Radiation from Wireless LAN vs Bluetooth PAN
fake....@stonyx.com
to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain. However, I
personally believe that the less radiation you are exposed to, the
better of you are. Therefore I'd like to use whatever technology would
create the least amount of radiation in my house.
I was wondering if anyone could provide me with details on radiation
levels produced by class 1 bluetooth devices (the ones that provide
100m range) and radiation levels produced by 802.11 wireless LAN
devices. I would also be curious to know which of the 802.11 standards
(a, b, g, etc.) produces the least amount of radiation or if they are
all the same?
Thanks for the help,
Harry
Jeff Liebermann
>I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
>to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain. However, I
>personally believe that the less radiation you are exposed to, the
>better of you are. Therefore I'd like to use whatever technology would
>create the least amount of radiation in my house.
A bit of trivia first:
- Sunlight generates about 1000 watts of power per square meter
(or 100 milliwatts/cm^2).
- The maximum RF exposure limit is 1 milliwatt/cm^2 for an
uncontrolled environment.
Therefore, standing in the sun exceeds the FCC exposure limits by 100
times.
>I was wondering if anyone could provide me with details on radiation
>levels produced by class 1 bluetooth devices (the ones that provide
>100m range) and radiation levels produced by 802.11 wireless LAN
>devices.
Sure. The FCC limits for SAR (specific absorption rate) is 1.6 watts
per kilogram. Most current cell phones run around 0.25 watts/kg. The
Class I 100meter headsets run about .005 watts/kg. The Class II 10m
Bluetooth devices run about 0.001 watts/kg. 802.11 devices are not
normally worn and are therefore not tested for SAR. Incidentally, the
reason the Class I and Class II are not exactly 10 times difference is
that the wearable Class I devices tend to be physically larger and
therefore support more sophisticated antennas.
802.11 devices are tested for RF field safety limits not SAR because
they are not worn. See:
| http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/rfsafety/
for a simple calculator. Use 0.035 watts for 802.11 xmit power and
0.010 for Bluetooth. Note that such field calculations assume a
continuous transmission as in broadcast FM/TV. This is not the case
with Bluetooth and 802.11 as the transmitters are not always on.
Actual 802.11 and Bluetooth exposure will be less as multiplied by the
duty cycle (% of time on the air). This is NOT the case with SAR
calculations, which include duty cycle.
FCC exposure guidelines:
| http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf
Broadcast Supplement:
| http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65a.pdf
Ham Radio Supplement:
| http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65b.pdf
Cellular Supplement:
| http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65c.pdf
>I would also be curious to know which of the 802.11 standards
>(a, b, g, etc.) produces the least amount of radiation or if they are
>all the same?
The real pity is that none of the 802.11 devices can reduce their
transmit power to the minimum required for adequate communications.
Every other technology approved by the FCC since about 1985 has
required transmitter power control, but not 802.11. This is to reduce
interference, but would have beneficial effects on reducing overall
radiation.
When the access point says +15dBm transmit power, that's the power
coming out of the coaxial connector on the access point. It's the
same no matter who manufactured the unit. My measurements show that
it can vary from +12 to +17dBm depending on manufacturer, but there's
no way to know that without a mess of test equipment.
What does have an effect on radiation is the antenna. The more gain,
the larger the field intensity, and therefore the larger the exposure.
Small antennas, with a gain of less than 8-10dBi aren't going to make
much difference in the safe area. Highly directional dish antennas
with 24dBi gain are obviously different. Since much of the indoor RF
exposure comes from reflections, it's difficult to pass judgment on a
given arrangement without also including the room in the calculations.
For example. My wireless access point is sitting on my desk about 2
ft in front of me. The 8dBi omni antenna is hanging from the ceiling
about the same distance but over my head. I'm not worried because
most of the radiation goes out the window and over my head. There's
plenty of RF, but it's not going in my direction. Worry about antenna
location and physical separation, not antenna size.
You may find this article quite informative:
| http://www.thirdbreak.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-March/000846.html
It was written by a local RF Engineer who is far more knowledgeable
and experienced than most. It should give you some numbers as to what
to worry about, and what to ignore.
Also, thank you for asking the right question. Very few people asking
about RF exposure bother to ask for numbers. If you know the numbers,
you can make informed decisions. Anything less is just FUD. If I've
missed something or you have additional questions, please ask.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@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
William P.N. Smith
>I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
>to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain.
I suspect you'll be disappointed. IME wired beats wireless by a large
margin. Some houses are more difficult than others, but there's
usually a way...
Rico
>fake....@stonyx.com hath wroth:
>
>>I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
>>to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain. However, I
>>personally believe that the less radiation you are exposed to, the
>>better of you are. Therefore I'd like to use whatever technology would
>>create the least amount of radiation in my house.
>
>A bit of trivia first:
>- Sunlight generates about 1000 watts of power per square meter
> (or 100 milliwatts/cm^2).
>- The maximum RF exposure limit is 1 milliwatt/cm^2 for an
> uncontrolled environment.
>Therefore, standing in the sun exceeds the FCC exposure limits by 100
>times.
And is known to cause cancer. So then the question is what happens at lower
levels of exposure but perhaps for even greater periods of time (ie
wireless is around us in winter when we tend to be out of the sun, and at
home, at night)? Not sure comparing with a known cancer causing agent is a
good comparison tool.
But we don't actually know the effects of prolonged exposure at any number
levels. Again I'm here, I use wireless, but my point is that we really
don't know. No one has studied the effects of say a 2,4Ghz at what 30
milliwatts on a young child in the house. (who would be monster enough to
do such an experiment, except of course a nerdy father wanting to use the
internet in various places around the house and he isn't checking the
impact on the kids) <wink/>.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Mark McIntyre
rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>But we don't actually know the effects of prolonged exposure at any number
>levels.
To be fair, we also don't know the effect of prolonged exposure to a
vast array of things, including vegan yoghurt, teletubbies and
plasticine. There's a zillion modernish inventions we simply haven't
been around long enough yet, compared to say the effects of prolonged
exposure to volcanoes, the sun's rays and fish.
>No one has studied the effects of say a 2,4Ghz at what 30
>milliwatts on a young child in the house.
Actually, I'm pretty certain you're mistaken about this but its 22:30
on a sunday and my STFW fingers are tired.... :-)
>(who would be monster enough to do such an experiment,
Someone also studied the effect of living in high-radon areas,
ingesting aluminium salts, living under pylons and mobile phone
radiation. No animals were harmed in the making, because the studies
were in-situ, with pre-existing groups of people in pre-existing
exposure scenarios. You'd study the effect of 2.4Ghz radiation in much
the same way and you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere, some
poor b*gger is living next door to a massive radar-type installation.
Over here, it'd be some chavs, with any luck.
Mark McIntyre
--
Jeff Liebermann
>>Therefore, standing in the sun exceeds the FCC exposure limits by 100
>>times.
>And is known to cause cancer. So then the question is what happens at lower
>levels of exposure but perhaps for even greater periods of time (ie
>wireless is around us in winter when we tend to be out of the sun, and at
>home, at night)? Not sure comparing with a known cancer causing agent is a
>good comparison tool.
Actually, it's an excellent analogy if we ignore resonant and
frequency dependent absorptive effects. The sun belches most of its
energy in the visible spectra region, but spews considerable amounts
of noise at lower frequencies including the microwave bands.
http://www.spacewx.com/solar_spectrum.html
Looking at the above graph, the sun generates 10E-4 Watts/sq-cm or 0.1
milliwatt/sq-cm in the microwave region. FCC limit for uncontrolled
environments is 1 mw/sq-cm. Therefore, the sun generates 1/10 of the
FCC limit. If I compare this to a typical 35mw wi-fi radio, with the
stock 2.2dBi rubber ducky antenna, I get the same RF level as the sun
at a distance of 0.7ft. Therefore, you're getting the same amount of
RF from your laptop as from the sun.
It's also presumed that most of the biological effects of RF is due to
localized heating. The sun can certainly do much more IR heating than
a local RF source.
Incidentally, the standard method of calibrating microwave receiver
noise figure is to point the dish at the sun and compare it with
"empty" sky:
http://www.setileague.org/articles/g-t.htm
There's LOTS of RF coming from the sun.
As for comparing wireless exposure with a known cancer cause, isn't
that what all the FUD is about? The open question is "does RF cause
cancer" or more specifically "Do cell phones, Wi-Fi, BlueTooth, and
such cause cancer". If the sun can cause cancer, why not all these
others? In theory, all you have to do is simulate with RF the
exposure one gets from the sun necessary to cause cancer and you've
proven that cell phones cause cancer.
>But we don't actually know the effects of prolonged exposure at any number
>levels. Again I'm here, I use wireless, but my point is that we really
>don't know.
What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
radically different exposure standards.
>No one has studied the effects of say a 2,4Ghz at what 30
>milliwatts on a young child in the house. (who would be monster enough to
>do such an experiment, except of course a nerdy father wanting to use the
>internet in various places around the house and he isn't checking the
>impact on the kids) <wink/>.
Actually, I could probably find some animal tests of the sorts. I was
involved in one such study in an odd way. The researchers were
getting inconsistent results on exposing bacteria to RF fields. They
wanted my help calibrating the test setup. The RF source worked as
advertised, but the home made antenna and cable were a useless dead
short. They had generated months of test results without ever
exposing the target with RF.
When I fixed the feed and antenna, and corrected some RF field
strength calculations, the test proceeded on for months. Results
seemed to show internal structure effects on the bacteria after about
100 generations as compared to a non-irradiated control culture. They
were about to submit for publication when I suggested they compare the
results with with the original data. They were exactly the same. The
effects were eventually traced to contaminated glassware.
I'm not suggesting that all such studies are this bad, but it does
make me wonder. Incidentally, the last line of all such studies is
always "More research is necessary".
Rico
This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
heavily influanced by the affected industry.
>
>>No one has studied the effects of say a 2,4Ghz at what 30
>>milliwatts on a young child in the house. (who would be monster enough to
>>do such an experiment, except of course a nerdy father wanting to use the
>>internet in various places around the house and he isn't checking the
>>impact on the kids) <wink/>.
>
>Actually, I could probably find some animal tests of the sorts.
And no doubt (at least in my mind) sopme short term studies have been done,
but people tend of course to live into their 70's. In my case I was an
adult when Apple first started selling micro computers, so my exposure
would be less then that of a new born today.
> I was
>involved in one such study in an odd way. The researchers were
>getting inconsistent results on exposing bacteria to RF fields. They
>wanted my help calibrating the test setup. The RF source worked as
>advertised, but the home made antenna and cable were a useless dead
>short. They had generated months of test results without ever
>exposing the target with RF.
>
>When I fixed the feed and antenna, and corrected some RF field
>strength calculations, the test proceeded on for months. Results
>seemed to show internal structure effects on the bacteria after about
>100 generations as compared to a non-irradiated control culture. They
>were about to submit for publication when I suggested they compare the
>results with with the original data. They were exactly the same. The
>effects were eventually traced to contaminated glassware.
>
>I'm not suggesting that all such studies are this bad, but it does
>make me wonder. Incidentally, the last line of all such studies is
>always "More research is necessary".
Of course not, I'm not saying any of the investigations done so far are in
error. I'm sure as you note above more then a few are shall we say not
100%, but I would say today they may be the minority. Again I'm not
suggesting even a moment here that we should not be using these nifty
gadgets they keep coming up with (well wireless mice and keyboards, but for
another reason then rf issues). I just wonder if in fact we aren't
impacting the genome (might be postive, kids a generation or three out
might end up smarter on average then we are or stronger).
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Jeff Liebermann
>>What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
>>accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
>>radically different exposure standards.
>This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
>Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
>heavily influanced by the affected industry.
Industry has an effect on the regulatory process? Methinks not. My
personal experience demonstrates that politics and legal issues far
outweigh any technical issues. If some industrial giant wishes to
influence regulations, they purchase, lease, or rent a politician, who
then uses his political influence to change the numbers. The very
last group with any effective input are scientists and technology
people.
I don't suppose mentioning that every county has a different cellular
tower ordinance would help you feel more secure.
>And no doubt (at least in my mind) sopme short term studies have been done,
>but people tend of course to live into their 70's. In my case I was an
>adult when Apple first started selling micro computers, so my exposure
>would be less then that of a new born today.
RF has been around since Marconi in 1902. Is that long term enough?
The problem with studying long term effects is NOT in the duration but
in the isolation of a suitable control group. Where on this planet
can you find an area that has a similar lifestyle to the typical urban
dweller, but without the exposure to RF fields? How can you maintain
such a control group for extended periods? Would you entertain the
possibility that the reason there have been no long term RF studies is
because they cannot be accomplished on this planet?
>Of course not, I'm not saying any of the investigations done so far are in
>error. I'm sure as you note above more then a few are shall we say not
>100%, but I would say today they may be the minority. Again I'm not
>suggesting even a moment here that we should not be using these nifty
>gadgets they keep coming up with (well wireless mice and keyboards, but for
>another reason then rf issues). I just wonder if in fact we aren't
>impacting the genome (might be postive, kids a generation or three out
>might end up smarter on average then we are or stronger).
You have a right to be paranoid. However, constant fear of the
unknown is not a great way to go through life. You could also take a
conservative position:
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3591071
It's when someone "warns" the rest of the world of their fears and
aprehensions, that I have problems. If you know something about RF
exposure, including anecdotal incidents, then I'm all ears. If you're
just afraid, it's not really very useful.
John Navas
In <9Aq3g.45066$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:43:22
GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>In article <d3po42t7f84tlpid4...@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) hath wroth:
>>What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
>>accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
>>radically different exposure standards.
>
>This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
>Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
>heavily influanced by the affected industry.
I think that's a bad analogy and a huge leap. Do you have any real evidence
that radiation exposure limits have actually been "heavily influanced by the
affected industry"?
>>Actually, I could probably find some animal tests of the sorts.
>
>And no doubt (at least in my mind) sopme short term studies have been done,
>but people tend of course to live into their 70's. In my case I was an
>adult when Apple first started selling micro computers, so my exposure
>would be less then that of a new born today.
Long term studies have been done. It's unlikely that any really serious
effects would only show up after such long periods of time.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>
Rico
>rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) hath wroth:
>
>>>What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
>>>accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
>>>radically different exposure standards.
>
>>This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
>>Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
>>heavily influanced by the affected industry.
>
>Industry has an effect on the regulatory process? Methinks not. My
>personal experience demonstrates that politics and legal issues far
>outweigh any technical issues. If some industrial giant wishes to
>influence regulations, they purchase, lease, or rent a politician, who
>then uses his political influence to change the numbers. The very
>last group with any effective input are scientists and technology
>people.
>
>I don't suppose mentioning that every county has a different cellular
>tower ordinance would help you feel more secure.
>
>>And no doubt (at least in my mind) sopme short term studies have been done,
>>but people tend of course to live into their 70's. In my case I was an
>>adult when Apple first started selling micro computers, so my exposure
>>would be less then that of a new born today.
>
>RF has been around since Marconi in 1902.
Was Macaroni sending microwaves in '02? I didn't realize, I thought it was
long wave stuff though indeed rf, but then he wasn't doing it in my
grandfather's house <wink>
> Is that long term enough?
>The problem with studying long term effects is NOT in the duration but
>in the isolation of a suitable control group. Where on this planet
>can you find an area that has a similar lifestyle to the typical urban
>dweller, but without the exposure to RF fields? How can you maintain
>such a control group for extended periods? Would you entertain the
>possibility that the reason there have been no long term RF studies is
>because they cannot be accomplished on this planet?
Again though, we are now bring the xmitters into our houses, not just in
the environment in general.
>
>>Of course not, I'm not saying any of the investigations done so far are in
>>error. I'm sure as you note above more then a few are shall we say not
>>100%, but I would say today they may be the minority. Again I'm not
>>suggesting even a moment here that we should not be using these nifty
>>gadgets they keep coming up with (well wireless mice and keyboards, but for
>>another reason then rf issues). I just wonder if in fact we aren't
>>impacting the genome (might be postive, kids a generation or three out
>>might end up smarter on average then we are or stronger).
>
>You have a right to be paranoid. However, constant fear of the
>unknown is not a great way to go through life.
We are supposed to be frightened, don't you watch the news etc. Terrorists
are hiding under the bed, bin Laden is lurking behind that tree in your
back yard etc. The terror alert level is purple... and on it goes. The
political system thrives on us being afear'd
> You could also take a
>conservative position:
> http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3591071
>It's when someone "warns" the rest of the world of their fears and
>aprehensions, that I have problems. If you know something about RF
>exposure, including anecdotal incidents, then I'm all ears. If you're
>just afraid, it's not really very useful.
I'm not afraid, but I think it is legitimate to ask these questions given
the number of gadgets now entering our lives and homes.
(ot), could you take a look at my DD-WRT question in the group?
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Rico
>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <9Aq3g.45066$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:43:22
>GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>In article <d3po42t7f84tlpid4...@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
> <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>>rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) hath wroth:
>
>>>What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
>>>accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
>>>radically different exposure standards.
>>
>>This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
>>Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
>>heavily influanced by the affected industry.
>
>I think that's a bad analogy and a huge leap. Do you have any real evidence
>that radiation exposure limits have actually been "heavily influanced by the
>affected industry"?
That you think the federal regulatory process is not influanced by politics
speaks volumes of how little you understand the workings of the system we
have here. I'm not talking some great conspiracy, but those political
contributions are not out of the goodness of big industry's heart. Congress
is indeed for rent, they are rented daily. Agency heads do not 'po'
Congress if they like their agency to be funded and on it goes. I
seriousily can't beleive you are not aware of how the process works in this
country.
>
>>>Actually, I could probably find some animal tests of the sorts.
>>
>>And no doubt (at least in my mind) sopme short term studies have been done,
>>but people tend of course to live into their 70's. In my case I was an
>>adult when Apple first started selling micro computers, so my exposure
>>would be less then that of a new born today.
>
>Long term studies have been done. It's unlikely that any really serious
>effects would only show up after such long periods of time.
They have? How? Bluetooth and Wifi in the home haven't been around long
enough for long term studies to have been done.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
John Navas
In <Msv3g.45781$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:16:49
GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>In article <anis42hlhfjh5dc2e...@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>The problem with studying long term effects is NOT in the duration but
>>in the isolation of a suitable control group. Where on this planet
>>can you find an area that has a similar lifestyle to the typical urban
>>dweller, but without the exposure to RF fields? How can you maintain
>>such a control group for extended periods? Would you entertain the
>>possibility that the reason there have been no long term RF studies is
>>because they cannot be accomplished on this planet?
>
>Again though, we are now bring the xmitters into our houses, not just in
>the environment in general.
True, but all that matters is radiation strength, and the transmitters we're
now bringing home can be very weak when compared to external sources.
John Navas
In <Oxv3g.45783$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:22:10
GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>In article <0_t3g.1239$xX5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>In <9Aq3g.45066$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:43:22
>>GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>>>This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
>>>Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
>>>heavily influanced by the affected industry.
>>
>>I think that's a bad analogy and a huge leap. Do you have any real evidence
>>that radiation exposure limits have actually been "heavily influanced by the
>>affected industry"?
>
>That you think the federal regulatory process is not influanced by politics
>speaks volumes of how little you understand the workings of the system we
>have here.
I think I actually understand it pretty well (your insult notwithstanding).
>I'm not talking some great conspiracy, but those political
>contributions are not out of the goodness of big industry's heart.
Contributions don't go to regulators.
>Congress
>is indeed for rent, they are rented daily.
Some are; most aren't.
>Agency heads do not 'po'
>Congress if they like their agency to be funded and on it goes.
While Congress does have some influence in regulatory bodies, it's much less
than you seem to think.
>I
>seriousily can't beleive you are not aware of how the process works in this
>country.
Again, I think I actually understand it pretty well, even though I don't
subscribe to extreme hand wringing.
>>Long term studies have been done. It's unlikely that any really serious
>>effects would only show up after such long periods of time.
>
>They have? How? Bluetooth and Wifi in the home haven't been around long
>enough for long term studies to have been done.
Long term studies of radiation from other consumers devices have been done,
notably mobile phones, as well as long term studies of radiation from
non-consumer devices.
Jeff Liebermann
>>RF has been around since Marconi in 1902.
>
>Was Macaroni sending microwaves in '02? I didn't realize, I thought it was
>long wave stuff though indeed rf, but then he wasn't doing it in my
>grandfather's house <wink>
Marconi duplicated many of Heinrich Hertz's experiments while still in
Italy. Hertz's spark propogation experments were done with a full
wave circular loop antenna, with metal balls at the ends to show the
spark and act as somewhat of a capacitor. The approximate resonant
frequency of his loops were about 300MHz. Not exactly microwaves, but
close enough.
>Again though, we are now bring the xmitters into our houses, not just in
>the environment in general.
Your house is your castle, not your shield room. Worry about high
power broadcast transmitters, not low power.
>We are supposed to be frightened, don't you watch the news etc. Terrorists
>are hiding under the bed, bin Laden is lurking behind that tree in your
>back yard etc. The terror alert level is purple... and on it goes. The
>political system thrives on us being afear'd
If one wants funding for any government activity, one needs to tie it
to anti-terrorism or there's no money available. (Don't ask me for
details). Say the magic words, and the money will flow.
>I'm not afraid, but I think it is legitimate to ask these questions given
>the number of gadgets now entering our lives and homes.
Agreed. Asking questions is the first step to research. However,
what are you going to do when research isn't possible? For example,
the long term RF exposure tests just aren't practical due to lack of a
comparable long term control group (without RF).
>(ot), could you take a look at my DD-WRT question in the group?
I did. No clue. Besides, politix is more fun.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Jeff Liebermann
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>Marconi duplicated many of Heinrich Hertz's experiments while still in
>Italy. Hertz's spark propogation experments were done with a full
>wave circular loop antenna, with metal balls at the ends to show the
>spark and act as somewhat of a capacitor. The approximate resonant
>frequency of his loops were about 300MHz. Not exactly microwaves, but
>close enough.
Early microwaves.
http://www.wa1mba.org/micros.htm
"Surprisingly enough, some of the first electromagnetic experiments
conducted by Heinrich Hertz in 1886 and also by Marconi used
frequencies near the microwave region - some around 500 MHz and
some even in the multiple GHz (Gigahertz) region."
J.C. Bose followed Heinrich Hertz with microwave experiments in the 5
mm region (about 30GHz) in 1895.
http://www.tuc.nrao.edu/~demerson/bose/bose.html
His experiments use most of the common waveguide components in use
today. Don't get the idea that microwaves are a recent invention.
They were the original radio physics and only replaced by lower
frequencies when scientists and inventors discovered that the lower
frequencies were more useful for long range communications via
ionspheric refraction.
Microwaves have been around longer than HF/SW broadcasting.
Bob Smith
I think you ought to take all your wifi and bluetooth stuff and put it
in the middle of you living room, build a fence around it say a 3'
radius and not let anyone get close to it,, then you would do your
testing and such in a 'controlled' area, then come back and post the
results, say in 30 years,
Or,, better still, buy up a stock of 'radiation badges' and have
everyone wear one and have them checked and logged for 'over exposer"
Bob
NA6T
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
John Navas
In <52ht42tl1mri2877g...@4ax.com> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:56:10
-0700, Bob Smith <na...@na6t.com> wrote:
>On 23 Apr 2006 08:49:50 -0700, fake....@stonyx.com wrote:
>
>>I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
>>to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain. However, I
>>personally believe that the less radiation you are exposed to, the
>>better of you are. Therefore I'd like to use whatever technology would
>>create the least amount of radiation in my house.
>>
>>I was wondering if anyone could provide me with details on radiation
>>levels produced by class 1 bluetooth devices (the ones that provide
>>100m range) and radiation levels produced by 802.11 wireless LAN
>>devices. I would also be curious to know which of the 802.11 standards
>>(a, b, g, etc.) produces the least amount of radiation or if they are
>>all the same?
>I think you ought to take all your wifi and bluetooth stuff and put it
>in the middle of you living room, build a fence around it say a 3'
>radius and not let anyone get close to it,, then you would do your
>testing and such in a 'controlled' area, then come back and post the
>results, say in 30 years,
>
>Or,, better still, buy up a stock of 'radiation badges' and have
>everyone wear one and have them checked and logged for 'over exposer"
Nah -- just go with tinfoil hats. :)
John Navas
In <ungt429opvcdnui2v...@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:57:52
Shame on you! Surely you know that using actual facts in a Usenet pissing
contest is contrary to Usenet guidelines! LOL
Jeff Liebermann
>Or,, better still, buy up a stock of 'radiation badges' and have
>everyone wear one and have them checked and logged for 'over exposer"
I was seriously considering manufacturing an RF dosimeter. It seemed
like a good idea until I discovered that I would either need to build
a pocket spectrum analyzer, or an ultra sensitive and broadband
bolometer (fancy thermometer):
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer
Either way, nobody would be able to afford one, so I guess I can skip
the business plan and marketing research phase.
Then, I discover that's it's already been done:
| http://www.antennessa.com/alarmworkerdosimeter.php
| http://www.antennessa.com/telechargement/1145545170.pdf
Nifty looking output.
| http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/hpa_rpd_reports/2005/hpa_rpd_008.pdf
(I'll read through the 102 page test report when I have time.)
Well, there it is. Now buy one so I can borrow it.
Bob Smith
Don't laugh jeff, I met a fellow from one of the cell tower
servicing companies that has something similar to what was pictured.
This was about a year ago, and it would beep when the levels were to
high (like next to the TX, etc). I didn't see a name but he said his
company was testing them to see if they were any good. He mentioned
that a few of the employees had been claiming "radiation posioning'
and getting workers comp, so the company was trying to see if there
really was a problem
He also mentioned to me that the only time he had ever heard it go off
was when he walked in from of a 6' tx/rx dish that was working, and
he also said he knew better....
Christ, I'm 60 years old, had a vasectomy when I was 30 and been using
"IT" as a sports model since then,, bring on the radiation,,,,,,,
Bob Smith
NA6T
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:13:35 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:56:10 -0700, Bob Smith <na...@na6t.com> wrote:
>
>>Or,, better still, buy up a stock of 'radiation badges' and have
>>everyone wear one and have them checked and logged for 'over exposer"
>
>I was seriously considering manufacturing an RF dosimeter. It seemed
>like a good idea until I discovered that I would either need to build
>a pocket spectrum analyzer, or an ultra sensitive and broadband
>bolometer (fancy thermometer):
>| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer
>Either way, nobody would be able to afford one, so I guess I can skip
>the business plan and marketing research phase.
>
>Then, I discover that's it's already been done:
>| http://www.antennessa.com/alarmworkerdosimeter.php
>| http://www.antennessa.com/telechargement/1145545170.pdf
>Nifty looking output.
>| http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/hpa_rpd_reports/2005/hpa_rpd_008.pdf
>(I'll read through the 102 page test report when I have time.)
>
>Well, there it is. Now buy one so I can borrow it.
--
Rico
>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <Msv3g.45781$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:16:49
>GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>In article <anis42hlhfjh5dc2e...@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
> <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>>The problem with studying long term effects is NOT in the duration but
>>>in the isolation of a suitable control group. Where on this planet
>>>can you find an area that has a similar lifestyle to the typical urban
>>>dweller, but without the exposure to RF fields? How can you maintain
>>>such a control group for extended periods? Would you entertain the
>>>possibility that the reason there have been no long term RF studies is
>>>because they cannot be accomplished on this planet?
>>
>>Again though, we are now bring the xmitters into our houses, not just in
>>the environment in general.
>
>True, but all that matters is radiation strength,
How do you arrive at this?
> and the transmitters we're
>now bringing home can be very weak when compared to external sources.
O focurse we are much closer to these 'weak' sources.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Rico
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:16:49 GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>>RF has been around since Marconi in 1902.
>>
>>Was Macaroni sending microwaves in '02? I didn't realize, I thought it was
>>long wave stuff though indeed rf, but then he wasn't doing it in my
>>grandfather's house <wink>
>
>Marconi duplicated many of Heinrich Hertz's experiments while still in
>Italy. Hertz's spark propogation experments were done with a full
>wave circular loop antenna, with metal balls at the ends to show the
>spark and act as somewhat of a capacitor. The approximate resonant
>frequency of his loops were about 300MHz. Not exactly microwaves, but
>close enough.
Well indeed learn a little something new every day, I thought all of
Marconi's stuff was down below 160 meters. That'll teach me.
>
>>Again though, we are now bring the xmitters into our houses, not just in
>>the environment in general.
>
>Your house is your castle, not your shield room. Worry about high
>power broadcast transmitters, not low power.
In my case I'm miles from such transmitters (well the local cell tower is
closer, but still some distance). But my wifi AP is just a few feet away
and my laptop even closer...
>
>>We are supposed to be frightened, don't you watch the news etc. Terrorists
>>are hiding under the bed, bin Laden is lurking behind that tree in your
>>back yard etc. The terror alert level is purple... and on it goes. The
>>political system thrives on us being afear'd
>
>If one wants funding for any government activity, one needs to tie it
>to anti-terrorism or there's no money available. (Don't ask me for
>details). Say the magic words, and the money will flow.
>
>>I'm not afraid, but I think it is legitimate to ask these questions given
>>the number of gadgets now entering our lives and homes.
>
>Agreed. Asking questions is the first step to research. However,
>what are you going to do when research isn't possible? For example,
>the long term RF exposure tests just aren't practical due to lack of a
>comparable long term control group (without RF).
>
>>(ot), could you take a look at my DD-WRT question in the group?
>
>I did. No clue.
Well what good are ya' <wink grin="big toothy"/>
Has me completely stumped. Was hoping you had at least heard of such,
thanks though.
> Besides, politix is more fun.
Have you seen this:
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Rico
>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <Oxv3g.45783$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:22:10
>GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>In article <0_t3g.1239$xX5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas
> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>In <9Aq3g.45066$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:43:22
>>>GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>>>This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
>>>>Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
>>>>heavily influanced by the affected industry.
>>>
>>>I think that's a bad analogy and a huge leap. Do you have any real evidence
>>>that radiation exposure limits have actually been "heavily influanced by the
>>>affected industry"?
>>
>>That you think the federal regulatory process is not influanced by politics
>>speaks volumes of how little you understand the workings of the system we
>>have here.
>
>I think I actually understand it pretty well (your insult notwithstanding).
>
>>I'm not talking some great conspiracy, but those political
>>contributions are not out of the goodness of big industry's heart.
>
>Contributions don't go to regulators.
No they go to the purse strings (Congress and the fellow that hires the
regulators, the President)
>
>>Congress
>>is indeed for rent, they are rented daily.
>
>Some are; most aren't.
ALL are if they want to serve more then one term.
>
>>Agency heads do not 'po'
>>Congress if they like their agency to be funded and on it goes.
>
>While Congress does have some influence in regulatory bodies, it's much less
>than you seem to think.
It is vastly more then you seem to think. Look at the news just yesterday.
Congress raises cane in the media about high gas prices, Bush rolls back
federal regulation regarding additives etc in gasoline. Politics!!!!! This
is an election year. Again not some conspiracy, pure politics, and the
regulators take a back seat to electoral necessity. While republicans
really can't have much impact on gas prices right now, they fear the public
will blame the party in power. Politics!!!!
>
>>I
>>seriousily can't beleive you are not aware of how the process works in this
>>country.
>
>Again, I think I actually understand it pretty well, even though I don't
>subscribe to extreme hand wringing.
You seem to live in a very sheltered world. Everything in government in the
US is about politics and getting elected/re-elected. And money is the key
to those goals.
>
>>>Long term studies have been done. It's unlikely that any really serious
>>>effects would only show up after such long periods of time.
>>
>>They have? How? Bluetooth and Wifi in the home haven't been around long
>>enough for long term studies to have been done.
>
>Long term studies of radiation from other consumers devices have been done,
>notably mobile phones, as well as long term studies of radiation from
>non-consumer devices.
Mobile phones aren't that old; what about 20 years, and even then only
recently in our pockets and the xmitter next to our head. (Yes I've seen
the old clunky car phones of the 1960's)
>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Rico
>
>Don't laugh jeff, I met a fellow from one of the cell tower
>servicing companies that has something similar to what was pictured.
>
>This was about a year ago, and it would beep when the levels were to
>high (like next to the TX, etc). I didn't see a name but he said his
>company was testing them to see if they were any good. He mentioned
>that a few of the employees had been claiming "radiation posioning'
>and getting workers comp, so the company was trying to see if there
>really was a problem
>
>He also mentioned to me that the only time he had ever heard it go off
>was when he walked in from of a 6' tx/rx dish that was working, and
>he also said he knew better....
I thought (wrong it seems) that they shut these towers down when the
fellows wer eup there working on them. Not just the rf, but the general
electricity thing. Live and learn.
>
>Christ, I'm 60 years old, had a vasectomy when I was 30 and been using
>"IT" as a sports model since then,, bring on the radiation,,,,,,,
Had your cataracts done yet <wink/>?
>
>
>Bob Smith
>NA6T
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:13:35 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
><je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:56:10 -0700, Bob Smith <na...@na6t.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Or,, better still, buy up a stock of 'radiation badges' and have
>>>everyone wear one and have them checked and logged for 'over exposer"
>>
>>I was seriously considering manufacturing an RF dosimeter. It seemed
>>like a good idea until I discovered that I would either need to build
>>a pocket spectrum analyzer, or an ultra sensitive and broadband
>>bolometer (fancy thermometer):
>>| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolometer
>>Either way, nobody would be able to afford one, so I guess I can skip
>>the business plan and marketing research phase.
>>
>>Then, I discover that's it's already been done:
>>| http://www.antennessa.com/alarmworkerdosimeter.php
>>| http://www.antennessa.com/telechargement/1145545170.pdf
>>Nifty looking output.
>>|
> http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/hpa_rpd_reports/2005/hpa_rpd_008.
>pdf
>>(I'll read through the 102 page test report when I have time.)
>>
>>Well, there it is. Now buy one so I can borrow it.
>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
John Navas
In <GGJ3g.21538$iB2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:30:35
GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>In article <vPw3g.43582$az4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>True, but all that matters is radiation strength,
>
>How do you arrive at this?
Science.
John Navas
In <v%J3g.21540$iB2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:52:48
GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>In article <mWw3g.1702$xX5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>Contributions don't go to regulators.
>
>No they go to the purse strings (Congress and the fellow that hires the
>regulators, the President)
Neither Congress nor the President have much to do with hiring regulators, and
more importantly those that do the research on which regulation is based,
particularly in the areas of health and safety.
>>>Congress
>>>is indeed for rent, they are rented daily.
>>
>>Some are; most aren't.
>
>ALL are if they want to serve more then one term.
I know some personally, and while it is true that they have to raise funds,
they are most definitely not "for rent".
>>While Congress does have some influence in regulatory bodies, it's much less
>>than you seem to think.
>
>It is vastly more then you seem to think.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>Look at the news just yesterday.
>Congress raises cane in the media about high gas prices, Bush rolls back
>federal regulation regarding additives etc in gasoline. Politics!!!!! This
>is an election year. Again not some conspiracy, pure politics, and the
>regulators take a back seat to electoral necessity. While republicans
>really can't have much impact on gas prices right now, they fear the public
>will blame the party in power. Politics!!!!
And that's the point. This is just a tempest in a teapot. Nothing much is
happening. Bush *didn't* actually "[roll] back federal regulation regarding
additives etc in gasoline". According to the Chicago Tribune:
Analysts say that if environmental standards for gasoline additives
were relaxed nationwide, gas prices could drop significantly. But the
White House is enabling regulators to waive environmental rules only
regionally, with the aim of averting local shortages of gas. The
Environmental Protection Agency says waivers will be granted case by
case.
The move to ethanol as a cleaner additive to gasoline and a difficult
transition away from the additive MTBE--which the government found
was polluting water--have led to shortages of fuel in some parts of
the country. Only Pennsylvania has sought a waiver of the rules.
Bush "seemed to be indicating he wanted the EPA to grant waivers
where there have actually been shortages," said Andrew Weissman,
senior managing director at FTI Consulting in Washington, calling a
national waiver "very tempting from the standpoint of the White
House."
The president has authority to relax rules for only 20 days at a time
without additional congressional approval.
In other words, temporary, case by case, and up to the states and EPA.
Jeff Liebermann
>I thought (wrong it seems) that they shut these towers down when the
>fellows wer eup there working on them. Not just the rf, but the general
>electricity thing. Live and learn.
Nope. The advertising revenue from the broadcast stations is worth
more than than the tower worker. Same with the "mission critical"
public safety communications. With high power broacast transmitters,
tower technicians are required to wear RF protection suits:
http://euclidgarment.com/tutorial.html
Think of them as a portable sauna.
Actually, broadcast stations are fairly forgiving about reducing the
transmit power during tower maintenance. This may involve a night
time climb, but is possible. The problem is that the tower is shared
with other services. The broadcast stations tend to not so forgiving
when working on someone elses antennas.
Incidentally, the leading manufacturer of RF exposure meters is Narda.
http://www.narda-sts.com/en/home/
They do have personal exposure monitors:
http://www.narda-sts.com/en/produkte/personenschutz.htm
Incidentally, the local public safety tower in Santa Cruz had an
interesting incident. The tower is shared with several cellular
providers. For some reason, the tower climbers decided that they
would do a night climb one evening. Using portable lighting, up the
tower they went. Unfortunately, they didn't bother to notify the
nearby PSAP (public safety answering point), which soon received a
huge number of calls, from all over the area, claiming that "space
aliens", "flying terrorists", or "mysterious lights" were flying
around the tower area. Once we have safety nailed, we can work on the
other forms of stupidity. Interesting, the calls kept coming even
after they were done working and long gone.
>Had your cataracts done yet <wink/>?
I'll ask my cat when he drifts back inside.
Jeff Liebermann
>Neither Congress nor the President have much to do with hiring regulators, and
>more importantly those that do the research on which regulation is based,
>particularly in the areas of health and safety.
The President appoints the chair and 5 members of the FCC. The usual
formula is to appoint an equal number of Republic and Democrat
commissars, or the Senate would never approve the appointments. The
current lineup is composed of former lobbyists, former industry
representatives, campaign cronies, and members of Washington law
firms. In general, they tend to vote in a manner favoring their past
associations.
>I know some personally, and while it is true that they have to raise funds,
>they are most definitely not "for rent".
Many years ago, I attended a local restaurant owners association
meeting where an un-named local politician was the guest speaker. The
association needed some legislative relief and hoped to have the
speaker sponsor some legislation on their behalf. The very first
words out of this politicians mouth were something like "I'm here to
see how much you're going to contribute to my re-election campaign".
It was downhill and quid pro quo from that point on. They may not be
officially for rent, but the implications seem to point in that
direction.
Perhaps you can explain why the former FCC chair, Michael Powell, was
literally pushing BPL (broadband over power lines) despite substantial
opposition, considerable evidence of interference, and documented
proof that the various trails were not meeting FCC radiation
specifications? If his opinions were based on staff reports or proper
engineering studies, he should have dropped BPL.
John Navas
In <rlcv42dp249jkkdhd...@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:09:41
-0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>Neither Congress nor the President have much to do with hiring regulators, and
>>more importantly those that do the research on which regulation is based,
>>particularly in the areas of health and safety.
>
>The President appoints the chair and 5 members of the FCC. The usual
>formula is to appoint an equal number of Republic and Democrat
>commissars, or the Senate would never approve the appointments. The
>current lineup is composed of former lobbyists, former industry
>representatives, campaign cronies, and members of Washington law
>firms. In general, they tend to vote in a manner favoring their past
>associations.
I think that's overly harsh. Regardless, you seem to be missing my point,
which is that essential staff and research work is done by others that aren't
subject to appointments. Ask anyone with real Washington experience and they
undoubtedly tell you how hard it is for political appointees to influence
those institutions (for good as well as for ill).
>>I know some personally, and while it is true that they have to raise funds,
>>they are most definitely not "for rent".
>
>Many years ago, I attended a local restaurant owners association
>meeting where an un-named local politician was the guest speaker. The
>association needed some legislative relief and hoped to have the
>speaker sponsor some legislation on their behalf. The very first
>words out of this politicians mouth were something like "I'm here to
>see how much you're going to contribute to my re-election campaign".
>It was downhill and quid pro quo from that point on. They may not be
>officially for rent, but the implications seem to point in that
>direction.
One apocryphal story doesn't a case make. As a counter-example, I personally
know well a person that's serving in the State Assembly, and he's
unquestionably a person of high integrity. Does he listen and respond to the
concerns of his contributors? Sure. But he also listens and responds to the
concerns of ordinary voters, and makes them his first priority.
>Perhaps you can explain why the former FCC chair, Michael Powell, was
>literally pushing BPL (broadband over power lines) despite substantial
>opposition, considerable evidence of interference, and documented
>proof that the various trails were not meeting FCC radiation
>specifications? If his opinions were based on staff reports or proper
>engineering studies, he should have dropped BPL.
I don't agree. Like anyone else (including you and me), he's entitled to his
own opinion, even when that opinion doesn't seem to be well-founded. It's
quite possible that he was pushing BPL as a way to inject more competition
into the market, hoping that obstacles could be overcome with more effort.
It's dangerous to leap to conclusions, especially with so little to go on.
Rico
>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <GGJ3g.21538$iB2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:30:35
>GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>In article <vPw3g.43582$az4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John
> Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>True, but all that matters is radiation strength,
>>
>>How do you arrive at this?
>
>Science.
>
Or science fiction -- the more likely
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Rico
>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <v%J3g.21540$iB2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:52:48
>GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
>
>>In article <mWw3g.1702$xX5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John
> Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>Contributions don't go to regulators.
>>
>>No they go to the purse strings (Congress and the fellow that hires the
>>regulators, the President)
>
>Neither Congress nor the President have much to do with hiring regulators, and
>more importantly those that do the research on which regulation is based,
>particularly in the areas of health and safety.
Ah life behind rose colored glasses.
>>>>Congress
>>>>is indeed for rent, they are rented daily.
>>>
>>>Some are; most aren't.
>>
>>ALL are if they want to serve more then one term.
>
>I know some personally, and while it is true that they have to raise funds,
>they are most definitely not "for rent".
Ah rose colored glasses. I too know several Congress critters, grew up and
went to school with a US Senator, he is not dishonest, but if you think
being invited to play Augusta and free meals and contributions don't have
an impact on their view point... All I can say is it must be nice to be
blind to the real world of legislative egos and the need to get re-elected.
>
>>>While Congress does have some influence in regulatory bodies, it's much less
>>>than you seem to think.
>>
>>It is vastly more then you seem to think.
>
>We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
>>Look at the news just yesterday.
>>Congress raises cane in the media about high gas prices, Bush rolls back
>>federal regulation regarding additives etc in gasoline. Politics!!!!! This
>>is an election year. Again not some conspiracy, pure politics, and the
>>regulators take a back seat to electoral necessity. While republicans
>>really can't have much impact on gas prices right now, they fear the public
>>will blame the party in power. Politics!!!!
>
>And that's the point. This is just a tempest in a teapot. Nothing much is
>happening. Bush *didn't* actually "[roll] back federal regulation regarding
>additives etc in gasoline". According to the Chicago Tribune:
>
> Analysts say that if environmental standards for gasoline additives
> were relaxed nationwide, gas prices could drop significantly. But the
> White House is enabling regulators to waive environmental rules only
> regionally,
Hmm politics over ruling the regulators, interestingly in your own rebuttal
posting. Did you actually read this?
> with the aim of averting local shortages of gas. The
> Environmental Protection Agency says waivers will be granted case by
> case.
>
> The move to ethanol as a cleaner additive to gasoline and a difficult
> transition away from the additive MTBE--which the government found
> was polluting water--have led to shortages of fuel in some parts of
> the country. Only Pennsylvania has sought a waiver of the rules.
>
> Bush "seemed to be indicating he wanted the EPA to grant waivers
> where there have actually been shortages," said Andrew Weissman,
> senior managing director at FTI Consulting in Washington, calling a
> national waiver "very tempting from the standpoint of the White
> House."
>
> The president has authority to relax rules for only 20 days at a time
> without additional congressional approval.
>
>In other words, temporary, case by case, and up to the states and EPA.
In other words, politics trumps federal regulations. Again no great evil
conspiracy, just a simple problem, the party in power is down in the polls,
they fear they will be blamed for the current pump prices and want to be
seen as doing something about it. If this were last year and not an
election year, I doubt Bush would have done this. And next year he when
prices surge again, he won't.
>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Rico
>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <rlcv42dp249jkkdhd...@4ax.com> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:09:41
>-0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>>
>>>Neither Congress nor the President have much to do with hiring regulators,
> and
>>>more importantly those that do the research on which regulation is based,
>>>particularly in the areas of health and safety.
>>
>>The President appoints the chair and 5 members of the FCC. The usual
>>formula is to appoint an equal number of Republic and Democrat
>>commissars, or the Senate would never approve the appointments. The
>>current lineup is composed of former lobbyists, former industry
>>representatives, campaign cronies, and members of Washington law
>>firms. In general, they tend to vote in a manner favoring their past
>>associations.
>
>I think that's overly harsh. Regardless, you seem to be missing my point,
>which is that essential staff and research work is done by others that aren't
>subject to appointments. Ask anyone with real Washington experience and they
>undoubtedly tell you how hard it is for political appointees to influence
>those institutions (for good as well as for ill).
Hmm, explain then the complaints coming out of NASA regarding the current
administration surpressing reports on the subject of climate change
(globale warming)? Why is the definition of wetlands being changed? Do you
think some new science has come along and found out that wetlands aren't
wet? Of course not, it is politics. Can't have snail darters getting in the
way of that new sub-development.
>
>>>I know some personally, and while it is true that they have to raise funds,
>>>they are most definitely not "for rent".
>>
>>Many years ago, I attended a local restaurant owners association
>>meeting where an un-named local politician was the guest speaker. The
>>association needed some legislative relief and hoped to have the
>>speaker sponsor some legislation on their behalf. The very first
>>words out of this politicians mouth were something like "I'm here to
>>see how much you're going to contribute to my re-election campaign".
>>It was downhill and quid pro quo from that point on. They may not be
>>officially for rent, but the implications seem to point in that
>>direction.
>
>One apocryphal story doesn't a case make. As a counter-example, I personally
>know well a person that's serving in the State Assembly, and he's
>unquestionably a person of high integrity. Does he listen and respond to the
>concerns of his contributors? Sure. But he also listens and responds to the
>concerns of ordinary voters, and makes them his first priority.
And will never rise about state legislator. (why because he will never be
able to raise the money it takes to move beyond neighborhood politics)
>
>>Perhaps you can explain why the former FCC chair, Michael Powell, was
>>literally pushing BPL (broadband over power lines) despite substantial
>>opposition, considerable evidence of interference, and documented
>>proof that the various trails were not meeting FCC radiation
>>specifications? If his opinions were based on staff reports or proper
>>engineering studies, he should have dropped BPL.
>
>I don't agree. Like anyone else (including you and me), he's entitled to his
>own opinion, even when that opinion doesn't seem to be well-founded.
Ah, politics!!!
> It's
>quite possible that he was pushing BPL as a way to inject more competition
>into the market, hoping that obstacles could be overcome with more effort.
Hmm, injecting his opinion, isn't that POLITICS????
>It's dangerous to leap to conclusions, especially with so little to go on.
Rose colored glasses again. It must be nice to live in your world with the
Easter Bunny and all the trappings...
>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Anonymous
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:nfan42leiou7sg50m...@4ax.com...
> fake....@stonyx.com hath wroth:
>
>>I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
>>to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain. However, I
>>personally believe that the less radiation you are exposed to, the
>>better of you are. Therefore I'd like to use whatever technology would
>>create the least amount of radiation in my house.
>
> - Sunlight generates about 1000 watts of power per square meter
> (or 100 milliwatts/cm^2).
> - The maximum RF exposure limit is 1 milliwatt/cm^2 for an
> uncontrolled environment.
> Therefore, standing in the sun exceeds the FCC exposure limits by 100
> times.
>
>>I was wondering if anyone could provide me with details on radiation
>>levels produced by class 1 bluetooth devices (the ones that provide
>>100m range) and radiation levels produced by 802.11 wireless LAN
>>devices.
>
> per kilogram. Most current cell phones run around 0.25 watts/kg. The
> Class I 100meter headsets run about .005 watts/kg. The Class II 10m
> Bluetooth devices run about 0.001 watts/kg. 802.11 devices are not
> normally worn and are therefore not tested for SAR. Incidentally, the
> reason the Class I and Class II are not exactly 10 times difference is
> that the wearable Class I devices tend to be physically larger and
> therefore support more sophisticated antennas.
>
> 802.11 devices are tested for RF field safety limits not SAR because
> they are not worn. See:
> | http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/rfsafety/
> for a simple calculator. Use 0.035 watts for 802.11 xmit power and
> 0.010 for Bluetooth. Note that such field calculations assume a
> continuous transmission as in broadcast FM/TV. This is not the case
> with Bluetooth and 802.11 as the transmitters are not always on.
> Actual 802.11 and Bluetooth exposure will be less as multiplied by the
> duty cycle (% of time on the air). This is NOT the case with SAR
> calculations, which include duty cycle.
>
> FCC exposure guidelines:
> |
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf
> Broadcast Supplement:
> |
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65a.pdf
> Ham Radio Supplement:
> |
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65b.pdf
> Cellular Supplement:
> |
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65c.pdf
>
>>I would also be curious to know which of the 802.11 standards
>>(a, b, g, etc.) produces the least amount of radiation or if they are
>>all the same?
>
> transmit power to the minimum required for adequate communications.
> Every other technology approved by the FCC since about 1985 has
> required transmitter power control, but not 802.11. This is to reduce
> interference, but would have beneficial effects on reducing overall
> radiation.
>
> When the access point says +15dBm transmit power, that's the power
> coming out of the coaxial connector on the access point. It's the
> same no matter who manufactured the unit. My measurements show that
> it can vary from +12 to +17dBm depending on manufacturer, but there's
> no way to know that without a mess of test equipment.
>
> What does have an effect on radiation is the antenna. The more gain,
> the larger the field intensity, and therefore the larger the exposure.
> Small antennas, with a gain of less than 8-10dBi aren't going to make
> much difference in the safe area. Highly directional dish antennas
> with 24dBi gain are obviously different. Since much of the indoor RF
> exposure comes from reflections, it's difficult to pass judgment on a
> given arrangement without also including the room in the calculations.
>
> For example. My wireless access point is sitting on my desk about 2
> ft in front of me. The 8dBi omni antenna is hanging from the ceiling
> about the same distance but over my head. I'm not worried because
> most of the radiation goes out the window and over my head. There's
> plenty of RF, but it's not going in my direction. Worry about antenna
> location and physical separation, not antenna size.
>
> You may find this article quite informative:
> | http://www.thirdbreak.org/pipermail/wireless/2006-March/000846.html
> It was written by a local RF Engineer who is far more knowledgeable
> and experienced than most. It should give you some numbers as to what
> to worry about, and what to ignore.
>
> Also, thank you for asking the right question. Very few people asking
> about RF exposure bother to ask for numbers. If you know the numbers,
> you can make informed decisions. Anything less is just FUD. If I've
> missed something or you have additional questions, please ask.
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@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
I too was concerned with the RF radiation coming from my wireless
components. I purchased a router and wireless cards (Belkin, Netgear) that
allow me to throttle back the power levels. I found that within my home I
could operate at 12.5% of the maximum power levels and still maintain a good
solid connection and transfer rate. This not only gives me comfort that I
am mitigating any potential effects of RF exposure, but I am reducing the
likelihood of a "war driver" finding my signal from the street (WPA2/AES
also helps my comfort level).
John Navas
In <i044g.18977$MM6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net> on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:52:20
GMT, rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) wrote:
Politics will always have some influence, one way or the other, our system of
government being what it is. But that influence is relatively small in the
great scheme of things, or we wouldn't even be hearing from the NASA
whistle-blowers and the like.
>>>>I know some personally, and while it is true that they have to raise funds,
>>>>they are most definitely not "for rent".
>>>
>>>Many years ago, I attended a local restaurant owners association
>>>meeting where an un-named local politician was the guest speaker. The
>>>association needed some legislative relief and hoped to have the
>>>speaker sponsor some legislation on their behalf. The very first
>>>words out of this politicians mouth were something like "I'm here to
>>>see how much you're going to contribute to my re-election campaign".
>>>It was downhill and quid pro quo from that point on. They may not be
>>>officially for rent, but the implications seem to point in that
>>>direction.
>>
>>One apocryphal story doesn't a case make. As a counter-example, I personally
>>know well a person that's serving in the State Assembly, and he's
>>unquestionably a person of high integrity. Does he listen and respond to the
>>concerns of his contributors? Sure. But he also listens and responds to the
>>concerns of ordinary voters, and makes them his first priority.
>
>And will never rise about state legislator. (why because he will never be
>able to raise the money it takes to move beyond neighborhood politics)
He's actually been doing very well.
>>It's dangerous to leap to conclusions, especially with so little to go on.
>
>Rose colored glasses again. It must be nice to live in your world with the
>Easter Bunny and all the trappings...
I think it's more a matter of being realistic and pragmatic. Have a nice day.
Eric
> I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
> to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain. However, I
> personally believe that the less radiation you are exposed to, the
> better of you are. Therefore I'd like to use whatever technology would
> create the least amount of radiation in my house.
>
> I was wondering if anyone could provide me with details on radiation
> levels produced by class 1 bluetooth devices (the ones that provide
> 100m range) and radiation levels produced by 802.11 wireless LAN
> devices. I would also be curious to know which of the 802.11 standards
> (a, b, g, etc.) produces the least amount of radiation or if they are
> all the same?
>
> Thanks for the help,
> Harry
Like other posters that have replied, I also have RF hazard fences around
all of my AP's. In addition, all the AP's also have rotating beacons.
I watch NASA/NOAA's Space Weather web site religiously, so at the onset of a
solar storm I can burrow myself underneath lead blankets in the basement.
I will have male children, damn it. (Reference to an Urban Legend here.)
Seriously, all the hype about the "dangers" to low power RF is over-reaction
-- unless, of course, you are a lawyer. Thats the problem I have with
these "studies". They are all so damn biased because there is potential
mountains of cash to be grabbed, attracting lawyers like flies on shit.