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.