[Gllug] re: rf energy

[Peter Childs]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, t.clarke wrote:

> Chris wrote
> 
> >> Yes, but that is a different type of radiation.
> >> Kids are putting a device transmitting microwave
> >>  radiation in their trouser pockets as close as
> >> they can get to their reproductive DNA short of
> >> surgical implantation.
> >>
> >Oh dear.  Another one fooled by the anti-technology lobby.
> >Radio energy is radio energy regardless of frequency / wavelength.  Perhaps a
> >little basic EM theory would help?  Look up "inverse-square law".....
> 
> 
> Maybe I havn't followed this thread properly !
> 
> I cannot see how you can assert that RF energy is all the same anymore that
> you could assert that all flowers are the same.   Unless I am grossly mistaken,
> RF energy penetrates and/or damages human tissue at vastly different rates
> dependent on its frequency (and obviously power).
> 
> As to the 'inverse square law', surely this only emphasises the point that RF
> output at the right frequency immediately adjacent to one's gonads is more
> dangerous that a 1MW FM transmitter a mile down the road.
> 
> Would a mobile phone in the trouser pocket, bearing in mind the amount of
> intervening leg muscle and bone could have any effect on one's reproductive
> capability ??
> 

	Its not quite as simple. The frequency is important. Some EM 
waves you can see its called hmm light (colour). Some EM waves will cook 
you diner (Heat, Microwaves). Some will kill you instantly. (Gamma Rays) 
Some will see your bones (X-Rays). The Inverse Square Law says that its 
all got the same power. But depending on its frequency different effects.
	Sorry its basic GCSE Physics.

Peter Childs 

> 
> >> Does the next generation belong to people who
> >> think that mobiles suck?
> >
> 
> I note that they already vibrate, maybe the next generation will suck as well !
> 
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> 


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug