Technology Hazards – Arguments 1 Mobile Phones & Blue Tooth

!!

Mobile Phones & Blue Tooth

The cellular phone has to emit radiofrequency energy at levels high enough to reach base stations (antenna towers) tens of kilometers away.

Since the energy is emitted as a microwave … there are concerns about the safety of this technology.

There are reports from cell studies as well as animal studies that are most worrying.

Among other effects the double DNA breakage is among the fundamental och disturbing findings.

This may indicate that there may be a significant risk of developing cancer tumours, foremost brain tumours in the user of cellular (mobile) phones.

The design of the cellular phones casing, electronic and foremost the antenna construction gives widely different near and far fields around the phone.

It is at present time not completely clear what parameters of the field gives biological effects, however as an intermediate cautionary step one can use the simple measure of absorbed radiated energy into the tissue of the head.

This is given as a SAR – Specific Absorption Ratio and is measured in watts per kilogram. This may not be a true measure of the biological hazard from the phone but may be used as an indication of the energy recieved into the head. See it as prudent avoidance.

Niels Kuster, a radiation expert at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has developed a new measurement technique to measure cell-phone EMR towards the user’s head. He measured 16 popular cell phone models, and published the results in the Swiss Consumer Report magazine. The table below was initiated based upon data from his study:

(see site for ratings – http://www.bemi.se/founder/clips/cellularSAR.html )

SAR is given as Cenelec value for average EMR exposure of user’s head, measured in Watt per kg of user’s body weight. (A low number means less radiated energy into the users head).

The fact that Ericsson SH888 is given two different SAR values
reflects the uncertainty how SAR should be measured.

The same radiation will give different SAR values
depending on calculation or measurement method,
whether the ear is a lossy one or just a distancer,
and if the SAR is calculated over 1 g, 10 g or 1 kg of tissue
(and also the shape that region is given, eg. a cube).

Note that Star Tac exists in various models, some have low SAR and some don?t. Also note that despite the low SAR for Star Tac many people complain of headaches or other sympthoms when using those
(just another indication that SAR may NOT be the best way of describing health effects from cellular phones).
***************************************************

"blue Tooth"

A bluetooth works on frequentie 2.45 Ghz, Gsm on 800-1900 Mhz, FM radio signals on 80-108 Mhz. But still the frequentie doesn’t affect you, if it’s 50 Mhz or 2,5 Ghz, it doesn’t matter, our own sun transmits more signal that this…
It’s the amount of RF energy that you expose that makes if a phone/headset ‘dangerous’ (called SAR rating. it’s allread ‘proven’ that analogue phone can cause cancer, but also transmit a lot of SAR.
For GSM the limit has being set on SAR 1.6 W/kg. Some cell phones, like the Nokia 6230 has only got 0.59 W/kg while the 3310 has got 0.96 W/kg.
More extreme cases:
Samsung P400 1.18 W/kg and the Motorola V3688 only 0.02 W/kg…

Author: renjiveda

I'm not I

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s