RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Amateur Radio > Amateur Radio General Discussion

Amateur Radio General Discussion General discussion forum for amateur radio topics not covered by the above forums.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-05-2013, 1:40 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,061
Exclamation RF Exposure

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...CC-13-39A1.pdf
__________________
Bob Reynolds-WB3DYE
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-06-2013, 10:16 AM
Rt169Radio's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,722
Default

That is a lot to read.
__________________
My Equipment & Bio- http://www.radioreference.com/apps/user/Rt169Radio/bio
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-06-2013, 11:23 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lisbon MD
Posts: 233
Default

The RF exposure thing in my opinion is being run by the tin foil hat crowd. People have been worried about Radio Waves since the beginnings of radio. Yet, aside of the well known thermal effects, nobody has been able to show any other effects in a repeatable manner. These "non-thermal" effects, if they do exist, are probably secondary or perhaps even tertiary side effects of other things. If they were real, it would be exceedingly difficult to isolate from other background risks we are exposed to every day.

Nevertheless, the FCC is caught in a very difficult position because these ignoramuses vote. Instead, you get weirdos who insist their cell phones are making their kids turn out funny. Note to those of you without children: They all turn out to be a bit strange. It is called humanity.

The silver lining in all this is that we are required to monitor and understand where our RF is going. This isn't the worst thing in the world. It is actually a good practice.

But catering to the tin foil hat crowd makes me ill. They should be required to turn in their wifi, microwaves, Televisions, and live in homes without electricity before telling the rest of the world how sick these devices make them.
__________________
Jake Brodsky, AB3A
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-06-2013, 12:18 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Davenport,Fl.- home to me and the gators and the skeeters.
Posts: 636
Default I have been involved with electronics/RF

since I was a kid back in the '50s. I agree with Jake (ab3a) that most of the talk about RF exposure danger is just that. There's talk about the cell phone's RF being a possible harm to the human brain/body, but yet NO absolute proof of such. Like most anything involving radio waves, common sense dictates safe operation/use of such apparatus. You don't stand next to an antenna radiating 50kW, let alone touch it. Most of us use are brains to work/operate these radios/cellphones, and that's what keeps us out of trouble.
__________________
Freedom, a beautiful way of life. Roger
Old scanners like me:
Pro-107, Pro-44, Pro-94, Pro-2006, DX-440
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-06-2013, 11:28 PM
Wheels47130's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Daytona Beach, Florida
Posts: 39
Default

I worry more about bus exposure. We know if a bus hits you then your dead. We don't even know if RF does anything.
__________________
Timothy Agee /KK4NPQ
Wouxun UV2D
Radio Shack Pro-164
Daytona Beach, Florida
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-06-2013, 11:41 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Novato, California
Posts: 24
Default

I played golf with a guy that got burns on his leg from putting a cell phone in his pocket. He also had issues with big power lines. None of this bothers me, but I believe he had problems. I've read about other people that have problems. Just because you can't feel RF or don't realize you feel it or if it doesn't affect YOU, doesn't mean it is not an issue.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2013, 3:42 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lisbon MD
Posts: 233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazel View Post
I played golf with a guy that got burns on his leg from putting a cell phone in his pocket. He also had issues with big power lines. None of this bothers me, but I believe he had problems. I've read about other people that have problems. Just because you can't feel RF or don't realize you feel it or if it doesn't affect YOU, doesn't mean it is not an issue.
Uh, yeah, about those burns, it wouldn't have had anything to do with the batteries getting hot? Because they do. The average power that a cell phone puts out can not burn anything. We're talking about average power of 300 milliwatts (0.3 watts). By comparison, a typical microwave oven is 700 watts.

Further, while I will agree that there are thermal effects from RF, the non-thermal effects are as yet unproven in any repeatable form. In other words, there are plenty of irreproducible results. Note that the latter is a sick joke among scientists. This whole electro-sensitivity thing has never actually been tied to a real observable phenomena.

I'm not denying that he has "effects" from something. I just don't see how he can be so certain that it is caused by RF.
__________________
Jake Brodsky, AB3A
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2013, 4:22 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Davenport,Fl.- home to me and the gators and the skeeters.
Posts: 636
Default Again Jake has a point.

Some cellphone manuals state that you shouldn't place your phone in your pockets, one reason being that some times coins or keys can touch the terminals, thus shorting out the battery.
Also, if there was any correlation between the nominal 300 milliwatts a cell phones produces and cancer ( for example), there would be millions of people with that illness! How long have cell phones been around? Over 20 years. And there's no hard evidence to say that those devices cause any harm, other than to the pocket book.
Thermal effects have been known about and repeated in lab tests day in day out for far longer than the infamous cell phones. When they can prove RF is dangerous, (the RF we deal with), prove like the aforementioned thermal effects, then we're on to something.
__________________
Freedom, a beautiful way of life. Roger
Old scanners like me:
Pro-107, Pro-44, Pro-94, Pro-2006, DX-440
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-08-2013, 4:27 PM
WB4CS's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern Alabama
Posts: 899
Default ---JOKE---

I once had a conversation with a ham on the 250 GHz band running 1000 watts with an antenna about 3 feet away from me. I forget what happened after I keyed up the mic.
__________________
Brandon, WB4CS
Kenwood TM-V71A, TM-281A, TH-K20A. Yaesu FT-60R
Amateur radio is a hobby. We supplement emergency communications, not replace them.

Last edited by WB4CS; 04-08-2013 at 4:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2013, 10:12 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Novato, California
Posts: 24
Default

The only studies I know of are if radio waves cause cancer. Currently there are studies to look at other things that could be caused by radio waves. What I want to know is who is studying or paying for the studies. If it's the phone company, do you believe them. Remember that way the U.S. system works is you can do anything you want to until it is proven that something is harmful. How long did it take them to make a connection between cancer and cigarettes?

The other issue here from what I've heard about RF exposure is that not all people are susceptable to it. Which makes it lot more difficult to prove. So, while some of you can say it hasn't been proven, fine, but the fact is, it is not proven unharmful either!


Quote:
Originally Posted by rafdav View Post
Some cellphone manuals state that you shouldn't place your phone in your pockets, one reason being that some times coins or keys can touch the terminals, thus shorting out the battery.
Also, if there was any correlation between the nominal 300 milliwatts a cell phones produces and cancer ( for example), there would be millions of people with that illness! How long have cell phones been around? Over 20 years. And there's no hard evidence to say that those devices cause any harm, other than to the pocket book.
Thermal effects have been known about and repeated in lab tests day in day out for far longer than the infamous cell phones. When they can prove RF is dangerous, (the RF we deal with), prove like the aforementioned thermal effects, then we're on to something.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2013, 7:32 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Davenport,Fl.- home to me and the gators and the skeeters.
Posts: 636
Default As in your post,

"...not all people are susceptable to it." I don't know if they still research the possible connection with some people having genes that are possible links with them getting cancer or not. THAT I can believe there's something to it.
Hopefully there will be more input by the members here and get some of their thoughts. Your post may be the needed reading to get more writing/typing.
__________________
Freedom, a beautiful way of life. Roger
Old scanners like me:
Pro-107, Pro-44, Pro-94, Pro-2006, DX-440
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 04-20-2013, 11:31 PM
sparks40's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 201
Default

RF DOES affect the mind...It makes you want to buy more radios....
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2013, 12:55 AM
robertmac's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,248
Default

And you have a greater risk of problems when you drive a vehicle. More people are injured and killed in vehicle crashes than die of RF exposure.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2013, 5:14 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,499
Default

Wasn't diathermy touted as the new wonder healer for everything that ails us back in the 30's - that was just RF heating of the tissues. Perhaps exposure to RF actually does us good, not harm.

Anyway, I'm sure that the combined effects of the taxi, police, public service vehicles and others around town which all have continuous data communications with their respective base stations put out more RF pollution than all the cellphones together.
__________________
Cheers - Martin ZL2MC - Palmerston North
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2013, 9:07 AM
Jimru's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Falmouth, MA
Posts: 983
Default RF EXPOSURE

Quote:
Originally Posted by majoco View Post
Wasn't diathermy touted as the new wonder healer for everything that ails us back in the 30's - that was just RF heating of the tissues. Perhaps exposure to RF actually does us good, not harm.

Anyway, I'm sure that the combined effects of the taxi, police, public service vehicles and others around town which all have continuous data communications with their respective base stations put out more RF pollution than all the cellphones together.
Only, those transmitters aren't right next to your "head bone"!

I use a headset, anyway, in spite of any finding pro or con of cell phone use.
__________________
BC396T, BC780XLT, IC-R6, IC-R75, Pro-2005, VX-5R, FT-450D, FT-8800R. More stuff in boxes, not being usedů
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2013, 11:15 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 295
Default

When I was in high school, my chemistry teacher actually proved to us through equations how a radio wave does not have the energy required to break atomic bonds in the human body. I wish I could reproduce those results but they were quite interesting. They didn't even come close to being able to break a bond (cause cancer). Also, you should put it this way, AND PLEASE READ THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A CRITICAL POINT:

Everyone is talking about RF exposure, but what they don't realize is that the very thing that lets them survive is what they're fighting against. Light waves are the exact same type of energy as radio waves, only with a much higher frequency. So you're telling me that you're worried about a .3 watt cell phone giving you brain tumors when you bathe yourself underneath a 60 watt light bulb daily? If anything, light waves have a higher potential to create cancer since they're closer to UV light which is known to cause all types of cancer. What do you think that heat is when you touch a light bulb? Oh yeah, those are radio waves too (not technically but they're both EM radiation).

So let me just ask this again and get this straight... so you're telling me that you're worried about a cell phone, which gives off ONE THIRD of a watt, when you're exposed to not only 60 watt light bulbs, but also being exposed to 100 watts per square foot of light (including UV) when you're outside? You have got to be kidding me. While your at it, why don't you work on banning sun exposure since really that is the real issue here.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 05-01-2013, 12:38 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,691
Default

Light from a 60w bulb heating your skin is quite a bit different than electromagnetic waves passing through your body and heating internal organs. Its been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that RF energy can and does cause cancer in humans within certain frequency ranges, power levels and exposure times. Its also been proven that UV B can cause skin cancer but its not related to RF radiation exposure.
prcguy



Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentCOPP1 View Post
When I was in high school, my chemistry teacher actually proved to us through equations how a radio wave does not have the energy required to break atomic bonds in the human body. I wish I could reproduce those results but they were quite interesting. They didn't even come close to being able to break a bond (cause cancer). Also, you should put it this way, AND PLEASE READ THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A CRITICAL POINT:

Everyone is talking about RF exposure, but what they don't realize is that the very thing that lets them survive is what they're fighting against. Light waves are the exact same type of energy as radio waves, only with a much higher frequency. So you're telling me that you're worried about a .3 watt cell phone giving you brain tumors when you bathe yourself underneath a 60 watt light bulb daily? If anything, light waves have a higher potential to create cancer since they're closer to UV light which is known to cause all types of cancer. What do you think that heat is when you touch a light bulb? Oh yeah, those are radio waves too (not technically but they're both EM radiation).

So let me just ask this again and get this straight... so you're telling me that you're worried about a cell phone, which gives off ONE THIRD of a watt, when you're exposed to not only 60 watt light bulbs, but also being exposed to 100 watts per square foot of light (including UV) when you're outside? You have got to be kidding me. While your at it, why don't you work on banning sun exposure since really that is the real issue here.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 05-01-2013, 10:30 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prcguy View Post
Light from a 60w bulb heating your skin is quite a bit different than electromagnetic waves passing through your body and heating internal organs. Its been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that RF energy can and does cause cancer in humans within certain frequency ranges, power levels and exposure times. Its also been proven that UV B can cause skin cancer but its not related to RF radiation exposure.
prcguy
Oh no doubt. I'm not saying that RF CAN'T do damage to your body, but the amount of RF energy that an average person is subjected to on a daily basis doesn't even come close to the amount needed to heat up organs enough to cause damage. Everyone knows that you shouldn't ever come close to touching an antenna putting out 50,000 watts of energy. That's just common sense. Realistically, you shouldn't touch any antenna that puts out any more than 50 watts of energy. 50 watts wont kill you but you will notice your hand getting warm. However, most people aren't even CLOSE to 50 watts of power since most people aren't ham radio operators or some other commercial radio engineer.

The point I'm trying to make is that the amount of RF exposure that the average person soaks in doesn't even come close to hazardous levels. 1/3 of a watt of energy is not going to do jack squat. There have been multiple studies looking for some kind of connection between cell phone use and cancer, but none of them have found any correlation. In fact, most radio signals are inherently incapable of breaking chemical bonds. They are vastly too big to do any damage, and the only damage that can be done is from the infrared radiation (heat) that RF creates when it bounces off of your body. So what I was saying with the UV exposure is that it is more hazardous to your health to go outside to the beach than to talk on your phone, considering that the amount of watts you're exposed to is over 300 times greater than your phone, and that the wavelength of UV is small enough to break chemical bonds.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 05-01-2013, 10:48 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Novato, California
Posts: 24
Default

Don't be so sure! Right now Europe requires food to be labeled if Genetically modified crops are in it. In the United States they don't have to. Ten years ago the common wisdom was your DNA can't be changed by genetically modified crops. European studies have shown that they can. If you are a scientist studying this issue the only ones paying for it are the companies that want to sell the genetically modified crops and they fire you if your results don't come out how they like.

There is no big interest by anyone with deep pockets to study RF exposure, at least anyone that wants to find something that is negative to the radio frequency industry. Lots of bucks there, TV, cell phones, electric power lines and on the list goes. Even if they did find something, I bet more people would die if we didn't have all this RF traveling around. Anyway, the guys here that use terms like 'absolute proof" make me laugh, go smoke another cigarette.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:03 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazel View Post
Don't be so sure! Right now Europe requires food to be labeled if Genetically modified crops are in it. In the United States they don't have to. Ten years ago the common wisdom was your DNA can't be changed by genetically modified crops. European studies have shown that they can. If you are a scientist studying this issue the only ones paying for it are the companies that want to sell the genetically modified crops and they fire you if your results don't come out how they like.
I would like to see the creative reasoning behind that. Do you have a link to the study? I don't see how food can go to every single cell, attack it, inject DNA into the nucleus of the cell, and then completely replace the cell's DNA to whatever it wants it. I highly, highly doubt that genetically modified food can do that. I would like to see the "proof" of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazel View Post
There is no big interest by anyone with deep pockets to study RF exposure, at least anyone that wants to find something that is negative to the radio frequency industry. Lots of bucks there, TV, cell phones, electric power lines and on the list goes. Even if they did find something, I bet more people would die if we didn't have all this RF traveling around. Anyway, the guys here that use terms like 'absolute proof" make me laugh, go smoke another cigarette.
You don't like the words "absolute proof"? RIP scientific method.

The people that have the big bucks to study RF exposure are the universities concerned with this. Here's a government page that links to 24 different studies done on the absorption of RF. Not a single one of them has found any correlation to phones causing cancer, yet you keep on persisting through the mountain of evidence that cell phones still cause some kind of damage, even though we both know that 800 MHz does not have a small enough wavelength to cause any damage whatsoever at .3 watts.

And also, please show me where someone has died due to RF exposure from their cell phone. I urge you to read through that page that I provided because it is just blatantly obvious that what you're proposing is not true in any regard.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions