Jay Gustafson wrote: <snippet>
>
> It has been proven that RF heats human body tissue. The effects are accumulative
> over time just like defrosting food in a microwave on low power will eventually
> cook the food if you run it long enough. Obviously a microwave has considerably
> more power than your cell phone, but you get the idea. Also, what is safe for one
> person may not be safe for another. Just like some people have a higher tolerance
> to certain cancer causing substances (like smoking) some people may have higher
> (or lower) tolerances to RF.
First sentence is true. Rest is speculative.
Research has done for many years on this topic, and as I understand it here is
what is known:
1. Ionizing radiation is bad. Examples are cosmic rays and X-rays, where the
photons have sufficient energy (E=hf) to break chemical bonds in molecules.
Area well explored, little to no controversy.
2. High level RF can cause heating effects. Body will eliminate heat same as
normal metabolism heat is eliminated. Problem areas are where body has poor
thermal dissipation such as eyes (cataracts).
Area explored, not much controversy.
3. Low level RF causing subtle changes. Some effects being considered are alignment
of polar molecules within cells lining up with EM field, molecules crossing
cell membranes due to additional photon energy and interation of RF and
nervous system. Looking for slight statistical variations from the norm (whatever
that is).
Some even consider the 50-60 Hz H-field as RF.
Some variables complicating research:
a. What type of effect is being looked for?
b. Frequency, power level, modulation, time duration of RF
c. Type of tissue and statistical variations of.
Area not well explored, much controversy, test results difficult to duplicate.
A google search turned up many hits, here are a few:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/publicfeature/aug00/prad.html
http://ssec.org.au/emraa/rf/biologicaleffects.htm
http://www.land-sbg.gv.at/celltower/english/Proceedings%20(13)%20Marinelli.pdf
73,
Bob