Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing microwave technology.

"lynx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> doRk Speed wrote:
>
>>>
>> You gotta die from something
>>
>> DS
>
> I was hoping for some rather more intelligent and informed comment.
>

Go download ARPANSA RPS3 and read it, especially Section 5. You can
download from here:
http://www.arpansa.gov.au/rf_standard.htm

The applicable limts are set quite conservatively and for DECT cordless
telephone the limit is 2W/kg averaged across a 10g sample (using the head
phantom). This is the same as a mobile phone.

There is a general testing exemption for products used by non-aware users
that emit less than 20mW average. For DECT technology the duty cycle is
approx 10%. The typical output peak power for a DECT unit is between 50 mW
and 120 mW, and with a duty cycle of 10% the average power is less than the
20mW threshold. So, in AU most DECT, WDECT and other low power (or low
duty cycle) similar technologies can be sold without being tested for SAR.
If these products are tested the SAR measurements are very low and close to
the maximum sensitivity of the test equipment, resulting in published
figures of low confidence (ie. if you tested the same unit multiple times
you could get lots of different results, all of them being of a small
magnitude).

I am unaware of any known epidemilogical evidence to support the theory that
DECT technology has any effect on health

Hope this helps.

---

› See More: Health issues with DECT cordless phones and other pulsing microwave technology.

"lynx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Any comment appreciated re this subject.
>
> I contacted Uniden, one of the largest manufacturers of DECT cordless
> phones, and they informed me that the output of their phones is typically
> 80mw, which they consider to be quite safe. Interestingly cordless phone
> manufacturers do not state the output of their phones in the
> specifications.
>

**Two anecdotal stories do not constitute a properly designed study. I sure
hope you don't use a cellular 'phone. Their power output can be considerably
higher than any DECT 'phone.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

lynx <[email protected]> wrote
> Dave wrote

>> Go download ARPANSA RPS3 and read it, especially Section 5. You can download from here:
>> http://www.arpansa.gov.au/rf_standard.htm

>> The applicable limts are set quite conservatively and for DECT
>> cordless telephone the limit is 2W/kg averaged across a 10g sample
>> (using the head phantom). This is the same as a mobile phone.

>> There is a general testing exemption for products used by non-aware
>> users that emit less than 20mW average. For DECT technology the duty
>> cycle is approx 10%. The typical output peak power for a DECT unit
>> is between 50 mW and 120 mW, and with a duty cycle of 10% the
>> average power is less than the 20mW threshold. So, in AU most
>> DECT, WDECT and other low power (or low duty cycle) similar
>> technologies can be sold without being tested for SAR. If these
>> products are tested the SAR measurements are very low and close to
>> the maximum sensitivity of the test equipment, resulting in
>> published figures of low confidence (ie. if you tested the same unit
>> multiple times you could get lots of different results, all of them
>> being of a small magnitude).

>> I am unaware of any known epidemilogical evidence to support the theory that DECT technology has
>> any effect on health

>> Hope this helps.

> Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of some ppl being more
> sensitive/affected than others?

Nope, its actually a case of no evidence of any affect on health what so ever.

> And if there are reports of adverse effects with the use of these DECT phones, then surely they
> can't be ignored, even if they're not scientifically based.

Corse they should be if they arent scientifically based.

The claims are as stupid as the claims that some fools
make that they have been experimented on by aliens.

> When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including
> handsets) constantly emit full power even on standby,

No they dont.

> and it was put to me that if there are several in the house, then the family is virtually living
> in a 'sea' of (low) radiation!

They are anyway from a variety of other sources like the electrical
wiring, TV transmitters, what the neighbours have, etc etc etc.

> What prompted the original posting, was that I had purchased one, and when I turned it on, I
> immediately noticed some of the effects mentioned in the article quoted- although I had not seen
> it then-

You just had a short circuit between the ears that
would have happened even if you had not bought one.

> so I went googling about cordless phones. Since then I have been switching the phones on and off
> to see if there is a correlation between the effects that I feel and the phones being in use, and
> there has been.

Just the placebo effect.

> When switching it off, the headache effect and light headedness diminishes almost immediately.

And it wouldnt if the effect was real.

> (There are other effects that I'm reluctant to mention for fear of being considered crazy!)

You are crazy anyway.

> I'm also very sensitive to mobile phones,

Pigs arse you are.

I'd bet my house that you couldnt pick it with a proper double blind trial.

> so i feel that I simply can't use this phone at all.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use one.

lynx <[email protected]> wrote
> Trevor Wilson wrote
>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote

>>> Any comment appreciated re this subject.

>>> I contacted Uniden, one of the largest manufacturers of DECT
>>> cordless phones, and they informed me that the output of their
>>> phones is typically 80mw, which they consider to be quite safe.
>>> Interestingly cordless phone manufacturers do not state the output of their phones in the
>>> specifications.

>> Two anecdotal stories do not constitute a properly designed study.

> Those were just two examples.

Yep, endless examples of that sort of mindless ****.

In spades with even sillier crap like homeopathy, praying to some
damned god or other, holding your mouth just right, etc etc etc.

> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,

There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.

You wouldnt be able to pick when a cordless phone
or mobile was turned on in a proper double blind trial.

> and there seems to be plenty of it if you care to check: http://tinyurl.com/yqvcr7

Not a shred, actually.

> (see my response to Dave for more comment)

That was just as useless.

>> I sure hope you don't use a cellular 'phone. Their power output can be considerably higher than
>> any DECT 'phone.

> In fact I can't. I'll get a headache, and a warming effect on the side of the head, if I use one
> for just a minute or more.

Just your delusion. You wouldnt be able to pick it in a proper double blind trial.

> I once was kept on a call by a Telstra operator for 10 minutes, and had a headache for three days.

You previously claimed it goes away when you turn it off.

Cant have it both ways.

Plenty of people get headaches that last for 3 days.

> Since then I have always used hands free/speakerphone.

Pity those radiate too.

> Although the newer mobiles seem to have less effect than the earlier ones had.

Pity the radiation level hasnt changed. If anything its worse
now that so few of them have real antennas anymore.

>>
>> I am unaware of any known epidemilogical evidence to support the theory
>> that DECT technology has any effect on health
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of some
> ppl being more sensitive/affected than others?

IMO, not unless chaos theory applies in the same way a butterfly near the
Amazon causes a cyclone near Broome.

> When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including handsets)
> constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if
> there are several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a
> 'sea' of (low) radiation!

There is no way that anyone with decent technical knowledge at Uniden would
have stated that. Simply because it is not true. Their DECT and WDECT phones
do not constantly emit full power when on Standby, instead the base and
handsets periodically poll for each other to make sure they are in range,
etc. Apart from the lack of a practical purpose in needing to do so, the
batteries would be flat in next to no time if they did.

>What prompted the original posting, was that I had purchased one, and when
>I turned it on, I immediately noticed some of the effects mentioned in the
>article quoted-

Well lets match stories.... I too have had experience dealing with people
complaining of headaches caused by the perceived effects of electroagnetic
radiation. In my case we were establishing an open air test site (OATS) for
electromagnetic interference testing. During the advertising stage of the
DA by council, they received two complaints from people regarding the health
effects of the radiation my OATS would emit. One, a 62 year old lady was
experiencing headaches caused by "radiation" from the OATS. When it was
explained to her it hadn't been built and existed only as a paper plan, she
countered she was so sensitive to electromagnetic radiation she could feel
the radiation approaching from wherever we had it stored (quote "It comes
through the air you know, that's how televisions work")

The second, after hearing about the problem from the first (they lived near
each other) wrote a long submission detailing how the radiation would affect
the local poultry and equine industries. It was quite comprehensive and
included an example detailing how his pheasants had recently stopped laying.
He was sure the pheasants (being sensitive birds) could sense the radiation
approaching and the lack of laying was due to headaches the birds were
experiencing.

I am quite sure they could be counted upon to validate your own situation.

> has been. When switching it off, the headache effect and light headedness
> diminishes almost immediately. (There are other effects that

Rubbish, its just your psychologic condition

"lynx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>>>
>>
>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
>>
> It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos. But we now know
> better. And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
> living too close to power lines. But the bottom line... wtf would you know
> anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by being a
> total arsehole on usenet.

Regardless of the validity of your posts, I'd have to agree with you there -
Rod Speed is a rude piece of crap.

lynx wrote:
>
> It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos. But we now know
> better. And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
> living too close to power lines. But the bottom line... wtf would you
> know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
> being a total arsehole on usenet.

And radio communications have been around for over one hundred years yet
nobody has been killed by any radio frequency (at non-ionizing
wavelengths). Under the ionizing threshold the only effect is heat, and
2.4GHz is the perfect frequency for resonation of water molecules, which
is why microwave ovens use this frequency to excite water molecules.
Hence why sticking thousands of watts into you isn't a bright idea as
you'll overheat. Ionizing radiation on the other hand, kills plenty of
people - UV exposure anyone? In general it seems to be the same people
who jump up and down about cellular devices causing cancer are the same
ones frying on the beach most weekends.

I've spoken to a radiologist on this issue and he's given up trying to
explain to the arrogant that there's no risk at low frequencies. And by
arrogant he means the ignorant that can't be convinced otherwise.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:20:26 +1100, lynx <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks very much for that. I'll look into it. Perhaps it's a case of
>some ppl being more sensitive/affected than others?

No, it's likely people believing things that are not based on any
evidence what so ever.

>And if there are
>reports of adverse effects with the use of these DECT phones, then
>surely they can't be ignored, even if they're not scientifically based.

Why? The other day after using my Bic pen I got a rash on my hand...
Therefore all Bic pens are dangerous? Or am I just sensitive? Or, just
maybe, I then went into the woods and got poison ivy?

IF something is not 'scientifically based' as you put it, it is just
simply a wish or thought.

>When I rang Uniden, they said that that the phones (including handsets)
>constantly emit full power even on standby, and it was put to me that if
>there are several in the house, then the family is virtually living in a
>'sea' of (low) radiation!

Man has been living in a sea of (low) radiation since he first evolved
as life on earth. Nothing has changed in that respect, and in fact
that sea of radiation may well be what is responsible for us!

>What prompted the original posting, was that I
>had purchased one, and when I turned it on, I immediately noticed some
>of the effects mentioned in the article quoted-

*Immediately*? That blows your case then... Such effects would take
time to become apparent. Realize that people working in communications
and electroncis are exposed to these fields in *much* higher doses
without suffering any side effects.

>although I had not seen
>it then- so I went googling about cordless phones. Since then I have
>been switching the phones on and off to see if there is a correlation
>between the effects that I feel and the phones being in use, and there
>has been.

How have you been switching them off? Most don't really turn off but
remain in communication with the base even when 'off'. This is just
like turning off a 'modern' TV: it is still on, it just isn't
displaying anything on the screen.

You'd have to remove the battery to actually turn them off!

>When switching it off, the headache effect and light
>headedness diminishes almost immediately.

Again, 'immediately ' tends to tell me that there's somthing else
involved here.

>(There are other effects that
>I'm reluctant to mention for fear of being considered crazy!)

Too late. Go ahead and lisit them.

>I'm also
>very sensitive to mobile phones, so i feel that I simply can't use this
>phone at all.

eBay it then...

Move to the country. Have the power disconnected from your house. By
candle light, read the classic science fiction story "Press Enter".

What you are complaining about is a sensitivity to a specific spectrum
of frequencies (not all frequencies, since you are not affected by
power line EMF, broadcast radiation, EMF from television receivers and
computer monitors, etc.)

Ask you self: what is the method? How do these frequencies cause me a
problem?

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:38:34 +1100, lynx <[email protected]> wrote:

>Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>>>
>>
>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
>>
>
>It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos. But we now know
>better. And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
>living too close to power lines. But the bottom line... wtf would you
>know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
>being a total arsehole on usenet.

Analysis:

Rod: a reasonable reply.

Lynx: didn't like it so starts calling Rod names...

Humm, wonder who the nut is? <g>

"PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:38:34 +1100, lynx <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>>>>
>>>
>>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
>>>
>>
>>It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos. But we now know
>>better. And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
>>living too close to power lines. But the bottom line... wtf would you
>>know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
>>being a total arsehole on usenet.
>
> Analysis:
>
> Rod: a reasonable reply.
>
> Lynx: didn't like it so starts calling Rod names...
>
> Humm, wonder who the nut is? <g>

Analysis:

PeterD has responded to this post before bothering to read the whole thread.

PeterD ought to try to keep up? <g>

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:57:54 -0000, "Jim Pills" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:38:34 +1100, lynx <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos. But we now know
>>>better. And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
>>>living too close to power lines. But the bottom line... wtf would you
>>>know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
>>>being a total arsehole on usenet.
>>
>> Analysis:
>>
>> Rod: a reasonable reply.
>>
>> Lynx: didn't like it so starts calling Rod names...
>>
>> Humm, wonder who the nut is? <g>
>
>Analysis:
>
>PeterD has responded to this post before bothering to read the whole thread.
>
>PeterD ought to try to keep up? <g>
>

I look at the post, I respond to the post. If the poster clips it so
that it makes no sense, or so that it makes the poster look bad,
that's his problem.

Regardless the language used in this thread has been immature... <bg>

"PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:57:54 -0000, "Jim Pills" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:38:34 +1100, lynx <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos. But we now know
>>>>better. And there's been studies done to show the adverse effects from
>>>>living too close to power lines. But the bottom line... wtf would you
>>>>know anyway. You're just a know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by
>>>>being a total arsehole on usenet.
>>>
>>> Analysis:
>>>
>>> Rod: a reasonable reply.
>>>
>>> Lynx: didn't like it so starts calling Rod names...
>>>
>>> Humm, wonder who the nut is? <g>
>>
>>Analysis:
>>
>>PeterD has responded to this post before bothering to read the whole
>>thread.
>>
>>PeterD ought to try to keep up? <g>
>>
>
> I look at the post, I respond to the post. If the poster clips it so
> that it makes no sense, or so that it makes the poster look bad,
> that's his problem.

So you wade into an argument half-way through and take sides without having
a clue what's going on.

Sounds like you need a newsreader that shows all of the branches. If you'd
had that, you'd have known that...

> Regardless the language used in this thread has been immature... <bg>

....it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the opinions of
the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature - so I guess he just is
immature.

lynx <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote

>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,

>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so ever.

> It was thought that smoking was harmless,

Pig ignorant lie. The health downsides were known when it was first used.

> and asbestos. But we now know better.

Pity that those have been established with rigorous science.

Hasnt happened with mobile phones and DECT phones in spades.

> And there's been studies done to show the adverse
> effects from living too close to power lines.

Pig ignorant lie.

Pity about the MUCH higher 'radiation' levels from electric blankets.

<reams of your rabid insane ravings flushed where they belong>

Jim Pills <[email protected]> wrote:
> "PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:57:54 -0000, "Jim Pills" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "PeterD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:38:34 +1100, lynx <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> lynx <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However I don't think we can ignore what evidence there is,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There isnt a shred of evidence of any health effects what so
>>>>>> ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was thought that smoking was harmless, and asbestos. But we
>>>>> now know better. And there's been studies done to show the
>>>>> adverse effects from living too close to power lines. But the
>>>>> bottom line... wtf would you know anyway. You're just a
>>>>> know-it-all nobody who get his rocks off by being a total
>>>>> arsehole on usenet.
>>>>
>>>> Analysis:
>>>>
>>>> Rod: a reasonable reply.
>>>>
>>>> Lynx: didn't like it so starts calling Rod names...
>>>>
>>>> Humm, wonder who the nut is? <g>
>>>
>>> Analysis:
>>>
>>> PeterD has responded to this post before bothering to read the whole
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> PeterD ought to try to keep up? <g>
>>>
>>
>> I look at the post, I respond to the post. If the poster clips it so
>> that it makes no sense, or so that it makes the poster look bad,
>> that's his problem.
>
> So you wade into an argument half-way through and take sides without
> having a clue what's going on.
>
> Sounds like you need a newsreader that shows all of the branches. If
> you'd had that, you'd have known that...
>
>> Regardless the language used in this thread has been immature... <bg>
>
> ...it was Rod that started the bad language. Regardless of the
> opinions of the OP, Rod had no reason to be so immature

You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

> - so I guess he just is immature.

You get to like the language used or lump it, ****wit.