There is a lot of talk about the safety of cell phones, because of the radiation they emit. Why aren't there similar concerns regarding other wireless devices, e.g. cordless phones and wireless LANs? Am I justified to hesitate to install a wireless LAN in my home because of such safety concerns?
this stuff is so crazy and so much 'hype' about the dangers of cellphones and wireless that a little town south of me "MENDOCINO" california ran the local WISP out of town when he started installing radios, will not let cell towers be built within view of the town, and tells people with cell phones to NOT BRING THEM TO TOWN WITH THEM.
Mendocino even made 'wired magazine' over this BS
The local school district was going to the the WISP and they stopped that, two teachers are out of 'medical leave' because they can not be arround a television or computer monitor. what a place to be a 'tree hugging teacher' on medical disability.
I guess you give the 'tree huggers' and inch and they will take all they can get,
The one real funny thing is that if you take 'NETSTUMBLER" to town and drive around you will see 30-40 access points running in an area of about 2miles x 2 miles (and about 1/2 of them are open for anyone to use on the internet because they are connected to DSL).. I guess what "they' don't know won't hurt them, hehe
Well I haven't heard anyone talking about this for a long time now and the last time it was brought up it was by a troll in newsgroup.
Do you hold a wireless LAN up to your head?
If you are so worried about the radiation from your cell or cordless phone then get a portable hands free kit (wired) for it, then hold the phone at arms length. This will not only keep the RF further away from your body but will result in a lower power output from the phone because it is clear of your body.
If you are still *paranoid* it is YOUR problem and nobody else's!
Generally products that operate in 'unlicensed' terrirotory are limited to 100 milliwatts output. That covers Wireless LAN, and cordless phones. hand held Mobile phones operate in licensed territory, and may put out up to 2 watts instantaneous power.
However the epidemilogical evidence of serious risk even at this level is lacking. The military, and police have been using devices with even higher output for decades, and the evidence that these devices are contributing to an early death is sorely lacking. So while they may indeed be a risk, almost be definition, it must be buried in the 'noise'
Most 2.4Ghz mesh network radios operate at 1 watt into a 6dBi omni antenna which is the maximum legal for FCC 15.247.
Cordless phones also vary. Engenius SN-920 900MHz phones xmit about
Cellular handsets are limited to 0.6 watts. Mobiles can go to 3 watts. All of the handsets have automatic power control to limit the tx power to only as much as necessary. The tiny new phones barely transmit at more than 0.1 watt.
The risk is not in the health issues, but in the legal exposure.
One might argue that the use of radio by law enforcement might explain their general lack of sanity, but no research has been done on this connection.
The current adage is "if it saves one life..." and such. Statistically insignificant health risks have been regulated off the market and will probably continue to be regulated as long as victims can be manufactured. When something goes wrong, a culprit must be found. Eventually, the legal machinery will realize that EVERYTHING we do is potentially unsafe and cannot be protected by legal action.
WRONG AGAIN. D-AMPS is actually IS-54, and is fully compatible with AMPS systems in ALL respects. That means all control signaling, call set up, dialing, all control information is transmitted by FSK, which places a VERY LOW LIMIT on signaling rates. So low that there was point in providing any signaling capability outside what was required to make and receive calls.
IS-136 is a variant of D-AMPS which incorporates a number of extension and changes relative to IS-54, and is NOT backward compatible with AMPS, or IS-54 because IS-135 depends upon digital signaling, sent by QPSK in the Digital Control Channel (DCCH), which does NOT exist in IS-54.
D-AMPS as defined in IS-54 has NO support for data communications at all, NONE, ZERO, NIL. That means : NO SMS, NO Circuit Switched Data (CSD), NO-Caller-ID, NO sleep mode, No power control loop, No paging, No Voice mail indicator, no e-mail capability, because there is NO facility for any sort of data tranmission within IS-54.
I don't think you can even get a license to operate an IS-54 system in the PCS band...
Reminder: The original question was about RF exposure and health hazards.
You're correct that most consumer access points run 30-50 mw. It is possible to hack some access points (WRT54G) up to about 250 mw.
However, if the mesh networks discussed for SF and Philadelphia are deployed as planned, they may have as many as 100 1 watt and 6dBi (4 watts EIRP) Tropos access points per square mile. Now, that's potential RF exposure.
RF exposure is measured using average power, not peak power, pulse power, or whatever. The TDMA time slicers are allowed 0.6 watts average, which they can slice up into 4 pieces for IS-136, or GSM in 8 time slices. Multiply the average power by the duty cycle to get peak power.
True for GSM. Methinks it's 3 watts average for CDMA 800 and IS-136
800MHz. I don't recall the PCS (1900Mhz) limits. I vaguely recall seeing some early GSM trunk mount mobiles that cranked out 20 watts (peak).
I said "tiny new phones" which largely eliminates obsolete analog only phones. The "tiny new phones" are all GSM, CDMA, and iDEN. I've measured the average power output and monitored the output power in the "test mode" on my assorted CDMA phones. 200 mw maximum (average).