Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radiation from wireless TV sender harmful?

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
May 14, 2004 1:42:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.

Is the radiation from this device also cause for concern? Here are the
specs:

Carrier freq: 2.4 GHz
Transmission power: <10 mW
Type: FM
Range: 100m outdoor/30m indoor

Product page: http://tinyurl.com/2s83k
Leaflet:
http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/s/sbcvl1200_05/sbcvl12...

Thanks.

Richard H.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 1:42:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

Anon wrote:
>
> I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
> transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
> radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.
>
> Is the radiation from this device also cause for concern? Here are the
> specs:
>
> Carrier freq: 2.4 GHz
> Transmission power: <10 mW
> Type: FM
> Range: 100m outdoor/30m indoor
>
> Product page: http://tinyurl.com/2s83k
> Leaflet:
> http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/s/sbcvl1200_05/sbcvl12...

10 mW is mightly small. Don't plaster the transmitter antenna to your
forehead. Does your girlfriend (sister? mother?) know about the
pinhole camera now in the loo?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 2:14:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote in message
news:RYRoc.3100$aq7.27832486@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
> transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
> radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.

Then you worry too much..! The scaremongering comes from the use of the
word "radiation" which puts into people's minds visions of nuclear
reactors and the like. The radio frequency energy coming from a device
such as a phone is very small and unless you walk around with your phone
plastered to the side of your head (and in a call) all day every day you
have nothing to worry about.

> Is the radiation from this device also cause for concern?

Only if you stick the transmitter up your nose..!

Ivor
Related resources
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 5:37:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

Anon wrote:

> I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
> transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
> radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.
>
> Is the radiation from this device also cause for concern?

Only if you're using it to watch what passes for "entertainment" these days.
;-)

--

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.
May 14, 2004 1:27:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

Judging by your replies, you all scoff at me being concerned this thing
could be harmful... then go on to say:

"Don't plaster the transmitter antenna to your forehead", "Only if you stick
the transmitter up your nose", "If you swallowed your video sender, it might
give you more radio signal than the [two million watts/1 megawatt] TV
transmitter"

In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful. I'm
confused.

I sit about half a metre away from it whilst working an 8 hour day as it is
on my computer desk (this is where it gets its TV signal from - my computer
media centre).

I'm not worrying too much - I know radiation is the wrong term.

Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever? Serious
replies only please.

Thanks.

Richard H.

"Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote in message
news:RYRoc.3100$aq7.27832486@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
> transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
> radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.
>
> Is the radiation from this device also cause for concern? Here are the
> specs:
>
> Carrier freq: 2.4 GHz
> Transmission power: <10 mW
> Type: FM
> Range: 100m outdoor/30m indoor
>
> Product page: http://tinyurl.com/2s83k
> Leaflet:
> http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/s/sbcvl1200_05/sbcvl12...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Richard H.
>
May 14, 2004 1:27:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote in message news:<si0pc.3481$BK4.31658229@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> Judging by your replies, you all scoff at me being concerned this thing
> could be harmful... then go on to say:
>
> "Don't plaster the transmitter antenna to your forehead", "Only if you stick
> the transmitter up your nose", "If you swallowed your video sender, it might
> give you more radio signal than the [two million watts/1 megawatt] TV
> transmitter"
>
> In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful. I'm
> confused.
>
> I sit about half a metre away from it whilst working an 8 hour day as it is
> on my computer desk (this is where it gets its TV signal from - my computer
> media centre).
>
> I'm not worrying too much - I know radiation is the wrong term.
>
> Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
> range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever? Serious
> replies only please.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Richard H.
The energy in a visible photon "light" is many orders of magnitude greater
than a photon coming from your transmitter. When people are concerned
with "radiation", it is because of the high energy photons that can cause
damage to tissue. So if the light coming from your lamp is safe, the
radiation coming from your transmitter is safe as far as the damage people
associate with the term "radiation".

Of course if you put your cat in the microwave oven (a similar frequency) it
won't do him any good. He won't die of cancer, but the tissue will just be
cooked, probably no more harmful than heating the the tissue by a conventional
method. Compare 500 W to the power of your transmitter.

Any small heating in your tissue caused by your transmitter would be
negligible. By the way, if you can pick up local stations on your TV/radio
you are already being bombarded by more energy than your transmitter can put
out, slightly lower frequency than microwave though.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 1:37:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In article <c80s04$84q$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ivor Jones
<this.address@notvalid.inv> writes
>
>"Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote in message
>news:RYRoc.3100$aq7.27832486@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
>> transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
>> radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.
>
>Then you worry too much..! The scaremongering comes from the use of the
>word "radiation" which puts into people's minds visions of nuclear
>reactors and the like. The radio frequency energy coming from a device
>such as a phone is very small and unless you walk around with your phone
>plastered to the side of your head (and in a call) all day every day you
>have nothing to worry about.
>
>> Is the radiation from this device also cause for concern?
>
>Only if you stick the transmitter up your nose..!
>
>Ivor
>
>

As others have said 10 milliwatts, don't even bother thinking about it.

Yes the word radiation is very scary. Ever heard of an MRI scan?, very,
very useful medical diagnostic tool..

They had to drop the first word of the original title because people
wouldn't go into them.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imager
--
Tony Sayer
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 1:40:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:42:09 GMT, "Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote:

> I do worry about mobile phone
>radiation

You are misled, then.

>and the like, and use hands-free where possible.

Pointless.

>Is the radiation from this device also cause for concern?

Also? What makes you think that radio signals form mobile phones is
cause for concern?

>Here are the
>specs:
>
>Carrier freq: 2.4 GHz
>Transmission power: <10 mW

That means "less than one hundredth of a watt" What do you think?

Bear in mind that the TV transmitter your aerial is pointing at is
probably two million watts output power. But also bear in mind that
strength falls away rapidly with distance.

If you swallowed your video sender, it might give you more radio
signal than the TV transmitter.


--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 1:49:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

>Bear in mind that the TV transmitter your aerial is pointing at is
>probably two million watts output power. But also bear in mind that
>strength falls away rapidly with distance.
>

AIUI the most powerful in the UK is the 1 megawatt series..

<Pedant mode off;-)>
--
Tony Sayer
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 1:49:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote in message
news:si0pc.3481$BK4.31658229@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Judging by your replies, you all scoff at me being concerned this thing
> could be harmful... then go on to say:
>
> "Don't plaster the transmitter antenna to your forehead", "Only if you
stick
> the transmitter up your nose", "If you swallowed your video sender, it
might
> give you more radio signal than the [two million watts/1 megawatt] TV
> transmitter"
>
> In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful.
I'm
> confused.

Let's put it this way, you stand more chance of being run over by a bus
than suffering any harmful effects from *any* radio transmitter, let alone
such a microscopically small one. Unless you go climbing up the local TV
transmitter mast, that is ;-) (Sorry..!)

> I sit about half a metre away from it whilst working an 8 hour day as it
is
> on my computer desk (this is where it gets its TV signal from - my
computer
> media centre).
>
> I'm not worrying too much - I know radiation is the wrong term.
>
> Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at
point-blank
> range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever?
Serious
> replies only please.

At that power level..? You are more than far enough away. Stop worrying..!

If you want to do some reading, check out this results page from Google on
the Inverse Square Lawe:

http://tinyurl.com/39oxp

Ivor
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 2:04:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:49:15 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

>AIUI the most powerful in the UK is the 1 megawatt series.

ERP?

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 2:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

Anon wrote:

> Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
> range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever?
> Serious replies only please.
>

Given the power levels involved there it's unlikely there's any risk. There
have been many studies, yet there there have not been any repeatable ones,
that show risk. Bear in mind however, that you can only fail to show risk.
You can never prove there's no risk.

--

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 2:48:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

tony sayer wrote:

> Yes the word radiation is very scary. Ever heard of an MRI scan?, very,
> very useful medical diagnostic tool..
>

One thing that many fail to realize, is that life has been exposed to
radiation, right from the start. It was likely a significant factor, in
the creation of life. Also, everything with a temperature above absolute
zero, emits some form of radiation. And "radiation" includes light.

--

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 2:53:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In article <bp29a0pegnsp65gp3i138qhtfjvb1br750@4ax.com>,
hairydog@despammed.com writes
>On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:49:15 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>AIUI the most powerful in the UK is the 1 megawatt series.
>
>ERP?
>

Yes, about 40 kW going up the feeder, and the rest down to aerial gain.
--
Tony Sayer
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 2:55:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In article <si0pc.3481$BK4.31658229@news-text.cableinet.net>, Anon
<anon@anon.con> writes
>Judging by your replies, you all scoff at me being concerned this thing
>could be harmful... then go on to say:
>
>"Don't plaster the transmitter antenna to your forehead", "Only if you stick
>the transmitter up your nose", "If you swallowed your video sender, it might
>give you more radio signal than the [two million watts/1 megawatt] TV
>transmitter"
>
>In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful. I'm
>confused.
>
>I sit about half a metre away from it whilst working an 8 hour day as it is
>on my computer desk (this is where it gets its TV signal from - my computer
>media centre).
>
>I'm not worrying too much - I know radiation is the wrong term.
>
>Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
>range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever? Serious
>replies only please.
>

Well I work in radio communications and broadcast and I have similar
devices close to me for a lot of the day when I'm glued to this poxy
computer which is damaging my health for more 'cos of the sedentary
nature of working with it.

No I wouldn't indeed aren't worried!...
--
Tony Sayer

Bancom Communications Ltd U.K. Tel+44 1223 566577 Fax+44 1223 566588

P.O. Box 280, Cambridge, England, CB2 2DY E-Mail tony@bancom.co.uk
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 3:41:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In article <si0pc.3481$BK4.31658229@news-text.cableinet.net>,
Anon <anon@anon.con> wrote:

>In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful.

So is a ping-ping ball, if you swallow it.

>Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
>range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever? Serious
>replies only please.

It depends on what mechanism you postulate for the damage.

If it were ionizing radiation - which it isn't - there would be no
"guaranteed" safe range, just a diminishing probablility which at some
point would be so small as to be unmeasurable. You are subject to
small amounts of radiation all the time, from rocks and radioactive
gases in the air.

If it's some kind of heating effect, then I have no idea why it would
be worse than sitting near a radiator. Certainly a 10mW heater a few
inches from you would be unnoticeable.

-- Richard
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 3:48:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:42:09 GMT, "Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote:

>I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
>transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
>radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.

I've had one of these for a while. Good piece of kit, even though it
seems unable to transmit the signal from an NTL remote (but we use
Tivo and that works, so not a problem for us). What concerns me more
is that whenever the microwave is on (which is about as far away in
the house as it could be), the picture and sound go bananas.


andyt
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 4:57:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote in message news:<si0pc.3481$BK4.31658229@news-text.cableinet.net>...

> Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
> range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever? Serious
> replies only please.

Non-ionising radiation in general (that is to say, any electromagnetic
radiation less energetic than visible light - infrared, microwaves and
radio waves) is only dangerous when thermal effects become an issue,
as in high-power systems like microwave ovens and powerful
transmission apparatus which can cause harm by heating body tissue. In
the case of a device with

> > Transmission power: <10 mW

this isn't a problem.

The damage caused by ionising radiation is a result of electrons being
knocked from molecules within cells (they are ionised). An infrared,
microwave or radio photon doesn't have enough energy to do this - it
doesn't even have enough energy to promote the electron to the next
highest orbital.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 5:01:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:HXICLNC+bJpAFwD8@bancom.co.uk...
> In article <bp29a0pegnsp65gp3i138qhtfjvb1br750@4ax.com>,
> hairydog@despammed.com writes
> >On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:49:15 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>AIUI the most powerful in the UK is the 1 megawatt series.
> >
> >ERP?
> >
>
> Yes, about 40 kW going up the feeder, and the rest down to aerial gain.

Is that per channel or all channels combined..? I receive from Sutton
Coldfield and I know it's 1MW ERP but I was never sure if it was 1MW per
channel or not.

Ivor
May 14, 2004 6:27:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

Anon <anon@anon.con> wrote:

> In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful.

Never heard the word SARCASM?

There is only one way that a wireless device is really and truly
harmfull and that is if one is so stupid to stick it up in his ass. And
then the harm is mostly done to the device.




--
Groeten,

Antonio (Voor email, verwijder X)
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 6:38:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In article <c82b8k$lnk$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <si0pc.3481$BK4.31658229@news-text.cableinet.net>,
>Anon <anon@anon.con> wrote:
>
>>In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful.
>
>So is a ping-ping ball, if you swallow it.
>
>>Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
>>range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever? Serious
>>replies only please.
>
>It depends on what mechanism you postulate for the damage.
>
>If it were ionizing radiation - which it isn't - there would be no
>"guaranteed" safe range, just a diminishing probablility which at some
>point would be so small as to be unmeasurable.

Maybe. The Linear, No Threshhold model is an assumption made for purposes
of setting policy, but as a scientific conclusion it's always been
somewhat controversial.

--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 7:08:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:02 +0000 (UTC), Andy Turner
<andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>What concerns me more
>is that whenever the microwave is on (which is about as far away in
>the house as it could be), the picture and sound go bananas.

Ah, well: they leak huge quantities of RF all over the place.

Easily enough to swamp the puny signal from video senders.


--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 7:49:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In article <si0pc.3481$BK4.31658229@news-text.cableinet.net>,
Anon <anon@anon.con> wrote:
:In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful. I'm
:confused.

:Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
:range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever? Serious
:replies only please.

I suggest that you read through the thread
"Is a wireless office (2.4GHz) *completely* safe for our health?"
starting from

http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=3f697200%240%242410...

It's a long thread, and it doesn't definitively answer the question,
but a couple of the posters were fairly professional about discussing
specific biological mechanisms and providing citations.
--
Rump-Titty-Titty-Tum-TAH-Tee -- Fritz Lieber
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 7:56:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:27:52 GMT, "Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote:


>In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful. I'm
>confused.

So are many others. It is impossible in most cases to say without
doubt that anything is harmless. It requires a level of absolute
proof that is not attainable and never will be. As a result no one
can tell you that - without any doubt whatsoever - there is no
possibility of harm. The same will be said about any item - your
computer, the paint on your walls, your floorboards.

The world has always been saturated by radio frequency radiation.
For the last 70 years or more it has increasingly been inundated by
various man made contributions as well. The only known harmful
effects are thermal - heating of body tissue (same mechanism as a
microwave oven) and these require far higher power levels than found
in your TV sender (even if you stick it to your forehead).

Other effects have been postulated and feature widely on conspiracy
theory and hysterical ranting web sites. However, to date the
evidence in support of these theories has been totally lacking or at
best extremely ambiguous. There is no evidence of harm from
environmental RF from epidemiological studies either.

>I sit about half a metre away from it whilst working an 8 hour day as it is
>on my computer desk (this is where it gets its TV signal from - my computer
>media centre).

The known risks from sitting for 8 hours a day are enormously greater
than the most pessimistic estimate of the risk of low level RF
exposure.

>Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
>range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever?

The range at which thermal effects are insignificant. In most cases
of domestic items producing tiny power levels this range is zero - no
matter what you do they can't hurt you.


--
Peter Parry |Hemel Hempstead| tel +44 (0)1442 212855 |
WPP Ltd |Herts, UK | fax +44 (0)7989 853112 |
Antenna solutions for car, caravan, house, office, boat and tent.
Allgon 1800 Signal Enhancers now GBP20.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 14, 2004 10:24:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:02 +0000, Andy Turner wrote:

> On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:42:09 GMT, "Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote:
>
>>I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
>>transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
>>radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.
>
> I've had one of these for a while. Good piece of kit, even though it
> seems unable to transmit the signal from an NTL remote (but we use
> Tivo and that works, so not a problem for us). What concerns me more
> is that whenever the microwave is on (which is about as far away in
> the house as it could be), the picture and sound go bananas.

That's because a microwave oven operates on the same 2.4GHz ISM band. And
no matter how good the seals on the thing are, a few milliwatts will still
leak out. Enough to interfere with things like video-senders operating on
the same band.

--
Michael Turner

Email (ROT13)

zvxr.gheare1963@ivetva.arg
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 15, 2004 2:53:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In article <c82g06$dnp$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Ivor Jones
<this.address@notvalid.inv> writes
>
>"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:HXICLNC+bJpAFwD8@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <bp29a0pegnsp65gp3i138qhtfjvb1br750@4ax.com>,
>> hairydog@despammed.com writes
>> >On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:49:15 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>AIUI the most powerful in the UK is the 1 megawatt series.
>> >
>> >ERP?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, about 40 kW going up the feeder, and the rest down to aerial gain.
>
>Is that per channel or all channels combined..? I receive from Sutton
>Coldfield and I know it's 1MW ERP but I was never sure if it was 1MW per
>channel or not.
>
>Ivor
>
>
I'm about 99.98% certain its per channel . But if any serious anoraks
really want to know I know a man who works there who would know 100%..
--
Tony Sayer
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 15, 2004 8:00:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In sci.physics, Anon
<anon@anon.con>
wrote
on Thu, 13 May 2004 21:42:09 GMT
<RYRoc.3100$aq7.27832486@news-text.cableinet.net>:
> I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
> transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
> radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.
>
> Is the radiation from this device also cause for concern? Here are the
> specs:
>
> Carrier freq: 2.4 GHz
> Transmission power: <10 mW
> Type: FM
> Range: 100m outdoor/30m indoor
>
> Product page: http://tinyurl.com/2s83k
> Leaflet:
> http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/s/sbcvl1200_05/sbcvl12...
>
> Thanks.
>
> Richard H.
>

Computation time.

If one were to sit next to that 10 mW and absorb all of
it (unlikely unless one swallows the unit, and I suspect
it's too big for that but haven't looked at the specs),
and assuming one is a bag of water of size about 100 kg
and needs to be heated from 37C to 100 C (a delta of 63
C), the amount of energy required would be 6300 kcal,
or 26.34 megaJoules.

It would take 2.634 billion seconds for the human body to
absorb enough energy to make the blood boil -- and that's
assuming no heat loss and no biological waste heat (a sedentary
human radiates from 80-125W, as I understand it, although the
amount is highly variable depending on exercise, general
metabolic rate, and food consumption). That's about 83 1/2 years.

Of course that's raw heat; there are other considerations that
I'd frankly have to look up such as mutations from radiation
(there are those that complain about power lines overhead,
for example -- but the main danger there is getting fried if
one breaks and touches something, but that's electrical, not
electromagnetic).

A bit of Googling coughed up a Health FAQ:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/cell-phone-antennas-h...

which points to

http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/cell-phone-health-faq/toc.h...

which among other things mentions that the frequency range you're
referring to is non-ionizing; therefore, the main danger is
in fact heating.

Question 8 has an interesting standard of a maximum
exposure of 1.2 milliWatt/cm^2. Since there are 4pi =
12.56 steradians (a steradian is a solid angle measure;
basically, if one has an infinite cone spanning 1 steradian
intersecting a sphere of radius 1 cm, the curved base of
the cone -- which would look a bit like a contact lens --
would occupy 1 cm^2 in area) this means that one need only
keep more than 1cm away from the antenna -- which is less
than the size of one's thumb.

I'd say your worries are groundless. Even the guy who
discovered the principle that led to the home microwave
oven was apparently healthy (I'd have to look up his name
now) for a long time afterwards, although the bar in his
pocket was sacrificed to science -- and that was with
far more power than the kit you just purchased; a home
microwave unit uses 1,000 or more watts of power and takes
a few minutes to boil a quart (1 kg) of water.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 16, 2004 12:58:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote in message
news:RYRoc.3100$aq7.27832486@news-text.cableinet.net...
| I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
| transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
| radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.
|
| Is the radiation from this device also cause for concern? Here are the
| specs:
|
| Carrier freq: 2.4 GHz
| Transmission power: <10 mW
| Type: FM
| Range: 100m outdoor/30m indoor
|
| Product page: http://tinyurl.com/2s83k
| Leaflet:
| http://www.p4c.philips.com/files/s/sbcvl1200_05/sbcvl12...
|

Do you jog? If so do you jog in a north south or east west direction? I
ask because the E/W produces a slightly higher EMF effect in the body v the
NS. This difference is about the difference in the real effects of 10mW RF
exposure you get from the video device.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 17, 2004 12:29:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:24:33 +0100, michael turner
<zvxr.gheare1963@ivetva.arg> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:02 +0000, Andy Turner wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:42:09 GMT, "Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote:
>>
>>>I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
>>>transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
>>>radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.
>>
>> I've had one of these for a while. Good piece of kit, even though it
>> seems unable to transmit the signal from an NTL remote (but we use
>> Tivo and that works, so not a problem for us). What concerns me more
>> is that whenever the microwave is on (which is about as far away in
>> the house as it could be), the picture and sound go bananas.
>
>That's because a microwave oven operates on the same 2.4GHz ISM band.

Yeah, I realise that bit, but...


> And no matter how good the seals on the thing are, a few milliwatts
> will still leak out.

... it's that bit that concerns me! The effect is fairly spectacular!
I'm glad I live in a detached house - I'd be upset if next door's
microwave started screwing with our TV!



andyt
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 17, 2004 1:54:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

On Fri, 14 May 2004 09:40:45 +0100, hairydog@despammed.com wrote:

>Bear in mind that the TV transmitter your aerial is pointing at is
>probably two million watts output power.

I stand corrected. If you are near certain transmitters, it could be
five millions watts output power.


--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 17, 2004 2:36:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

Andy Turner wrote:

> .. it's that bit that concerns me! The effect is fairly spectacular!
> I'm glad I live in a detached house - I'd be upset if next door's
> microwave started screwing with our TV!
>

The frequencies use by TVs are nowhere near those used by a microwave oven.

--

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 17, 2004 3:25:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In article <ustga0tml6lm1gvg9ojgndlf85u5i708l1@4ax.com>, Andy Turner
<andyt@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:24:33 +0100, michael turner
><zvxr.gheare1963@ivetva.arg> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:48:02 +0000, Andy Turner wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 May 2004 21:42:09 GMT, "Anon" <anon@anon.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've recently purchased the Philips SBC VL1200 TV Sender/Receiver kit to
>>>>transmit TV pictures across my home. I do worry about mobile phone
>>>>radiation and the like, and use hands-free where possible.
>>>
>>> I've had one of these for a while. Good piece of kit, even though it
>>> seems unable to transmit the signal from an NTL remote (but we use
>>> Tivo and that works, so not a problem for us). What concerns me more
>>> is that whenever the microwave is on (which is about as far away in
>>> the house as it could be), the picture and sound go bananas.
>>
>>That's because a microwave oven operates on the same 2.4GHz ISM band.
>
>Yeah, I realise that bit, but...
>
>
>> And no matter how good the seals on the thing are, a few milliwatts
>> will still leak out.
>
>.. it's that bit that concerns me! The effect is fairly spectacular!
>I'm glad I live in a detached house - I'd be upset if next door's
>microwave started screwing with our TV!
>
>
>
>andyt
>

We had a very expensive (circa £8K!) Frequency hopping 2.45 Ghz
microwave link that was supposed to be "immune" from microwave oven
interference. However some intermittent outages occurred at various
times of the day e.g. 1 PM and around 6 PM!. Yes you've guessed it, a
leaky microwave oven. Around 400 metres behind a solid 1.2 metre ally
parabolic dish. Took it to the menders who said it was well within
leakage limits!. American manufactures were not impressed with British
leakage standards.

New Panasonic oven cured problem outright...
--
Tony Sayer
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
May 17, 2004 4:23:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:36:40 GMT, James Knott <bit_bucket@rogers.com>
wrote:

>Andy Turner wrote:
>
>> .. it's that bit that concerns me! The effect is fairly spectacular!
>> I'm glad I live in a detached house - I'd be upset if next door's
>> microwave started screwing with our TV!
>>
>
>The frequencies use by TVs are nowhere near those used by a microwave oven.

But it's exactly the same frequency as used by a wireless TV sender,
which is what we're discussing here...!!


andyt
June 1, 2004 2:30:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

The RF damage to tissue of course is dependant on time, intensity, exposure,
distance. When you turn on your little SWR (Short Wave Radio) to listen to
what ever station, AM, FM, 160meters etc etc, you are simply receiving a
form of radiation that is already there, all cell phones, radio station's,
microwave station's, repeater station's radio frequency RF is already in the
room your in. Within its distance. Of course globally its sporadic in
regards to ionosphere layer reflections. Some parts on the earth RF is
"skipped" over.
So,,, yes,, if your sitting in front of the microwave for any length of
time, it will bother you. If your talking on your cell phone all day, you
will most probably develop something, if may not ever affect your life but
you will. If you transmit on say 160meters all day long, using an older
style tube amplifier, tube style, possibly 2 kilo watts, you will experience
something. I know friends who have transmitted HF rigs with 2kw amps for
most of their lives, and they are ok,,,
Lot of factors influencing this. Grounding paths are good, keeping your
distance is good but how far makes a difference.
I wouldn't worry about it. Living under or near high power power
transmission lines that deliver electricity to the consumers is what I would
not want to live, now that they burry a lot of that is good. Living next
door to some ham guy (who knows what he is doing) with all kinds of funny
looking antennas hanging over the trees is nothing...







"Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:c82pq9$6in$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> In article <si0pc.3481$BK4.31658229@news-text.cableinet.net>,
> Anon <anon@anon.con> wrote:
> :In other words this laughably harmless device is potentially harmful.
I'm
> :confused.
>
> :Can you guys tell me, if RF is cause for concern if placed at point-blank
> :range, at what range is it guaranteed not to affect me whatsoever?
Serious
> :replies only please.
>
> I suggest that you read through the thread
> "Is a wireless office (2.4GHz) *completely* safe for our health?"
> starting from
>
>
http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=3f697200%240%242410...
>
> It's a long thread, and it doesn't definitively answer the question,
> but a couple of the posters were fairly professional about discussing
> specific biological mechanisms and providing citations.
> --
> Rump-Titty-Titty-Tum-TAH-Tee -- Fritz Lieber
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 2, 2004 1:05:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In message <JSRuc.5314$_V4.4659@read1.cgocable.net>
"Bob" <nubob5001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So,,, yes,, if your sitting in front of the microwave for any length of
> time, it will bother you. If your talking on your cell phone all day, you
> will most probably develop something, if may not ever affect your life but
> you will. If you transmit on say 160meters all day long, using an older
> style tube amplifier, tube style, possibly 2 kilo watts, you will
> experience something.

I object to what you say. "Most probably" is very misleading. All the
evidence suggests that, most probably, you won't.

I object because your words might make some gullible person believe
that there is a problem when there really isn't.

Dave
June 2, 2004 1:05:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

I have suggested that extensive cell phone use will cause some negative
reactance, and using a 2 kw,, (2000 watts) amplifier for extensive periods
of time at close proximities will also generate some health concerns. My
friend uses one, when he transmits, his fluorescent lights glow even though
they are off.












"Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:947e61b84c.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com...
> In message <JSRuc.5314$_V4.4659@read1.cgocable.net>
> "Bob" <nubob5001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So,,, yes,, if your sitting in front of the microwave for any length of
> > time, it will bother you. If your talking on your cell phone all day,
you
> > will most probably develop something, if may not ever affect your life
but
> > you will. If you transmit on say 160meters all day long, using an older
> > style tube amplifier, tube style, possibly 2 kilo watts, you will
> > experience something.
>
> I object to what you say. "Most probably" is very misleading. All the
> evidence suggests that, most probably, you won't.
>
> I object because your words might make some gullible person believe
> that there is a problem when there really isn't.
>
> Dave
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 2, 2004 1:22:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"Bob" <nubob5001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Yu7vc.9844$XY6.922278@read2.cgocable.net>...
> I have suggested that extensive cell phone use will cause some negative
> reactance,

You don't even know what reactamce is.

> and using a 2 kw,, (2000 watts) amplifier for extensive periods
> of time at close proximities will also generate some health concerns.

Your suggestions are baseless.

Paul Cardinale
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 2, 2004 1:34:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In message <JSRuc.5314$_V4.4659@read1.cgocable.net>
"Bob" <nubob5001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So,,, yes,, if your sitting in front of the microwave for any length of
> time, it will bother you. If your talking on your cell phone all day, you
> will most probably develop something, if may not ever affect your life but
> you will. If you transmit on say 160meters all day long, using an older
> style tube amplifier, tube style, possibly 2 kilo watts, you will
> experience something.

Let's see I'm been a ham since '50's, worked broadcast baby sitting high
power (50KW) transmitters while in engineering school (EE), did the dew line
bit, various marine/airsearch radars, lots of high power VLF and H.F., some
unspoken EMF research, tested cell phones to the tune of several thousands
of dollars a month in air time, etc. Based on what you 'presume' I should
glow in the dark. About the only glow I get is from Jack (Daniel's) and
water.

BTW what makes RF from a bottle (tubes) more dangerous than RF from
solid-state?
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 2, 2004 1:37:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"Bob" <nubob5001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Yu7vc.9844$XY6.922278@read2.cgocable.net...
| I have suggested that extensive cell phone use will cause some negative
| reactance, and using a 2 kw,, (2000 watts) amplifier for extensive periods
| of time at close proximities will also generate some health concerns. My
| friend uses one, when he transmits, his fluorescent lights glow even
though
| they are off.

And that proves what? FWIW a hand operated Vandegraft (spl?) static
generator will light fluorescent lights.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 2, 2004 2:36:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"Bob" <nubob5001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Yu7vc.9844$XY6.922278@read2.cgocable.net...
> I have suggested that extensive cell phone use will cause some negative
> reactance, and using a 2 kw,, (2000 watts) amplifier for extensive periods
> of time at close proximities will also generate some health concerns. My
> friend uses one, when he transmits, his fluorescent lights glow even
though
> they are off.

Seems a pleasant way to warm up on a cold night. Good
male contraceptive to boot. [Old Man]




> "Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:947e61b84c.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com...
> > In message <JSRuc.5314$_V4.4659@read1.cgocable.net>
> > "Bob" <nubob5001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So,,, yes,, if your sitting in front of the microwave for any length
of
> > > time, it will bother you. If your talking on your cell phone all day,
> you
> > > will most probably develop something, if may not ever affect your life
> but
> > > you will. If you transmit on say 160meters all day long, using an
older
> > > style tube amplifier, tube style, possibly 2 kilo watts, you will
> > > experience something.
> >
> > I object to what you say. "Most probably" is very misleading. All the
> > evidence suggests that, most probably, you won't.
> >
> > I object because your words might make some gullible person believe
> > that there is a problem when there really isn't.
> >
> > Dave
>
>
June 2, 2004 2:36:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:tMqdnQ7ilJvX1iDdRVn-jA@prairiewave.com...
>
> "Bob" <nubob5001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Yu7vc.9844$XY6.922278@read2.cgocable.net...
> > I have suggested that extensive cell phone use will cause some negative
> > reactance, and using a 2 kw,, (2000 watts) amplifier for extensive
periods
> > of time at close proximities will also generate some health concerns. My
> > friend uses one, when he transmits, his fluorescent lights glow even
> though
> > they are off.
>
> Seems a pleasant way to warm up on a cold night. Good
> male contraceptive to boot. [Old Man]
>

Sposed to give daughters rather than sons. I have 2 after working on radar
for 15 yrs

Mind you, that was probably just the Carlsberg :) 
June 2, 2004 1:31:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

nubob5001@yahoo.com had a brainwave and did spout the following:
> My
> friend uses one, when he transmits, his fluorescent lights glow even though
> they are off.

And how is a florescent tube light comparable to a human being?
--
www.unlockingshop.co.uk
T610 unlock/unbrand/upgrade - £15
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 2, 2004 2:57:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b27a0db7c9c20d49896af@news.individual.net>,
Jon <spam@unlockingshop.co.uk> wrote:
>nubob5001@yahoo.com had a brainwave and did spout the following:
>> My
>> friend uses one, when he transmits, his fluorescent lights glow even
though
>> they are off.
>
>And how is a florescent tube light comparable to a human being?

Both have gas.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Anonymous
a b F Wireless
June 4, 2004 12:22:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless,sci.med.physics,sci.physics,uk.people.health,uk.telecom.mobile (More info?)

In message <Yu7vc.9844$XY6.922278@read2.cgocable.net>
"Bob" <nubob5001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have suggested that extensive cell phone use will cause some negative
> reactance, and using a 2 kw,, (2000 watts) amplifier for extensive periods
> of time at close proximities will also generate some health concerns. My
> friend uses one, when he transmits, his fluorescent lights glow even though
> they are off.

You appear to be using a definition of "negative reactance" entirely
different from that in use by the rest of the world. Would you care
to explain what you mean?

What health concerns?

Lest we get too far off topic, the original question was about health
effects from radiation from a transmitter of about 10 milliwatts or so.

Dave
!