[ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use

Sat Jun 4 02:55:52 CDT 2011

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of John R Johnson
Sent: Fri 6/3/2011 11:41 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing	List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use

Radsafers

I think that NIR causes biological effects when the photons have the energy 
that matches the binding energy in important biological molecules, causing 
them break, and form new ones.

John

-----Original Message----- 
From: Busby, Chris
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 11:51 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
Sent: Fri 6/3/2011 7:19 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use

Chris,

If I asked too many questions, I apologize.  Let me ask fewer, and
clearer:

You said: " I believe that the carcinogenic effects of RF are due to
increasing the energy of electrons produced by ionising radiation,
either from the (major) photoelectron tracks induced by gamma background
or the beta tracks from internal emitters.  What is the energy (in eV)
added to an electron."

1.  What is the energy, in eV, added by the RF from the cell phone to
the electrons produced in the other ways?  I would accept a range of
numbers

If we take the limit of 1.6 watts/kg this is 1.8 E+21eV per kg tissue. But 
much higher in near field.
The serious beta electrons are about 10keV to 100keV.
Per electron I havent done but interesting thought. Could be done.

2.  What experiments were done to demonstrate that this energy exchange
takes place?

Im trying to get to do these. But you can see from cloud chamber tracks that 
at the end if its path the electron spirals

3.  The energy of a free electron is its kinetic energy, which includes
its speed and direction (I think we can stay Classical for this
discussion, but if you wish to go relativistic, feel free).  Why would
RF energy from a cell phone only add to the energy of an electron, and
not potentially decrease its velocity, and hence energy?  In particular,
if you had two electrons traveling in opposite directions when the cell
phone energy entered the system, would not the velocity of one increase
while the velocity of the other decrease?

Its not a decrease but a wiggle, so the effective path length increases
The RBE increases, more ions per cm.

Anyway, we shall see.

Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 3:18 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use

Well thats a lot of questions.
The energy of an RF field is proportional to the square of field
strength. All the enrgy is transferred to electrons. Just like in a
cathode ray tube.
The range of the elctrons is equal to their CSDA range and depends on
the decay energy inthe case of internal nuclides and equal to the gamma
photon energy less the binding energy (which is second order) in the
case of photons. For Sr90 the range is about 400 cells. For tritium a
fraction of the cell diameter.
In the case  of natural background the photoelectron energy fllows the
gamma energy which goes as E^-3 roughly and as Z^5 in terms of the
absorber, which is why U238 is so dangerous. Z=92. The B filed causes
the electrons to jump about aand spin in spirals, bunny hops. And so
increase their LET. For the external background it is the low energy
electrons that cause the greatest harm.
The RF energy has been measured from mobiles. It is very large, watts
per cc, but the belief is that these watts are not dangerous as the
energy cannot be absorbed by covalent bonds. This is true, it is a
question of quantum resonance, and the energies are beyond even the
rotational levels of simple diatomic molecules.After all the watts per
cc from ionising is Grays per second per cc. (1 Gray = 1 joule per kg).
The mechanism is well known. It is the same mechanism as a cathode ray
tube focusing ring. Put an electrron in a E or B field and it moves. I
would have thought that radsafers knew that. If you look at cloud
chamber trac ks you see that at the end of the track the electron curls
up in a spiral. That is the effects of the magnetic filed H(0).
If I havent answered everything let me know and ill try. But the real
answer is toi do experiments with a end point and run ioniosing and non
ionising together. That will give the answer.
Chris

________________________________

From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Sent: Wed 01/06/2011 17:28
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use

Chris,

What is the energy range of the electrons produced from the
photoelectron tracks induced by gamma background or beta tracks from
internal emitters?  (I recognize that the energy of the electrons
ultimately drop to some fairly low but non-zero level, at which time
they get attach to some likely atom or molecule with a more positive
attitude).  What is the range of energy that the RF adds to the
electron?  Does the RF in question ONLY add energy to electrons, or does
it also slow down electrons that are traveling in the opposite
direction?  (If it only adds, I would be fascinated to know what the
mechanism involved is)  If the RF adds energy to some electrons, and
subtracts energy from other electrons, or if the amount of energy added
is small compared to the peak energy of the electrons produced by gamma
background or internal radioactive decay, is it reasonable to spend time
and effort on this, as opposed to something that will reduce population
dose more?

And is there even the slightest chance that the risk from RF from cell
phones is within orders of magnitudes of the two major health effects of
cell phones?

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:46 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List; Radsafe
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use

Dear Radsafers,

I have been looking at this in between everything else since 1998 when I
was funded by Children With Leukemia to do some reseacrh on the issue. I
believe that the carcinogenic effects of RF are due to increasing the
energy of electrons produced by ionising radiation, either from the
(major) photoelectron tracks induced by gamma background or the beta
tracks from internal emitters. The electron energy is modulated by the B
field of the
RF Electromagnetic radiation.. Thus the electrons borrow energy from
the  EM field which they then deposit in tissue as ionisation. This gets
round the fact that the quantum energy of th EM photons are not absorbed
by any energy levels available in molecules.  We are currently examining
this issue in the laboratory. It is odd that no one has thought of this.
I suppose because you all imagine these background levels of exposure to
be harmless.
Chris

________________________________

From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Geo>K0FF
Sent: Ot 2011.05.31. 18:28
To: Radsafe
Subject: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use

"WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html

according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile
phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine
exhaust and chloroform.

Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no
adverse health effects had been established.

Bob Yoss
MCW/FMLH"Glad to see this come out. I and many other folks who have been
involved in the R.F. industryhave *always& had concerns about chronic
microwave R.F. in close proximity to the head, eyes.Nonionizing does not
mean no detectable effects.Fellow radiomen tell tales of birds dropping
dead when flying in front of large radar arrays (DEW Line. I myself
developed cataracts at age 40.Too much anecdotal evidence to
ignore.Check archives. We were laughed at.George DowellFCC First Class
Radiophone + Radar License Licensed Radioman since 1966 Radioshop owner
since 1969 Motorola Service Center Owner since 1978 Electrical
Contractor's License IBEW Local #1Communications Contractor's License
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/>
<http://health.phys.iit.edu/>

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/>

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
is
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

Not possible. The resonance energy of electronic bonds (covalent) bonds is enormously higher than NIR. Thats why it is non ionising. Molecular bond energies lowest resonances are in the infra red and far infrared, though microwaves can increase rotational quantum energy states in small diatomic molecules. Your 2000MHz wont be absorbed by anything a molecule has available.
Chr 