Scientists have said there is no evidence to suggest a link between
the use of wi-fi and damage to health.
BBC programme Panorama found that radiation levels from wi-fi in one
school was up to three times the level of mobile phone mast
radiation.
The readings were 600 times below the government's safety limits but
there is ongoing debate about wi-fi use.
Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, has
said there needs to be a review of wi-fi.
He told Panorama that there was evidence that low-level radiation -
from devices like mobile phones and wi-fi - did cause adverse health
effects.
But some experts in the scientific community have disagreed with
[his] assessment.
"Wi-fi seems unlikely to pose any risk to health," said Professor
Lawrie Challis, of Nottingham University.
Prof Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health
Research (MTHR) programme management committee, said: "Wi-fi
exposures are usually very small - the transmitters are low power and
some distance from the body.
....
Medical physics expert Professor Malcolm Sperrin told BBC News that
the fact wi-fi radiation in a particular school was three times
higher than a mobile phone mast was irrelevant, unless there was any
evidence of a link to health effects.
"Wi-fi is a technique using very low intensity radio waves. Whilst
similar in wavelength to domestic microwave radiation, the intensity
of wi-fi radiation is 100,000 times less than that of a domestic
microwave oven.
"Furthermore, tissue can only be effectively heated by a wavelength
that is closely matched to the absorption, and there are strict
guidelines for ensuring such absorption peaks are avoided."
....
The Health Protection Agency has said that sitting in a wi-fi hotspot
for a year results in receiving the same dose of radio waves as
making a 20-minute mobile phone call.
"Some people suspect a non-thermal interaction but there is no
evidence to suggest that this exists and indeed it is unlikely," said
Prof Sperrin.
[MORE]
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:19:53 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6676129.stm>
>
> Scientists have said there is no evidence to suggest a link between
> the use of wi-fi and damage to health.
I watched the programme. Oddly, it was /significantly/ more alarmist
than even the BBC's own news article on it.
They had a whole sheaf of tinfoil-hat types (seriously, some of the
participants actually had tinfoil wallpaper) and quite a lot of other
bad science. Here's an example:
They took a group of volunteers, who as far as I could work out all
claimed to be able to detect wifi (ie a self-selecting group). There
was apparently no control group though I may be mistaken. They did
some tests and announced that ONE subject could detect when a router
was on 2/3 of the time. The other results "were still being analysed"
but this was apparently evidence of a real effect.
So:
- they published data based on one single result, and ignored the
rest of their data.
- What was so tricky to analyse about the other results?
- and how many tests did they do per subject?
Pot luck could get 2 out of 3 right. Heck, half the time I can pick
two out of three.
So not precisely rigorous science. And yet this was seemingly put
forward a 'evidence' that there was a measurable effect.
Now maybe there was more real science done behind the scenes; in that
case someone must have ignored the inconvenient bits - given the
whole tone of the programme which was "yack, our children are being
sterilised / lobotomised by mad scientists laptops " I would bet that
the rest of the results were a wee bit different...
In article <8f1453hoimg81lndjff03e2ksop0ec62cb@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
> They took a group of volunteers, who as far as I could work out all
> claimed to be able to detect wifi (ie a self-selecting group). There
> was apparently no control group though I may be mistaken. They did
> some tests and announced that ONE subject could detect when a router
> was on 2/3 of the time. The other results "were still being analysed"
> but this was apparently evidence of a real effect.
>
Reminds me of some of the early work on Extra sensory perception. The
researcher would set up with a bunch of cards with symbols (IIRC,
square, wavy lines, triangle and a couple of others) and "send" to the
other person.
They got similar results.
On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:59:44 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<8f1453hoimg81lndjff03e2ksop0ec62cb@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:19:53 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
>Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6676129.stm>
>>
>> Scientists have said there is no evidence to suggest a link between
>> the use of wi-fi and damage to health.
>
>I watched the programme. Oddly, it was /significantly/ more alarmist
>than even the BBC's own news article on it.
>[SNIP]
IMO the program was pandering to mass hysteria that was unworthy of the
BBC. Maybe Geraldo was a producer. ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
> "Furthermore, tissue can only be effectively heated by a wavelength
> that is closely matched to the absorption, and there are strict
> guidelines for ensuring such absorption peaks are avoided."
Wrong. RF heating of human "tissue" (70% water) can occur at almost
any microwave frequency and is not dependent on some resonant effect.
If there were such a mythical water absorptive resonance effect in a
microwave oven, all the energy would be absorbed by the outer layers
of meat, leaving the insides stone cold.
<http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/page1.php?QNum=1456>
More than you ever wanted to know about microwave absorption by water
molecules:
<http://www.martin.chaplin.btinternet.co.uk/microwave.html>
<http://www.martin.chaplin.btinternet.co.uk/vibrat.html>
Note that none of the various resonances in water are even close to
2.4GHz (12.5cm wavelength).
Also, note that water vapor absorbes the most energy at optical
wavelengths, which should offer a clue as to the effect of atmospheric
water vapor on global warming.
On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:22:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<32r4531r1v8t6ne5cunkg0ds3l77h2fm7r@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:19:53 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6676129.stm>
>
>> "Furthermore, tissue can only be effectively heated by a wavelength
>> that is closely matched to the absorption, and there are strict
>> guidelines for ensuring such absorption peaks are avoided."
>
>Wrong. RF heating of human "tissue" (70% water) can occur at almost
>any microwave frequency and is not dependent on some resonant effect.
>[SNIP]
The key word there is "effectively". And you need to watch out for
confusion and even misinformation on the Internet. See...
RF exposures are directly linked to absorption and distribution of RF
energy in the body, and the absorption and distribution are strongly
dependent on body size and orientation and on FREQUENCY and
polarization of the incident radiation. A common measure of exposure
is the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), the rate of energy absorption
in tissue, measured in watts per kilogram of tissue. [emphasis added]
The induced electric field is a complex function of several physical
and biological variables, which include microwave FREQUENCY, source
size and polarization, and tissue type, composition, and geometry, as
well as orientation. [emphasis added]
The new FCC exposure limits are also based on data showing that the
human body absorbs RF energy at some frequencies more efficiently
than at others. As indicated by Table 1 in Appendix A, the most
restrictive limits occur in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where
whole-body absorption of RF energy by human beings is most efficient.
At other frequencies whole-body absorption is less efficient, and,
consequently, the MPE limits are less restrictive.
Microwave Radiation Effects on Humans, Stephen F. Cleary
BioScience, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Apr., 1983), pp. 269-273
The absorption of RF and microwave radiation also depends upon the
tissue electrical parameters e and cr, which are frequency dependent.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:22:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
><32r4531r1v8t6ne5cunkg0ds3l77h2fm7r@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:19:53 GMT, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6676129.stm>
>>
>>> "Furthermore, tissue can only be effectively heated by a wavelength
>>> that is closely matched to the absorption, and there are strict
>>> guidelines for ensuring such absorption peaks are avoided."
>>
>>Wrong. RF heating of human "tissue" (70% water) can occur at almost
>>any microwave frequency and is not dependent on some resonant effect.
>>[SNIP]
>
>The key word there is "effectively". And you need to watch out for
>confusion and even misinformation on the Internet. See...
RF exposure effects are frequency dependent, but not resonant
(absorption peaks).
Modifying the allegation using the word "effectively" to wiggle out of
the possibility that 2.4GHz exposure is not a resonant effect, is not
my idea of a proper claim. My problem is not with the word
"effectively". It's with the claim that 2.4GHz Wi-Fi heating is
somehow related to a vague resonant phenomenon, which the author
called "absorption peaks". There are such peaks at resonance, but
they're at 23, 180, and 320GHz. There's no water resonance at 2.4GHz
or anywhere nearby.
As for the word "effectively", that's pure baloney. It either heats
or it doesn't. The amount of heating is measured in hundredths of a
degree. It's also VERY difficult to calculate and model. For the
ultimate in heating, just use a common infra-red heat lamp or light
bulb, but that would be too easy.
You cite several sources which indicate that frequency is involved in
the degree of absorption. I have no problem with that. The higher
the frequency, the greater the biological and heating effects. At
very low frequencies, RF simply goes through the body leaving it
unaffected. As the frequency increases, skin effect and bulk
absorption cause more and more RF losses, which are usually converted
to heat. The body is quite good at removing such surplus heat. At
very high microwave frequencies, the degree of penetration is only a
few mm resulting in localized heating causing RF burns and such.
The effects are not linear with frequency. There are water and body
part resonant frequencies which have a greater effect than other
frequencies nearby. Fortunately, these are also frequencies at which
atmospheric absorption is highest. Therefore, the chances of getting
zapped by a nearby microwave link at 23, 180, and 320GHz is
"effectively" minimized.
Other frequencies have little to do with heating effects. There are
frequencies that allegedly interfere with brain waves, cellular
reproduction, immunological responses, antibodies, and the way my
re-heated coffee tastes. Few of these effects have been properly
demonstrated in repeatable experiments. None are specific to 2.4GHz
Wi-Fi.
As for confusion and misinformation, I know these when I write them.
><http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/exposure.html>
>
> RF exposures are directly linked to absorption and distribution of RF
> energy in the body, and the absorption and distribution are strongly
> dependent on body size and orientation and on FREQUENCY and
> polarization of the incident radiation. A common measure of exposure
> is the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), the rate of energy absorption
> in tissue, measured in watts per kilogram of tissue. [emphasis added]
>
><http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/6668/19775/00918259.pdf>
>
> The induced electric field is a complex function of several physical
> and biological variables, which include microwave FREQUENCY, source
> size and polarization, and tissue type, composition, and geometry, as
> well as orientation. [emphasis added]
>
><http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf>
>
> The new FCC exposure limits are also based on data showing that the
> human body absorbs RF energy at some frequencies more efficiently
> than at others. As indicated by Table 1 in Appendix A, the most
> restrictive limits occur in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where
> whole-body absorption of RF energy by human beings is most efficient.
> At other frequencies whole-body absorption is less efficient, and,
> consequently, the MPE limits are less restrictive.
>
>Microwave Radiation Effects on Humans, Stephen F. Cleary
>BioScience, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Apr., 1983), pp. 269-273
>
> The absorption of RF and microwave radiation also depends upon the
> tissue electrical parameters e and cr, which are frequency dependent.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:32r4531r1v8t6ne5cunkg0ds3l77h2fm7r@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:19:53 GMT, John Navas
| <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
|
| ><http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6676129.stm>
|
| > "Furthermore, tissue can only be effectively heated by a wavelength
| > that is closely matched to the absorption, and there are strict
| > guidelines for ensuring such absorption peaks are avoided."
|
| Wrong. RF heating of human "tissue" (70% water) can occur at almost
| any microwave frequency and is not dependent on some resonant effect.
| If there were such a mythical water absorptive resonance effect in a
| microwave oven, all the energy would be absorbed by the outer layers
| of meat, leaving the insides stone cold.
| <http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/page1.php?QNum=1456>
|
| More than you ever wanted to know about microwave absorption by water
| molecules:
| <http://www.martin.chaplin.btinternet.co.uk/microwave.html>
| <http://www.martin.chaplin.btinternet.co.uk/vibrat.html>
| Note that none of the various resonance in water are even close to
| 2.4GHz (12.5cm wavelength).
|
| Also, note that water vapor absorbes the most energy at optical
| wavelengths, which should offer a clue as to the effect of atmospheric
| water vapor on global warming.
One critical fact that is clearly ignored is that the effects of RF
absorption are focused in the near field. At 800 MHz this is on the order
of 2 cm at 2.4G less than 1 cm. (I'll leave the math to others).
This has been substantiated in both mathematical analysis and in real world
test of cadavers (do a search of Dr. Oue Balzasno (spl) of Motorola).
For comparison the near field @ 60 Hz is on the order of 3000 miles.
There are a few suspected effects based on calcium ion migrations in single
cells but these drop out of the data at RP power levels above 0.6 W for 800
MHz.
>One critical fact that is clearly ignored is that the effects of RF
>absorption are focused in the near field. At 800 MHz this is on the order
>of 2 cm at 2.4G less than 1 cm. (I'll leave the math to others).
The math is simple:
Near Field Radius = Wavelength / 2Pi
For 2.4GHz, the wavelength is 12.5cm.
r = 12.5cm / 6.28 = 2.0 cm
The problem is that the transition between linear field effects (near
field) and square law effects (far field) is not abrupt. It also
varies with the size of the radiator. For that it's:
r = 0.62 sqrt(D^3/wavelength)
where D is the diameter of the radiator in the same units of measure
as the wavelength. So, for a common wi-fi panel antenna, the near
field starts at:
r = 0.62 sqrt(15^3/12.5) = 1.0 cm
The World of the Near Field
<http://www.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/1005/1005the_world.asp>
So near field, yet so far away.
>This has been substantiated in both mathematical analysis and in real world
>test of cadavers (do a search of Dr. Oue Balzasno (spl) of Motorola).
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=120141>
I couldn't find the freely available article on the web with Google.
However, I can download a copy from IEEE Comm Society.
If the test subjects were already dead, they need not worry about RF
exposure, unless one were trying to communicate with the dead.
>For comparison the near field @ 60 Hz is on the order of 3000 miles.
>
>There are a few suspected effects based on calcium ion migrations in single
>cells but these drop out of the data at RP power levels above 0.6 W for 800
>MHz.
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:0u47531hup4iuktq7nuv1u5j9u7jestn6j@4ax.com...
| "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> hath wroth:
|
| >One critical fact that is clearly ignored is that the effects of RF
| >absorption are focused in the near field. At 800 MHz this is on the
order of 2 cm at 2.4G less than 1 cm. (I'll leave the math to others).
|
| The math is simple:
| Near Field Radius = Wavelength / 2Pi
| For 2.4GHz, the wavelength is 12.5cm.
| r = 12.5cm / 6.28 = 2.0 cm
| The problem is that the transition between linear field effects (near
| field) and square law effects (far field) is not abrupt. It also
| varies with the size of the radiator. For that it's:
| r = 0.62 sqrt(D^3/wavelength)
| where D is the diameter of the radiator in the same units of measure
| as the wavelength. So, for a common wi-fi panel antenna, the near
| field starts at:
| r = 0.62 sqrt(15^3/12.5) = 1.0 cm
Thanks, been years (more than I care to admit to) since I played with the
math.
|
| The World of the Near Field
|
<http://www.evaluationengineering.com/archive/articles/1005/1005the_world.asp>
| So near field, yet so far away.
|
| >This has been substantiated in both mathematical analysis and in real
world test of cadavers (do a search of Dr. Oue Balzasno (spl) of Motorola).
|
| <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=120141>
| I couldn't find the freely available article on the web with Google.
| However, I can download a copy from IEEE Comm Society.
|
| If the test subjects were already dead, they need not worry about RF
| exposure, unless one were trying to communicate with the dead.
|
Original work was done with cadavers but over time a 'crash test dummy'
model has been developed.
FWIW Dr. Balzano (spl?) was found of telling a story about a security guard
that was instructed NOT to open the shipping package containing the cadaver
head. According to reports the lady will not open ANY contains for
inspection.
>Thanks, been years (more than I care to admit to) since I played with the
>math.
Well, get back to doing the math and physics. If you're going to
argue with someone, there's no better way to automatically win than to
bury your victim in these. To most people, math is tasteless,
odorless, unpalatable, and very distasteful. Physics is alien
technology. Just remember that a confused person is more easily
convinced.
Math is also very versatile. If you want to clear the room, put
everyone to sleep, or end the meeting early, just dig out the math.
>Original work was done with cadavers but over time a 'crash test dummy'
>model has been developed.
Well, it's not a full dummy. For cellular, it's just the head and the
hand. Such testing has become so fashionable, that there are
companies devoted solely to supporting the researchers:
<http://www.indexsar.com> (UK)
>FWIW Dr. Balzano (spl?) was found of telling a story about a security guard
>that was instructed NOT to open the shipping package containing the cadaver
>head. According to reports the lady will not open ANY contains for
>inspection.
They're not that realistic looking. However, I do recall hearing
stories of universities and test labs initially disemboweling
department store dummies and skeletal cadavers for use as patterns to
mold heads and hands out of whatever gel or goo simulates human flesh.
There were equally strange stories about purchasing anatomically
correct inflatable models, which I won't go into. One lab, where I
was working on something else, had decided that since the human body
was 70% water, the cheapest simulation would be one of these life size
inflatable dolls, filled with a 70% water and foam. I wasn't around
when it blew, but did see photos of the mess it left.
The wireless industry was eventually saved from destruction or
terminal embarrassment by the standardization of the test models and
procedures.
"Jeff Liebermann"
|
| >FWIW Dr. Balzano (spl?) was found of telling a story about a security
guard
| >that was instructed NOT to open the shipping package containing the
cadaver
| >head. According to reports the lady will not open ANY contains for
| >inspection.
|
| They're not that realistic looking. However, I do recall hearing
| stories of universities and test labs initially disemboweling
| department store dummies and skeletal cadavers for use as patterns to
| mold heads and hands out of whatever gel or goo simulates human flesh.
My wife is a semi retired medical illustrator and I've done some biomedical
engineering/research in the dark ages of the late 50' and mid 60's.
Coincidently much of the work was on
RF for the DoD.
What you see on CSI is nothing like the real thing.
We had a commercial fridge and freezer that is used for unusual purposes.
We had a wedding at our house a few years back and the caterer INSISTED she
*would* use the spare cooler for her over cook extras. We lost about half
the catering staff because the woman would not follow our express
instructions.
Thankfully my wife had worked for the local DA on several cases so we had a
pass on spending time in the gray bar Hilton.
| There were equally strange stories about purchasing anatomically
| correct inflatable models, which I won't go into. One lab, where I
| was working on something else, had decided that since the human body
| was 70% water, the cheapest simulation would be one of these life size
| inflatable dolls, filled with a 70% water and foam. I wasn't around
| when it blew, but did see photos of the mess it left.
|
| The wireless industry was eventually saved from destruction or
| terminal embarrassment by the standardization of the test models and
| procedures.
As I recall the process the CTIA was very active in funding the
standardization process.
>My wife is a semi retired medical illustrator and I've done some biomedical
>engineering/research in the dark ages of the late 50' and mid 60's.
>Coincidently much of the work was on
>RF for the DoD.
I got a summer job working at the UCLA Radiation Biology lab in the
early 1960's. Most of the research was on biological effects of
nuclear devices, which included blast, flash, ionizing, RF pulse, and
fallout. There was also a ludicrous side project on the effects of
marijuana. Mostly on rabbits and mice. The prime incentive was
federal funding. I became fairly immune to dealing with dissections,
body parts, animal bites, and mountains of paperwork. Lots of great
exercise picking up lead bricks (about 30 lbs each). Yeah, those were
the fun days. Somewhat later, I got my first real job working at a
mortuary, which supplied the necessary graveside manners and jokes.
>What you see on CSI is nothing like the real thing.
I don't watch CSI. I did watch one episode where they were discussing
something in computer buzzwords. Unfortunately, it made no sense, so
I gave up and watched something closer to reality.
Trivia... How long can you look at yourself in a mirror? Most people
don't last very long and go on to something else. Try it. Yet, the
same people can look out a window at a view for literally hours. We
just don't like to see ourselves as we really appear. That's the
reason we don't have realistic TV shows and why genuine reality
doesn't sell.
>We had a commercial fridge and freezer that is used for unusual purposes.
>We had a wedding at our house a few years back and the caterer INSISTED she
>*would* use the spare cooler for her over cook extras. We lost about half
>the catering staff because the woman would not follow our express
>instructions.
For a wedding? That must have been bizarre. One of my long lost
customers ran a taxidermy business out of his house. He used the
older "skin them and freeze them" method, which meant that there were
several freezers around the house stocked with exotic animal parts.
Unfortunately, I was attempting to become a vegetarian at the time, so
I missed the opportunity for an exotic steak dinner.
I currently have two refrigerators. One is full of chemicals,
batteries, and some ancient film packs. The other is for food.
Visitors often try the wrong refrigerator and wonder if I eat epoxy
for dinner.
>Thankfully my wife had worked for the local DA on several cases so we had a
>pass on spending time in the gray bar Hilton.
Yeah, that would be difficult to explain. I was told a story by a
very marginal mechanical engineer, who once worked in Detroit in the
destructive testing lab. At the time, crash test dummies were being
invented, but nobody had a clue how close to reality the dummies
represented. So, someone contrived the bright idea of running a test
with some real cadavers and comparing results. Nobody wanted to do it
in the USA, so the whole crew, cards, dummies, test equipment, and
photo crew where shipped off to some place in Mexico. There was just
one problem. It was so hot that the dummies melted and the cadavers
started to rot even inside the refrigeration truck. Everyone wanted
to leave as fast as possible so packing was done in haste. When they
arrived at the US border, someone discovered that there were human
bodies in the refrigeration truck. Explanations, bribes, threats, and
finally politicians were involved before the border authorities would
allow the crew to re-enter the USA. I vaguely recall that they were
stuck at the border for at least a week.
>As I recall the process the CTIA was very active in funding the
>standardization process.
Well, yes, sorta. The way it works is that the FCC quietly announces
that they are considering imposing rules, guidelines, dockets,
hearings, standards, regulations, restrictions, fees, fines, and
bureaucracy in some industry segment. SAR limits are NOT a good
example because the FCC was directly involved in the original research
and guideline creation. The FCC then approaches the leading industry
groups and suggest that it would be better for everyone involved if
the industry regulates itself without FCC involvement. The industry
is more than happy to avoid yet another regulatory debacle and
voluntarily does everything the FCC had planned to do, but without the
draconian enforcement, fees, fines, inspections, and such. It's much
like the film industry rating system, that is voluntarily imposed
instead of having a government run censorship system. Any semblance
to government expediency and mild extortion is strictly coincidental.
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:efg9539piiiirbgdb6sjmtn6k5j2vrca3i@4ax.com...
| "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> hath wroth:
|
| >My wife is a semi retired medical illustrator and I've done some
biomedical
| >engineering/research in the dark ages of the late 50' and mid 60's.
| >Coincidently much of the work was on
| >RF for the DoD.
|
| I got a summer job working at the UCLA Radiation Biology lab in the
| early 1960's. Most of the research was on biological effects of
| nuclear devices, which included blast, flash, ionizing, RF pulse, and
| fallout. There was also a ludicrous side project on the effects of
| marijuana. Mostly on rabbits and mice. The prime incentive was
| federal funding. I became fairly immune to dealing with dissections,
| body parts, animal bites, and mountains of paperwork. Lots of great
| exercise picking up lead bricks (about 30 lbs each). Yeah, those were
| the fun days. Somewhat later, I got my first real job working at a
| mortuary, which supplied the necessary graveside manners and jokes.
|
| >What you see on CSI is nothing like the real thing.
|
| I don't watch CSI. I did watch one episode where they were discussing
| something in computer buzzwords. Unfortunately, it made no sense, so
| I gave up and watched something closer to reality.
|
| Trivia... How long can you look at yourself in a mirror? Most people
| don't last very long and go on to something else. Try it. Yet, the
| same people can look out a window at a view for literally hours. We
| just don't like to see ourselves as we really appear. That's the
| reason we don't have realistic TV shows and why genuine reality
| doesn't sell.
|
| >We had a commercial fridge and freezer that is used for unusual purposes.
| >We had a wedding at our house a few years back and the caterer INSISTED
she
| >*would* use the spare cooler for her over cook extras. We lost about
half
| >the catering staff because the woman would not follow our express
| >instructions.
|
| For a wedding? That must have been bizarre. One of my long lost
| customers ran a taxidermy business out of his house. He used the
| older "skin them and freeze them" method, which meant that there were
| several freezers around the house stocked with exotic animal parts.
| Unfortunately, I was attempting to become a vegetarian at the time, so
| I missed the opportunity for an exotic steak dinner.
|
| I currently have two refrigerators. One is full of chemicals,
| batteries, and some ancient film packs. The other is for food.
| Visitors often try the wrong refrigerator and wonder if I eat epoxy
| for dinner.
|
| >Thankfully my wife had worked for the local DA on several cases so we had
a
| >pass on spending time in the gray bar Hilton.
|
| Yeah, that would be difficult to explain. I was told a story by a
| very marginal mechanical engineer, who once worked in Detroit in the
| destructive testing lab. At the time, crash test dummies were being
| invented, but nobody had a clue how close to reality the dummies
| represented. So, someone contrived the bright idea of running a test
| with some real cadavers and comparing results. Nobody wanted to do it
| in the USA, so the whole crew, cards, dummies, test equipment, and
| photo crew where shipped off to some place in Mexico. There was just
| one problem. It was so hot that the dummies melted and the cadavers
| started to rot even inside the refrigeration truck. Everyone wanted
| to leave as fast as possible so packing was done in haste. When they
| arrived at the US border, someone discovered that there were human
| bodies in the refrigeration truck. Explanations, bribes, threats, and
| finally politicians were involved before the border authorities would
| allow the crew to re-enter the USA. I vaguely recall that they were
| stuck at the border for at least a week.
|
| >As I recall the process the CTIA was very active in funding the
| >standardization process.
|
| Well, yes, sorta. The way it works is that the FCC quietly announces
| that they are considering imposing rules, guidelines, dockets,
| hearings, standards, regulations, restrictions, fees, fines, and
| bureaucracy in some industry segment. SAR limits are NOT a good
| example because the FCC was directly involved in the original research
| and guideline creation. The FCC then approaches the leading industry
| groups and suggest that it would be better for everyone involved if
| the industry regulates itself without FCC involvement. The industry
| is more than happy to avoid yet another regulatory debacle and
| voluntarily does everything the FCC had planned to do, but without the
| draconian enforcement, fees, fines, inspections, and such. It's much
| like the film industry rating system, that is voluntarily imposed
| instead of having a government run censorship system. Any semblance
| to government expediency and mild extortion is strictly coincidental.
|
|
| --
| Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
| 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
| Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
| Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
NEWS: Wi-fi health fears are 'unproven' 
Linear Mode
