[ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use and physics

Busby, Chris C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Sat Jun 4 03:08:15 CDT 2011

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
Sent: Fri 6/3/2011 11:32 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use and physics
Dr. Sartori,

I agree with everything you've said.  I have been asking Dr. Busby
questions largely to see if he has actually done calculations like the
ones you have here.  By the way he dodges, I am pretty sure he hasn't.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of radiation
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:22 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use and physics

Because nobody seems to care computing E=h*f to know what are the energy

quanta emitted by the different household RF sources I do it for you 
hoping that this nonsensical discussion comes to an end: The Plank 
constant is 4.e-15[eV*s] (electron_volt*second) (e is scientific 
notation of 10 to the power of ..)
quantum energy for
cordless phones maximum 3.e-6 [eV]
cell phone maximum 8.e-6 [eV]
WiFi maximum 4.e-5 [eV]

Such quanta don't even tickle biological molecules. What is the 
temperature of such an energy? (Just because I have mentioned cooking), 
once more
cordless phones maximum 3.e-6 [eV]  = 0.04 Kelvin
cell phone maximum 8.e-6 [eV] = 0.1 Kelvin
WiFi maximum 4.e-5 [eV] = 0.5 Kelvin

The background temperature of our universe = fossile temperature = 160 
GHz = 2.7 Kelvin (it is freeeeeezing cold out there)

If you are not yet convinced of the cell phone cancer epidemiology 
baloney, and you propose further research on it, well go ahead with 

I stay with the laws of physics.

Enrico Sartori PhD

On 03/06/2011 21:10, radiation wrote:
> I think we are moving away from the discussion: it was about cell 
> phones and cancer.
> You say RF exposure has measurable effects; yes indeed - if I place my

> head into a microwave oven I can possibly cook it, because it is full 
> of water(!) and that is a measurable effect, but it will not cause 
> cancer, it will just be cooked. The basic physics formula E=h*f talks 
> about Energy, not Power. Power is not an issue in this case unless the

> frequency is such that the E=h*f energy is equal or higher than the 
> energy to break up the biomolecule (ADN e.g.). This could be achieved 
> at very low power. Now compute this energy for the panoply of 
> frequencies you have cited, how big are they? Go through this exercise

> once and you will see my statement, which is actually not mine, but 
> that of physics holds.
> As to subtle effects on the biochemistry, also there you have to 
> break-up molecules. But here we move yet into another field. We 
> disseminate doubts in a very subtle way, a way to move away attention 
> from the issue, or to get additional funds for "useless" research. A 
> whole science for doing this has developed in recent years, very 
> effectively spread via Internet, newspapers and only in a lesser way 
> by this forum. It is called "agnotology" the study of 
> culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of

> inaccurate or misleading scientific data.
> Forum members, do not become a an agnotologist - let's reduce 
> ignorance through science.
> Enrico Sartori, PhD
> On 03/06/2011 19:00, radsafe-request at health.phys.iit.edu wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 05:08:31 -0400
>> From: Tom Simpson<bullet308 at att.net>
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] WHO: Cell phone use and physics
>> To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\)
>>     List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Message-ID:<4DE8A48F.5080308 at att.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>> I am in no position to answer this question, but I think I am
>> enough to ask it, and I think it is essential to the debate: has it
>> demonstrated that RF energy in the microwave band can disrupt the
>> interior functions of a cell? It would seem that it typically does
>> at least in a gross fashion, ie, broken chromosomes. But does that
>> out more subtle effects on the biochemistry of the cell? They are
>> now figuring out that neurons do not simply transmit information from
>> cell to cell but actually do some processing internally. This is
>> apparently a very subtle thing. Could it be subject to
>> disruption in ways we have not accounted for yet?
>> -Tom
>> On 06/02/2011 04:33 PM, Geo>K0FF wrote:
>>> >  "Any(R.F.) energy quantity smaller than the quantum required to
>>> >  break-up a bio-molecule has absolutely no effect on that 
>>> molecule, or
>>> >  the probability that something happens to that molecule is 
>>> practically
>>> >  nil.
>>> >  Enrico Sartori, PhD"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  Enrico, address Microwave Ovens please?
>>> >
>>> >  Their present frequency has little to do with actual physics, 
>>> rather to
>>> >  FCC licensing issues.
>>> >  Speaking of the FCC, in recent years they have imposed RF 
>>> exposure limitations,
>>> >  even to amateur radio operators.
>>> >
>>> >  Anyone working around microwave transmitters (I have) know that 
>>> there are measurable effects, and
>>> >  consequences.
>>> >
>>> >  In 1963 the FCC allocated the frequency band 2500-2686 MHz for 
>>> educational purposes.
>>> >  In the 60's I was involved in surveying for and installing the 
>>> first such system in St. Louis Mo, on channel H1, 2650-2656.
>>> >  We used a power level of 10 Watts, but up to 100 Watts was 
>>> authorized.
>>> >  About this same time, Police Speed Radars were removed from 2400 
>>> Mhz up to 10,000 MHz.
>>> >
>>> >     In 1972, the FCC authorized commercial use of the sub band 
>>> 2150-2162 MHz. Again I installed
>>> >  and maintained the first of the MDS Multipoint Distribution 
>>> Systems in St. Louis MO. We started with
>>> >  10 W but as technology advanced, escalated to 100W. In 1983 they 
>>> opened some channels up to
>>> >  multiplexing ( more than one TV channel per RF Channel). This was

>>> the beginning of what is now
>>> >  Cable TV and Satellite TV, but we used microwaves to distribute 
>>> the TV, Audio and Data signals to the paid users.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  Mind you these services were often point-to-point, allowing the 
>>> use of directional gain antennas. An
>>> >  antenna with 20 dBi gain will give an effective isotropic (EIRP) 
>>> radiated power of 1000 Watts from a 100 Watt transmitter.
>>> >
>>> >  There were no warnings, safety zones, lockouts or any other 
>>> safety measures applied to these antennas.
>>> >  As a matter of fact, because of feedline losses, such antennas 
>>> were NOT mounted high on a radio tower
>>> >  far from the generator, but on top of tall buildings, just feet 
>>> from the generator.The same rooftop occupied
>>> >  by humans for a variety of activities. As I mentioned in a 
>>> previous post, it was my duty on many occasions to
>>> >  stands within a few feet of one of these antennas.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  Many services used and still use this style of microwave linking 
>>> plus many more modern sophisticated schemes.
>>> >
>>> >  http://www.lbagroup.com/associates/lbatn115.php
>>> >
>>> >  One can hardly get away from being exposed to microwave fields, 
>>> even hospitals use a spread-spectrum
>>> >  microwave system to feed info from
>>> >  medical monitors etc. back top the nurses station.
>>> >
>>> >  Got a WIFI computer? Guess what the RF link is 2400 and/or 5000
>>> >
>>> >  Cell phones can use a number of microwave frequency bands,  
>>> 850-MHz, 900-MHz, 1800-MHz or
>>> >  1900-MHz , with more on the horizon.
>>> >
>>> >  Modern cordless phones for your home landline:
>>> >  a.. 900 MHz (902-928 MHz) (allocated in 1994)
>>> >  a.. 1.9 GHz (1880-1900 MHz) (used for DECT communications outside

>>> the U.S.)
>>> >  a.. 1.9 GHz (1920-1930 MHz) (developed in 1993 and allocated U.S.

>>> in October 2005)
>>> >  a.. 2.4 GHz (allocated in 1998)
>>> >  a.. 5.8 GHz (allocated in 2003 due to crowding on the 2.4 GHz
>>> >  Power of the handheld cellphone is limited to 1 little less than 
>>> 1/3 Watt, but there is no TIME limit on their use.
>>> >
>>> >  WHO calls "heavy use": (reported average: 30 minutes per day over

>>> a 10-year period). Haha. Tell that to my grandkids.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  Now let's examine the Microwave Oven for a moment. The first one 
>>> was installed, ironically on the
>>> >  nuclear powered passenger ship Savannah, where it remains today.
>>> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
>>> >
>>> >  Modern Microwave Ovens operate at a frequency of 2450 Mhz. Sound 
>>> familiar by now? Power is
>>> >  from several hundred Watts to maybe 700 Watts today.  In any case

>>> much less than the free field RF
>>> >  density in from of a directional antenna. There is nothing 
>>> special about the 2450 MHz frequency used,
>>> >  it is a spectrum allocation issue. Frequencies as low as 433 MHz
>>> >  have been used to heat polarized molecules on a large scale.
>>> >
>>> >  I don't claim to be a doctor or anything else. I was one the 
>>> front lines of the communications revolution,
>>> >  over a very long period of time. The industry buzz back when was 
>>> ?take care of the eyes". I wore thick glasses so
>>> >  I thought I was fine. Later I learned from experimenting that 
>>> glass lenses affect the higher microwave frequencies,
>>> >  actually focusing them at 10,000 MHz.
>>> >
>>> >  Make your own conclusions, I make no judgments, all I do is 
>>> present facts of physics.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >  Thanks.
>>> >
>>> >  George Dowell
>>> >

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:

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

Dear Radsafers,
You are asking the wrong mathematical questions. I have done these primitive calculations. My field is molecular spectroscopy and I used to teach students quantum mechanics so forget the idea that I am not capable in this area. 
I hope to leave it to you all to slowly figure it out. 
Here is a clue.
Electrons slow down by interacting with molecules. The CSDA approximation assumes linear, that will do though it is wrong.
Ionising radiation damage is proportional to ionisation density at the cell, not per kilogram
Converted into eV, the energy absorption from the 1.6w/kg becomes 6 E+18 eV/s/kg
100Bq/kg of Caesium 137 gives you and energy absorption of 6.5 E+6 eV/s/kg rather a lot less.

Off you go.


More information about the RadSafe mailing list