Re: cellular phones

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

If there is a concentration
of the heating effect to some small part of the brain - around sinuses,
 mater, wherever, which causes a significant temperature rise, and the
FCC have data that demonstrates such a temperature rise, then their
concern is a possible health effect.
Some of the anecdotes offered earlier in this thread are not
distinguishing  between heating and temperature rise
(The famous 'defendant's hat' for instance).

Practical homework assignment for the doubters:
apply a tungsten element consuming 0.4 watts to a volume
of one hundredth cc at specified loci in the brain
interior. Describe the holes which appear in the visual
field etc....

 It will be necessary to trepan (trephine in med-speak)
a small entry hole, if you are not confident of entering via
the orbit. The specific power in question is about
40 kilowatts per kg (using only 0.4 watts input)

Brian

At 17:20 5/27/00 -0400, you wrote:
> At 03:22 PM 5/27/00 -0400, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
> > There was a TV program about the brain cancer
> > danger from cell phones last night. They said that
> > the measured dose rates (of electromatgetic radiation
> > absorbed in the head tissue) from common cell
> > phones exceeds the FCC recommended limit of
> > 1.6 W/kg.
> >
> > I am puzzled.
>
> ...as well you should be.
>
> Let's see.  My phone has a rated Tx power of 600 mW MAX at a frequency of
> 840 MHz or so.  A typical human brain is about 1 liter, 1 kg. ...
> Suppose half the Tx power gets absorbed by the brain.  Then in round
> numbers we have 0.3 W/kg, MAX, under conservative assumptions.
>
> To put this in perspective, note that the normal metabolism of the human
> brain is about 50 W.
>
> It's hard to believe that 0.1% extra heat load is a health risk.

> ... Even the plaintiff's
> expert had to concede that the hat heated his brain far more than the phone
> did.
brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK