TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: 2.4Ghz vs. 5.8Ghz Cordless Phones and Health Concerns

Re: 2.4Ghz vs. 5.8Ghz Cordless Phones and Health Concerns

DLR (news23@raleighthings.com)
Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:02:14 -0400

fake.e-mail@stonyx.com wrote:

> Is there any information out there that would indicate which is
> safer/healthier to use ... a 2.4Ghz or 5.8Ghz cordless phone?

> I'm not trying to get into a discussion of whether cordless phones
> actually pose a real health hazard, however, I would like to know
> which of the two is considered less harmful ... 2.4Ghz or 5.8Ghz
> radio waves.

We all want simple answers to complicated issues.

Harmful to what in what way?

There are a LOT of variables in play. Older phones tend to have higher
power levels as newer phones many times (but not always) have better
DSP circuits and can pull out clear voice from weaker signals. Plus is
it analog, digital, spread spectrum digital, etc ... All of this
matters.

Are you worried about brain cancer, skin cancer, or something else?

To be honest I doubt you can come up with a clear choice just based on
frequency and nothing else. It would be very dependent on make, model,
production run, etc ...

For me, I'd buy 5.8 as that is less likely to interfere with wireless
computer setups and other things you might own or buy in the future. :)

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Sam Spade: "Re: 2.4Ghz vs. 5.8Ghz Cordless Phones and Health Concerns"
Go to Previous message: Steve Sobol: "Re: GTE and Verizon; SBC and AT&T, in Southern California"
May be in reply to: fake.e-mail@stonyx.com: "2.4Ghz vs. 5.8Ghz Cordless Phones and Health Concerns"
Next in thread: Sam Spade: "Re: 2.4Ghz vs. 5.8Ghz Cordless Phones and Health Concerns"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page