation on the ground near cell towers is so low its not worth worrying about.Same with broadcast.I know of folks that worked with me at VOA that had to work around towers with up to 1MW of MW and LF radiation and are in good health.Now if you TOUCHED that tower you would NOT be in good health!I am careful about being around high level VHF,UHF and such radiation sources!!!One fellow out here used to work on a Navy ship-when it was underway-their radar antennas would be rotatin'&Radiatin'--a sailor thought the antenna platform would be a good place to rest and get a suntan.There are two dangers here-the intense radiation from the antenna-and the rotation.It could knock you off the platform and into the drink or onto the deck of the ship!The man I worked with warned the sailor about those dangers and told him to find another place.
