There is a lot of talk about the safety of cell phones, because of the
radiation they emit. Why aren't there similar concerns regarding other
wireless devices, e.g. cordless phones and wireless LANs? Am I
justified to hesitate to install a wireless LAN in my home because of
such safety concerns?
psomerson wrote:
> There is a lot of talk about the safety of cell phones, because of the
> radiation they emit. Why aren't there similar concerns regarding other
> wireless devices, e.g. cordless phones and wireless LANs? Am I
> justified to hesitate to install a wireless LAN in my home because of
> such safety concerns?
>
> thanks
Well I haven't heard anyone talking about this for a long time now and
the last time it was brought up it was by a troll in newsgroup.
1. Do you hold a wireless LAN up to your head?
2. If you are so worried about the radiation from your cell or cordless
phone then get a portable hands free kit (wired) for it, then hold the
phone at arms length. This will not only keep the RF further away from
your body but will result in a lower power output from the phone because
it is clear of your body.
If you are still *paranoid* it is YOUR problem and nobody else's!
--
The views I present are my own and NOT of any organisation I belong to.
psomerson wrote:
> There is a lot of talk about the safety of cell phones, because of the
> radiation they emit. Why aren't there similar concerns regarding other
> wireless devices, e.g. cordless phones and wireless LANs? Am I
> justified to hesitate to install a wireless LAN in my home because of
> such safety concerns?
>
> thanks
What a great idea for class action suits against Starbucks, McDonalds, my
library and all other Wi-Fi APs.
On 24 Oct 2005 00:38:23 -0700, "psomerson" <psomerson@workmail.com>
wrote:
>There is a lot of talk about the safety of cell phones, because of the
>radiation they emit. Why aren't there similar concerns regarding other
>wireless devices, e.g. cordless phones and wireless LANs? Am I
>justified to hesitate to install a wireless LAN in my home because of
>such safety concerns?
>
>thanks
Generally products that operate in 'unlicensed' terrirotory are
limited to 100 milliwatts output. That covers Wireless LAN, and
cordless phones. hand held Mobile phones operate in licensed
territory, and may put out up to 2 watts instantaneous power.
However the epidemilogical evidence of serious risk even at this level
is lacking. The military, and police have been using devices with even
higher output for decades, and the evidence that these devices are
contributing to an early death is sorely lacking. So while they may
indeed be a risk, almost be definition, it must be buried in the
'noise'
>hand held Mobile phones operate in licensed
>territory, and may put out up to 2 watts instantaneous power.
Cellular handsets are limited to 0.6 watts. Mobiles can go to 3
watts. All of the handsets have automatic power control to limit the
tx power to only as much as necessary. The tiny new phones barely
transmit at more than 0.1 watt.
>However the epidemilogical evidence of serious risk even at this level
>is lacking.
The risk is not in the health issues, but in the legal exposure.
>The military, and police have been using devices with even
>higher output for decades, and the evidence that these devices are
>contributing to an early death is sorely lacking.
One might argue that the use of radio by law enforcement might explain
their general lack of sanity, but no research has been done on this
connection.
>So while they may
>indeed be a risk, almost be definition, it must be buried in the
>'noise'
The current adage is "if it saves one life..." and such. Statistically
insignificant health risks have been regulated off the market and will
probably continue to be regulated as long as victims can be
manufactured. When something goes wrong, a culprit must be found.
Eventually, the legal machinery will realize that EVERYTHING we do is
potentially unsafe and cannot be protected by legal action.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
> wireless devices, e.g. cordless phones and wireless LANs? Am I
> justified to hesitate to install a wireless LAN in my home because of
> such safety concerns?
Only if you place the AP on the floor and trip over it.
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <24msl19v069m46u7j5r68qpd1ir0isl5m6@4ax.com> on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:25:11
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:42:10 -0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>The military, and police have been using devices with even
>>higher output for decades, and the evidence that these devices are
>>contributing to an early death is sorely lacking.
>
>One might argue that the use of radio by law enforcement might explain
>their general lack of sanity, but no research has been done on this
>connection.
ROTFLMAO!
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:25:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:42:10 -0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Generally products that operate in 'unlicensed' terrirotory are
>>limited to 100 milliwatts output.
>
>Most 2.4Ghz mesh network radios operate at 1 watt into a 6dBi omni
>antenna which is the maximum legal for FCC 15.247.
Perhaps, but find me a home wireless access point that puts anywhere
near 1 watt. Most are in fact in the 30-50 milliwatt category.
>
>>That covers Wireless LAN, and
>>cordless phones.
>
>Cordless phones also vary. Engenius SN-920 900MHz phones xmit about
>0.9 watts.
> http://www.futurecomtech.com/engenius_sn-920_faq.htm
Hm. I think the FAQ is like the Phone, non-existent.
>
>>hand held Mobile phones operate in licensed
>>territory, and may put out up to 2 watts instantaneous power.
>
>Cellular handsets are limited to 0.6 watts.
WRONG. .6 watts AVERAGE. In the case of GSM, 2 watts instantaneous
power at 800/900, 1 watt at at 1800/1900.
2 watts is actually .25 watts average, 1 watt is .125 watts average.
> Mobiles can go to 3
>watts.
Wrong again, mobile GSM is up to 5 watts instantanous, and 20 watts is
defined in the standard (although I don't know of 20 watts being
available anywhere)
> All of the handsets have automatic power control to limit the
>tx power to only as much as necessary. The tiny new phones barely
>transmit at more than 0.1 watt.
Wrong yet again, AMPS/D-AMPS phones have no power control loop.
IS-136, GSM, and CDMA do have a power control loop.
>
>http://www.mapcruzin.com/rfr_maps/index.html
>
>>However the epidemilogical evidence of serious risk even at this level
>>is lacking.
>
>The risk is not in the health issues, but in the legal exposure.
>
>>The military, and police have been using devices with even
>>higher output for decades, and the evidence that these devices are
>>contributing to an early death is sorely lacking.
>
>One might argue that the use of radio by law enforcement might explain
>their general lack of sanity, but no research has been done on this
>connection.
>
>>So while they may
>>indeed be a risk, almost be definition, it must be buried in the
>>'noise'
>
>The current adage is "if it saves one life..." and such. Statistically
>insignificant health risks have been regulated off the market and will
>probably continue to be regulated as long as victims can be
>manufactured. When something goes wrong, a culprit must be found.
>Eventually, the legal machinery will realize that EVERYTHING we do is
>potentially unsafe and cannot be protected by legal action.
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <rtgtl1ledgguen6o1mo5ej4qtqfpo7616a@4ax.com> on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:54:01
-0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:25:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>> All of the handsets have automatic power control to limit the
>>tx power to only as much as necessary. The tiny new phones barely
>>transmit at more than 0.1 watt.
>
>Wrong yet again, AMPS/D-AMPS phones have no power control loop.
>IS-136, GSM, and CDMA do have a power control loop.
D-AMPS == IS-136.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:56:51 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <rtgtl1ledgguen6o1mo5ej4qtqfpo7616a@4ax.com> on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:54:01
>-0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:25:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>> All of the handsets have automatic power control to limit the
>>>tx power to only as much as necessary. The tiny new phones barely
>>>transmit at more than 0.1 watt.
>>
>>Wrong yet again, AMPS/D-AMPS phones have no power control loop.
>>IS-136, GSM, and CDMA do have a power control loop.
>
>D-AMPS == IS-136.
WRONG AGAIN. D-AMPS is actually IS-54, and is fully compatible with
AMPS systems in ALL respects. That means all control signaling, call
set up, dialing, all control information is transmitted by FSK, which
places a VERY LOW LIMIT on signaling rates. So low that there was
point in providing any signaling capability outside what was required
to make and receive calls.
IS-136 is a variant of D-AMPS which incorporates a number of
extension and changes relative to IS-54, and is NOT backward
compatible with AMPS, or IS-54 because IS-135 depends upon digital
signaling, sent by QPSK in the Digital Control Channel (DCCH), which
does NOT exist in IS-54.
D-AMPS as defined in IS-54 has NO support for data communications at
all, NONE, ZERO, NIL. That means : NO SMS, NO Circuit Switched Data
(CSD), NO-Caller-ID, NO sleep mode, No power control loop, No paging,
No Voice mail indicator, no e-mail capability, because there is NO
facility for any sort of data tranmission within IS-54.
I don't think you can even get a license to operate an IS-54 system in
the PCS band...
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <d7h0m19qdvscco9l95bje1nu3jipan8jkh@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:42:39
-0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 23:56:51 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <rtgtl1ledgguen6o1mo5ej4qtqfpo7616a@4ax.com> on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:54:01
>>-0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:25:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> All of the handsets have automatic power control to limit the
>>>>tx power to only as much as necessary. The tiny new phones barely
>>>>transmit at more than 0.1 watt.
>>>
>>>Wrong yet again, AMPS/D-AMPS phones have no power control loop.
>>>IS-136, GSM, and CDMA do have a power control loop.
>>
>>D-AMPS == IS-136.
>
>WRONG AGAIN.
Do you shout rudely in person, or only on Usenet?
>D-AMPS is actually IS-54, ...
> IS-136 is a variant of D-AMPS ...
>D-AMPS as defined in IS-54 ...
D-AMPS is IS-136 (as I wrote), and mostly IS-136, not just IS-54, and it thus
does have power control in that larger context.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:54:01 -0700, matt weber <mattheww50@cox.net>
wrote:
>Perhaps, but find me a home wireless access point that puts anywhere
>near 1 watt. Most are in fact in the 30-50 milliwatt category.
Reminder: The original question was about RF exposure and health
hazards.
You're correct that most consumer access points run 30-50 mw. It is
possible to hack some access points (WRT54G) up to about 250 mw.
However, if the mesh networks discussed for SF and Philadelphia are
deployed as planned, they may have as many as 100 1 watt and 6dBi (4
watts EIRP) Tropos access points per square mile. Now, that's
potential RF exposure.
>>Cellular handsets are limited to 0.6 watts.
>WRONG. .6 watts AVERAGE. In the case of GSM, 2 watts instantaneous
>power at 800/900, 1 watt at at 1800/1900.
> 2 watts is actually .25 watts average, 1 watt is .125 watts average.
RF exposure is measured using average power, not peak power, pulse
power, or whatever. The TDMA time slicers are allowed 0.6 watts
average, which they can slice up into 4 pieces for IS-136, or GSM in 8
time slices. Multiply the average power by the duty cycle to get peak
power.
>> Mobiles can go to 3
>>watts.
>Wrong again, mobile GSM is up to 5 watts instantanous, and 20 watts is
>defined in the standard (although I don't know of 20 watts being
>available anywhere)
True for GSM. Methinks it's 3 watts average for CDMA 800 and IS-136
800MHz. I don't recall the PCS (1900Mhz) limits. I vaguely recall
seeing some early GSM trunk mount mobiles that cranked out 20 watts
(peak).
>> All of the handsets have automatic power control to limit the
>>tx power to only as much as necessary. The tiny new phones barely
>>transmit at more than 0.1 watt.
>Wrong yet again, AMPS/D-AMPS phones have no power control loop.
>IS-136, GSM, and CDMA do have a power control loop.
I said "tiny new phones" which largely eliminates obsolete analog only
phones. The "tiny new phones" are all GSM, CDMA, and iDEN. I've
measured the average power output and monitored the output power in
the "test mode" on my assorted CDMA phones. 200 mw maximum (average).
matt weber wrote:
> WRONG AGAIN. D-AMPS is actually IS-54, and is fully compatible with
> AMPS systems in ALL respects. That means all control signaling, call
> set up, dialing, all control information is transmitted by FSK, which
> places a VERY LOW LIMIT on signaling rates. So low that there was
> point in providing any signaling capability outside what was required
> to make and receive calls.
Plain old AMPS has optional power control commands, and indeed they were
(and are) utilized in my area (former GTE Mobilenet, now Verizon
Wireless, in California). Not very many steps, but they are there. The
control channel on AMPS is digital, and there are enough spare bits in
the control protocol to allow them to send Voice Mail notification and SMS messages (although the SMS messages have to be broken into several
parts). I personally have seen this work.
"Evan Platt" <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote in message
news:mvesl1hh265ene6pig14b9r8l7jm7mqkq8@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:51:44 +1000, Barry OGrady
> <atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Oct 2005 00:38:23 -0700, "psomerson" <psomerson@workmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>There is a lot of talk about the safety of cell phones, because of the
>>>radiation they emit. Why aren't there similar concerns regarding other
>>>wireless devices, e.g. cordless phones and wireless LANs?
>>
>>Cordless phones and Wireless lans operate at very low power.
>
> As opposed to that high power my cell phone emits?
Cell phones pose no threat and the power emitted is very low.
Linear Mode
