Thanks for that, Ken.
I think that the objectors to cellular towers might have an idea, and it might
be negligible to you, but to someone whose kids go to the school next door it
might seem a risk worth avoiding.
As for a Prius, forget the RF inside (what makes that?) what about the threat
to pedestrians who can't hear the blimmin' thing? :-)
Chris
On 12 Sep 2011, at 17:05, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Bluetooth, Ken? Is that a source of powerful radiation?
>
> No, but it is not only operating in the frequency range that heats up water,
> and you're sticking the thing in your ear. Might as well strap a microwave
> oven to your head.
>
> Cell-phones today are a bit different. Not only do they emit very little
> power, but they auto "wilt" to a minumum output needed to maintain
> connectivity. If you are in a good range of the tower (4 or 5 bars, for
> instance), chances are the cell-phone is emmiting just barely more real
> output power than the Bluetooth headset. (I have an RF spectrum analyzer on
> my desk to prove this).
>
> The fun part for me is cell towers themselves. Sure, they might have a huge
> slew of antennas on them, but do you know what the output power on them
> really is? I do. But do these natering nabobs of negativism?
>
> Keep in mind, for a minute that a television station can be transmitting a
> half-million watts.
>
> So, basically, the "sky is falling" idiots that complain about a cell-tower
> for radiation reasons better think twice about sitting inside of a Toyota
> Prius, which is cooking the reproductive organs at a far greater rate. There
> is a lot of RF floating around inside a Prius.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|