From: ARISIA::EVERHART "Glenn Everhart: 215 354 7610 (8*747 7610)" 27-MAR-1989 09:40 To: EVERHART Subj: cellular phone risks From: CSBVAX::CSBVAX::MRGATE::"SMTP::KL.SRI.COM::NEUMANN" 25-MAR-1989 21:57 To: MRGATE::"ARISIA::EVERHART" Subj: RISKS DIGEST 8.45 Date: Sat, 25 Mar 89 16:34:02 PST From: RISKS FORUM (Peter G. Neumann -- Coordinator) Subject: RISKS DIGEST 8.45 Sender: NEUMANN@KL.SRI.COM To: RISKS-LIST@KL.SRI.COM Message-ID: <12480944181.11.NEUMANN@KL.SRI.COM> RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Saturday 25 March 1989 Volume 8 : Issue 45 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 10:11:18 PST From: [anonymous] Subject: cellular phones and health It is fairly well established that exposure to high relative power densities of UHF and higher RF frequencies can cause significant health problems. Parts of the body that are the most sensitive to heat effects are the most vulnerable to RF effects, with the eyes being the most sensitive of all. There have been cases of police departments having problems with officers who developed cataracts apparently relating to their use of hand-held UHF (e.g. 450 Mhz) transceivers. Hand-held cellular phones are probably even worse. Like police transceivers, these units almost always have the antenna in very close proximity to the user's head, putting the head (and eyes of course) in a quite strong relative field (while the absolute power may only be a few watts, the relative power density near the antenna is quite high). Also, cellular units operate at around twice the frequency of police transceivers (i.e., cellular operates around 800 Mhz and higher) and the higher the frequency, the worse the risk. Another factor is that while police transceivers are half duplex and only transmitting when the officer has something to say, cellular transceivers are transmitting continuously when a conversation is occurring (since they are full duplex) so the overall exposure is far higher in most situations. It would appear that a real risk may exist. Note that the farther you get away from the antenna, the better off you are, since the inverse square law applies. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 10:01:52 -0800 From: truesdel@PARIS.ICS.UCI.EDU Subject: Cancer from Cellular Phones Cellular phones operate in the 800 MegaHertz band. This is in the middle of the UHF band, directly below the microwave band. Microwaves, as we all know, are used for making popcorn and cooking turkeys. 800 MHz puts the full wave right at 14.8 inches or a half wave at 7.4 inches which is a little long to resonate inside the skull cavity. This doesn't mean that it can't cause real damage, though. An example has been showing up since civic police forces have started switching up from the VHF to the UHF bands for local communications. The advantages of using higher frequencies are more bandwidth, less interferrence, and better audio quality. The RISKS, however, are starting to show up. The problems were first noticed in officers making extensive use of hand held (walkie-talkie) units with built-in "Stubby-Duck" antennas. These antennea are identified by have a length of around 2 - 4 inches, a diameter of about a quarter inch, and made usually with a black rubber coating. When held in the talking position, the antenna is positioned in close proximity to one of the eyeballs. That's when the glaucoma started showing up. Essentially, the UFH waves were frying the aqueous humor... turning what should have been the consistency or Jello brand gellatin desert into the consistency of 3 day old oatmeal. So the local P.D.s decided to move the radios away from the face and strap them onto the officer's belt. The interaction is through a hand-held speaker/mic. Great solution! Now the officers get it in the spleen instead of the face! So, back to cellular phones. Hand-held units with built-in antennas are obviously the greatest risk. Antennas placed on the roof of the car, shielded by the cars sheet metal, are best. This assumes that the installation was competently made by a knowledgeable RF technician (NOT a stereo installation jocky), the connectors are "low loss", and the coax itslf is "low loss". The most common cellular phone coax is cheap RG-58/U. This is "thin ethernet" cable. A much safer connection is made the thicker coax (I think RG 59/U, but I don't remember). The thin stuff is used more because it is cheaper and MUCH EASIER to install. I am very interested to see what further studies are being conducted relative to the long term effects of exposure to RF. I am worried about the unrestricted saturation we receive 24 hours a day on all frequencies. How free of effect are the "safe" frequencies (VHF, HF)? R. Scott Truesdell [Please pardon a little redundancy. I could not prune easily. PGN]