Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: cellular phones



If the heating is the effect in question, then the rate would be important, as a low total
dose spread out over time would not result in much temp. rise, as compared to the same
dose in a short time. This assumes the effect is not cumulative. (cf UV damage to skin
cells.)

bc

However, I like someone's suggestion that the effect is molecular reaction disruption, not
simple heating. In that case, I'd think the effect is cumulative -- a low dose over a
long time might be more damaging than the same dose over a short period!

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. For ionizing radiation the limit
would be expressed in J/kg not in W/kg. Does it
mean that only the rate of exposure is important
and that the biological domage does not depend
on the exposure time? [dose=rate*time]

I suspect that the quoted maximum permissible
rate is based on the expected continuous exposure
for 8 hours a day (for those who work near a
broadcasting antenna), or on the expected time
of using a cell phone. But I am not sure. What
is the rationale for the 1.6 W/kg limit?
Ludwik Kowalski