Peter wrote:

   "I think that the regulations concerning equipment to
    be used during surgery, esp. brain and heart s., give
    a measure of what was found to be 'acceptable' for the
    inside."

I believe this is for the protection/to insure the proper
operation of the sensitive equipment used to monitor the
viutal signs of the patient.

Otherwise - the effects of RF from a TDMA phone at PL 2 (Power
Level 2, or .6 Watts peak here in the states) CAN affect other
gear when in close proximity ... affects ranging from possibly
affecting the output from the DC power supplies in gear to
simple random 'burps' in the displayed data ..


Jim


----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter L. Peres" <plp@ACTCOM.CO.IL>
To: <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [EE]: IEE position statement"The Possible....."


> On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
> >> I've still purporting that *any* EM field mankind can produce
> >> external to a biological cell is miniscule, weak and meager
> >> compared to the forces at work *within* the cell as well
> >> as within a molecule ... leading me to wonder *just what*
> >> is the 'affectation mechanism' whereby a man-made EM field
> >> affects or upsets biological organisms or their functions.
> >
> >I think the argument has more to do with larger effects on the whole
> >organism than individual cells.  A lot of nervous system function depends
on
> >small electrical signals, and alternating magenetic fields could
conceivably
> >cause or alter such signals.  These mechanisms are subtle, but then again
so
> >are the effects, if there are any.  If the effects weren't subtle we
> >wouldn't be having this discussion and we'd have bodies piled high under
> >power lines.  There wouldn't be any lawyers because the all died
clutching
> >their cell phones.  Hmm...
>
> I think that the regulations concerning equipment to be used during
> surgery, esp. brain and heart s., give a measure of what was found to be
> 'acceptable' for the inside. If you take those numbers and apply inverse
> square law and attenuation for tissue, bone etc, to get significant
> numbers for when you are on the outside you may find that a 9V battery
> held against one's temple may be too much.
>
> The question is, what kind of remote source would cause trouble, and of
> what kind. This is what the whole argument seems to be about, not whether.
>
> And for this there seems to be insufficient data.
>
> There are several published experiments on plants grown on substrates with
> DC gradients in them, and many other experiments like this. Some do bad,
> some do good etc.
>
> It would be interesting to know if long time exposure to colour
> crt monitors will influence the cancer rate in later years for example.
> (there is only about 20 years of data on this because previously they were
> not widespread enough).
>
> Peter
>
> --

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.