Right now cellphones use the 900/1800 and 1900MHz bands. It is alleged that the heating effect of such high frequencies on human cells is damaging in the long term. With modern digital modulation systems, surely there must be a way to implement a cellular phone system using much lower frequencies? With Digital TV being rolled out some old TV frequencies could become free. There must be a way to adapt GSM for operation at VHF: - 174-216 MHz television channels 7 - 13 or - 54-72 and 76-88 MHz channels 2 through 6 We don't have to forego the luxury of cellphones. Just drop the frequencies.
Not being an expert myself, two things come to mind. 1) lower frequencies have longer wavelengths, requiring a longer antenna. 2) In the US, the analog TV bands have been allocated to emergency services and other purposes, not abandoned altogether, so they may not be available. Information about the power output of cell phone models is available. When choosing a new model, look for lower power output to reduce the effects of the RF.
Lower frequencies also offer lower bandwidth for the same amount of spectrum, which isn't a big deal for voice calls but bad for data. Keeping the same data speeds requires a bigger chunk of the spectrum. Tom
Electromagnetic field and heating up our cells over time causes the damage. Each person is different in the amount they can tolerate. Low levels of radiation over time are also a problem but not many studies have been done or will be released. We all have to die from something.
Sorry, but that bandwidth 'real estate' has already been reallocated to other users. The waiting list formed long before the space was even available. Your proposed slots are 42 and 30 MHz wide, respectively. Or 72 MHz if both are taken. But the existing data bandwidths are 50 MHz (original cellular band at 850 MHz) and 120 MHz (PCS band at 1900 MHz), for a total bandwidth of 170 MHz. Sorry, but you cannot stuff 170 gallons of water into a 72 gallon tank. Don't ask about different digital modulation methods to compress this into a smaller bandwidth. They are already applying every conceivable method to cram as much data as possible into today's bandwidth. Forcing the system into smaller bandwidth 'real estate' can only reduce the system capacity.
A physicist on CNN insist that given what we've learned about EM radiation over more than 100 years there is no way in physics that cellphones can cause cancer. No, cell phones don't cause cancer - CNN.com on the other hand an article on Physorg.com says it's not the frequency of the photons, but the density? Previously unaccounted mechanism proposed for cell phone radiation damage Bottom line it's a case of yes, no, yes, no and then we agree on maybe.
What happens if and when we discover that alcohol causes cancer? I bet most people will never accept a definitive conclusion, and insist that more study is required.
I have been working with RF damn near my whole life.... I have been saying this for years. Quick demo, put a hot dog into the microwave, set on Hi for 1 minute.... Any questions. True the power level is greater than the phone, the RF frequencies are in the Ghz range for both the phone and oven. The radiation emitted is logrithmic, the closer the transmitter, the more RF that is going to saturate your head. The eyes are most susceptible because they are mostly water. The RF makes the H atom in H2O vibrate which is why water will boil in a microwave oven. The phone being much less power, the effect will happen much slower. What about folks who talk constantly, you know who you are, hour after hour. They are the ones who will have a problem first. To avoid the RF, use a Bluetooth headset, much safer... It's a mini microwave oven, how long do you really want to keep it next to your head!!
I grew up right down the street from the woman that died from cancer in the early 90's that 20/20 did the first report about this and can tell you that she was a healthy woman until the cancer formed and spread quickly.Her husband and her owned a service to contact Dr.'s of emergency so she was on a cell phone at least 8 to 10 hours a day.So I am a strong believer that cell phones if not cause significantly increase the risk of getting either cancer or tumors.
Besides not using my cell much, I always use speaker. Has anyone heard whether a bluetooth stuck in the ear has the same cancer risk?
There is a recording of a meeting at the Commonwealth Club in SF on the subject of the health effects of EMF. It can be accessed from the web page at The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields | Commonwealth Club . Cell phones, cell towers, and hybrid cars have recently been the fears of the moment. But if you read "Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization" by Sam Milham, Md, MPH, the issue goes back to the introduction of electric power. Dr. Milham was one of the presenters at the Commonwealth Club meeting. I think the evidence is sufficient to warrant doing everything you can to minimize EMF exposure. The preponderance of evidence available has been funded by industries interested in denying any dangers caused by their products. Keeping your cell phone away from your head seems simple enough to do while the scientists argue about the real effects of cell phones. Since Bluetooth uses lower power than the cell communication, we can expect that the impact will also be lower.
Nearly all our tissues are mostly water. The problems I've heard about eyes is that the fluid core lacks a blood supply to carry the heat away. Bluetooth is in the same RF band as microwave ovens, tuned even better than the cell frequencies to heat water. But it is much shorter range / lower power than cell phones, so ought to be a lower risk.
It is actually documented that the eye is most suscptable, due to the fact it is a simple membrane filled with fluid. It's even a question on several RF examinations I have taken. With the antenna next to the eye, among other head organs, the same amount of RF will damage eyes first, then work its way through tissue with less liquid!
Excess heat is clearly damaging. But there are potentially more subtle effects, such as induced electrical currents and resonance. I know a doctor who believes that very low frequency (below 1 Hz) stimulation at the microvolt level is very calming. Something about all the electrical noise just disturbs healthy function, and an overriding low frequency signal can counteract the noise. If he's right, there may be ways to counteract EMF, perhaps similar to active noise suppression.
