Are 5 GHz telephones safe?

low

as

Nature - as good as it gets.

d

Pearce Consulting

low

as

I'm familiar with it, as well as Persinger's refutation.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

So I really didn't need to tell you, then.

d

Pearce Consulting

I don't consider it to be anything like a 'comprehensive discrediting'.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Nonetheless, it is.

d

Pearce Consulting

One report in Nature about a researcher who could not reproduce a result, submitted to another journal? You think that is all it takes to 'comprehensive discredit' the work of many people over decades? [Persinger is not alone in getting the results he gets]

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Absolutely, repeatability is what this is all about. The same thing happened over cold fusion.

d

Pearce Consulting

Only after numerous prestigious teams had spent months in attempting a replication. Not because Billybob said he couldn't do it.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

I tend to think there may well be new phenomena in 'Cold Fusion', but whether it's fusion is another matter. The field certainly appears to be picking up once more.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Cold fusion might not have been such a good straw man. I forget the phrase currently used in lieu of cold fusion - but a large amount of money is currently being spent on it - looks like Pons et al were nowhere near as "wrong" as the failure to replicate their initial experiment suggested.

Cheers Terry

Yep, 2.45GHz. Smack in the middle of the band for WiFi, Bluetooth and a number of other wireless toys.

Iwo

Other way round - bluetooth and ... are all in the band allocated for microwave ovens.

Since I have gotten a lot of flack here and given some, let me suggest some things that I have yet to read in any of the many replies. I read a little more than half because of my Outlook Express and news supplier.

The radiation, depending on the wires, mayb be at the general forumla rate over 1/r-cubed. R is the distance, assuming the wires are close together and cancelling out. Not sure about your high frequency radiation. I was mostly interested in power lines and low frequencies. So it was either 1/r-cubed or 1/r-squared, unless one lived beneath transmission wires. I am not familiar with radio waves. I am a little familiar with the medical research on both. There's enough smoke here to take a little precaution for very little effort or expense.

One way to greatly reduce any problem is to use a headset and have the transmission or phone or radio-type part as far away from the brain as possible, let's say, one the belt would be reasonable. Then that foot or two from the head buys a whole lot of safety, yes???????

If it's 1/r-cubed, then that should be many orders of magnitude of safety added. As long as it's not 1/r which only occurs when people live near wires which are separated for safety in case of storms and above ground as opposed to ordinary household wires and appliances.

Any thoughts? Will I get my usual share of flames now?

Does anyone know the formula for the radiation effect? Antenna people should know. I know about the high voltage wires, not this low voltage but high frequency stuff.

Yes, the microwave ovens were there first!

--
Beware of those who suffer from delusions of adequacy!

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I disagree. In fact, all of these laws are extraordinarily applicable in practical situations, unless you have never tested your assertion. Have you? I have measured the electromagnetic radiations from high-power lines and it was indeed 1/r.

I have also tested the 1/r-cubed with wires closely connected and there is extremely fast drop-off. In fact, just tonight I found my gauss meter, or tesla, whatever you prefer. And measured some the radiation from some high-voltage coils. And it dropped from around 10 milliGauss (1 microTesla) to .6 milliGauss within 2 feet. In the 60 Hz frequency on this side of the pond.

Do you have a gauss meter? I suggest, since you are a consultant, you should get one and test. Or just buy a cheap coil and connect it to a digital voltmeter. As a consultant you have to be brave and to pretend to know the answers, but come on, dude, what you said above is completely wrong. But I envy your ability to say that so flatly. I just can't do that black is white routine as you just did. I'll be doomed to do research.

All of these law are reliable unless you're intoxicated or a Luddite. I looked at your web site. You have lots of degrees so you must a good education. At least a master's or equivalent in e.e.? Have you been drinking or what? This power law is probably the most fundamental and easiest of ALL THE LAWS to observe in practical situations. Come on, stop trolling, you must know better than this.

If you don't believe me start with a light bulb and a tape measure... It works. But in that case it's the square of the distance...

Back into the pub with you :)

transmission

Who said that? Do you have a reference for such nonsense? The cord is not carrying any radiation since it is NOT AN ANTENNA. Furthermore since the wires are closely in parallel, they cancel out any radiation if there had been radiation which there is not. The wires are only carrying some extremely low voltage sound waves. I doubt if you could measure anything whatsoever from the wires.

Somebody was teasing you here.

Or you guys drink and post this stuff just to mess with people's heads?

Troll land USA ;)

I read in sci.electronics.design that Treeline wrote (in ) about 'Are 5 GHz telephones safe?', on Wed, 23 Feb 2005:

There have even been reports that indicated that such a separation did NOT have a good effect, but that was later refuted. If I were worried, I wouldn't have the phone on a belt but hand-held.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.

None of these theoretical laws are reliable in practical situations.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

transmission

Ok, the problem is that the headset cord runs right next to the antenna, so a lot of energy is coupled in to it. Since this is coupled common mode, the radiation is equally on both wires, so they act pretty much as a single radiator. This then is looped around the nech and head into a poor termination (at those frequencies) causing a lot of standing waves and therefore radiation.

Not that I believe a word of it, of course! 8-)

There are lies, damn lies and statistics! Most of these studies are pure statistics...

--
Charlie
--
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems

I read in sci.electronics.design that Treeline wrote (in ) about 'Are 5 GHz telephones safe?', on Thu, 24 Feb 2005:

You are relying on your own measurements while I am relaying on forty years experience.

Even at 60 Hz, metal structures (not necessarily ferromagnetic) can grossly distort the electric and magnetic field patterns, even creating nulls at lest 40 dB deep. As the frequency goes up, the sources become more and more directional, with deeply lobed polar patterns, and above

300 MHz, both metallic and non-metallic objects distort the already complex field patterns.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. 
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk