[permaculture-oceania] Re: mobile phones safe, carbon tax not

[Mitra Ardron]

Hi Matthew

I would agree with most of what you say, except that I think you made 
a mistake on point e.

Wireless earpieces operate over MUCH shorter ranges. An earpiece 
trying to get its signal picked up 10m away, has to emit only 1 
billionth as much power as a mobile trying to get picked up 10km 
away.  (Power goes down as cube of distance).

  It is a similar logic which makes cordless phones much safer (if 
there is a danger from EM) than cellular. They are both wireless, but 
the power required to get the shorter range is much lower.

- Mitra


At 1:46 PM +1000 28/7/06, Matthew Bond wrote:
>Hi Permies,
>
>A friend of mine who would like to remain anonymous (due to 
>commercial confidentialty reasons) had the following to say about 
>the mobile issue and I thought I'd pass it on to those who might be 
>interested:
>
>Matthew.
>>
>a. apart from the size of the study, which Dr Karen Bridgeman 
>herself noted, i can't comment on the mobile phone exposure setup. 
>it's something that's easy to get wrong (inconsistent exposure, 
>overexposure, interference from other sources...), which is one of 
>the reasons many studies not performed by EM trained people show 
>results that aren't replicable.
>
>
>[as an aside, this leaves the problem that the most EM specialised 
>people tend to work for telcos because telcos pay. most studies that 
>show little/no effects from mobile phones (and other radiofrequency 
>sources) tend to be done by telcos. this creates a negative 
>impression of telcos covering up. which i'm not disputing btw - it's 
>possible that it happens. i can say i've seen no sign of it. quite 
>the
>
>opposite: all the scientists i've met who work in this field 
>(industry people) are higly rigorous in their methods and extremely 
>critical of all work that crosses their path. several have said 
>something to the effect of 'i wish we would find something, we'll 
>never get famous this way!']
>
>b. older mobile phones ran on much higher power than the current 
>ones. MUCH higher.
>
>c. there is no scientific basis for EMR protectors to work. my 
>opinion is they're bull. some of them, in fact, cause the phone to 
>emit
>more energy by partially blocking the carrier signal from the mobile 
>phoner tower. the phones are programmed to work at a higher power 
>setting when this happens in order to stay in contact.
>
>d. wired earpieces have been studied. they don't make that much 
>difference to the amount of energy absorbed in the user.
>
>e. wireless earpieces use radio waves to send and receive signals, 
>therefore, the person using it is still exposed to radiofrequecy
>emissions, of different frequency but similar power to what comes 
>out of a mobile phone. of course, they aren't exposed to frequencies 
>emitted by phone's internal circuitry, but the earpiece has its own 
>circuitry.
>
>_______________________________________________
>permaculture-oceania mailing list
>permaculture-oceania at lists.cat.org.au
>http://lists.cat.org.au/mailman/listinfo/permaculture-oceania


-- 
Mitra Ardron:  Natural Innovation
home/office +61-2-6684-8096  mobile +61-414-648-722  mitra at mitra.biz
www.naturalinnovation.org and Blog: www.mitra.biz/blog
skype: mitra_earth

Life is a Mystery to be Lived, not a Problem to be Solved