15 Feb
2001
15 Feb
'01
7:23 p.m.
Chuck McManis wrote:
No, more of a slow-cooker. :)
By the way, ANSI has a standard for RF exposure limits. I don't recall
the std. number offhand but it shows that certain frequencies are likely to
affect certain body parts, so it's not a simple case of more dangerous
as the frequency goes higher (or lower.) For example, 1.2 Ghz is
about right for heating the vitreous fluid in the eyeball, and so exposure
to 1.2 Ghz should always be kept away from the eyes to prevent possible
vision damage. I think other frequencies are also bad for different organs.
Apparently, it's the heating effect of RF that tends to do the most damage
until the frequency gets quite high.
-- Ross
Q: What
Wavelengths and Wattages are known to really
be dangerous? What is the Frequency of a Microwave
oven, for example (900 Mhz? <g>). How much less
dangerous is a signal of 1/2 that, etc... I have
seen almost nothing scientific written on this subject
and want to know more.
The new 802.11D devices like I've got operate at 2.4Ghz because
1) its easy to do spread spectrum there
2) its the same frequency as most microwave ovens so the spectrum
is considered 'junk.'
The note with the card said, "do not operate closer than 2.5" to your skin
for extended periods of time." No definition of 'extended' as far as I
could tell. Now the microwave is 500 - 750 watts I believe and this thing
is less than 2 so we're not talking about roasting here.
--chuck