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

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

Scott Dorsey (kludge@panix.com)
31 Jul 2006 14:13:01 -0400

Robert Weller <rweller@h-e.com> wrote:

> The 2.4 GHz frequency has greater penetration into tissue, but both
> types of phones are Non-licensed devices, meaning that the power
> density impinging on your person is extremely low.

Absolutely.

> The exposure from your WiFi card or garage door opener is probably
> comparable to that from a cordless phone.

I would disagree with this, because the normal operation of the WiFi
card is somewhat away from your body. Likewise the garage door opener
is normally some distance away from the body. The inverse square law
actually applies here since you're outside of the (very small)
nearfield area of the antenna.

Also, note the exposure time is different as well. Many folks spend
hours a day on the phone.

> Bob Weller
> Member, SC-4, ICES
> (International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety)

What IS the current state of affairs on biological RF effects? When
last I looked, there were high-intensity B field issues, but almost
all the other biological effects had to do with tissue heating, RF
burns, etc. As someone who used to have an office under a tower with
tens of volts per meter squared, I was keeping pretty close watch on
the research in the eighties but I haven't seen anything too recently.

scott

"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: jzz: "Password Enforcement Policy For Mainframes"
Go to Previous message: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: "Re: Why is Congress Considering Such Anti-Consumer Telecom Bills?"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page