Cell Phones & Cell Damage

[solarwind]

Cell phones emit energy in the form of radiation. There has been a lot
of "controversy" as to if this radiation is bad for your health or
not.

The scientists and engineers, of course, say yes, cell phone usage
increases the risk of brain damage. They also say that the research
conducted was mainly done by the cell phone industry which is making
far too much money to let the truth out.

Others say that if there was a real concern, we would know by now as
cell phones were being used regularly for more than a decade.

I don't think that there's a doubt that radiation in any form causes
some sort of damage. The question is to what degree.

The average cell phone user does not put the phone to his head (to
talk) for more than a few minutes a day. But then again, the cell
phone goes up right against the head when you talk.

I sit in lecture halls with hundreds of students for hours every day.
Practically everyone has a cell phone, inducing the 2 kids beside me,
and the 2 in front/back. These phones must still be emitting radiation
even when not being used (as in people talking into them) as they are
in communication with cell towers constantly (to check for text
messages, things like that). What risk does that pose?

What about going into a busy subway station every day with people
constantly talking on their cell phones around you? Many of them less
than 1 m away in proximity.

So to what degree does cell phone usage pose a threat?

I thought this would be a good place to post this as you all are
engineers and have a good understanding of how cell phones and this
sort of energy behaves on the "physics" level. And I realize I may
have sounded like a complete idiot writing this post, but please, bear
with me.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Isaac Marino Bavaresco]

solarwind escreveu:

> Cell phones emit energy in the form of radiation. There has been a lot
> of "controversy" as to if this radiation is bad for your health or
> not.
>
> The scientists and engineers, of course, say yes, cell phone usage
> increases the risk of brain damage. They also say that the research
> conducted was mainly done by the cell phone industry which is making
> far too much money to let the truth out.
>
> Others say that if there was a real concern, we would know by now as
> cell phones were being used regularly for more than a decade.
>
> I don't think that there's a doubt that radiation in any form causes
> some sort of damage. The question is to what degree.
>
> The average cell phone user does not put the phone to his head (to
> talk) for more than a few minutes a day. But then again, the cell
> phone goes up right against the head when you talk.
>
> I sit in lecture halls with hundreds of students for hours every day.
> Practically everyone has a cell phone, inducing the 2 kids beside me,
> and the 2 in front/back. These phones must still be emitting radiation
> even when not being used (as in people talking into them) as they are
> in communication with cell towers constantly (to check for text
> messages, things like that). What risk does that pose?
>
> What about going into a busy subway station every day with people
> constantly talking on their cell phones around you? Many of them less
> than 1 m away in proximity.
>
> So to what degree does cell phone usage pose a threat?
>
> I thought this would be a good place to post this as you all are
> engineers and have a good understanding of how cell phones and this
> sort of energy behaves on the "physics" level. And I realize I may
> have sounded like a complete idiot writing this post, but please, bear
> with me.
>  

Don't forget that radiation power decreases with the square of distance.
When you are talking, the phone is perhaps 2cm from your brain. A cell
phone at 1m distance would transmit 1/2500th of that power to your brain.

Also, when talking the phone is transmitting most of the time, and when
idle it just transmits very spaced short bursts.

Regards,

Isaac


__________________________________________________
Faça ligações para outros computadores com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/ 
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[M. Adam Davis-2]

Radiation affects biological material.  That is to say that biological
material reacts or acts/grows/etc differently in a radio field than
otherwise.

However, minor magnetic fields of short duration appear to leave no
lasting change.  While under the influence of a field there is a
difference, but everything goes back to normal except in the case of
overexposure.

The cellular industry follows guidelines for radiation, and in most
cell phones now you'll find the antenna is in the side opposite the
head when the phone is at your ear, so there's a PCB, LCD and/or other
components shielding the user from the point of radiation.  Some have
the antenna at the bottom of the phone near the back so it's further
from the brain.

Further, the radiation decreases exponentially by distance, so at one
meter there is no known biological affect for standard cell phones
signals.

Lastly, the transmitter in the phone is very, very, very weak - we're
talking mW, not watts of transmitting power.

So-

Yes, there's an effect
No, it's not known to be significant, lasting, or cumulative
Yes, people are still studying this
No, no one has yet found a statistically significant cause/effect
correlation to suggest they aren't safe
Yes, lots of people outside the cellular industry are studying this,
hoping that they will find otherwise
No, they haven't succeeded in showing the cellular industry's results
are anything other than real

It would not surprise me if we find that those teens who grew up with
a cell phone next to their head for an hour a day find that after 50
years they experience a slightly greater rate of cancer than others.
But it wouldn't surprise me if the reverse were true either.

On the other hand, this is a pretty good reason to text instead of
call - the transmission burst is very small and short, and it's away
from the head.

-Adam

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 12:32 AM, solarwind <x.solarwind.x@...> wrote:

> Cell phones emit energy in the form of radiation. There has been a lot
> of "controversy" as to if this radiation is bad for your health or
> not.
>
> The scientists and engineers, of course, say yes, cell phone usage
> increases the risk of brain damage. They also say that the research
> conducted was mainly done by the cell phone industry which is making
> far too much money to let the truth out.
>
> Others say that if there was a real concern, we would know by now as
> cell phones were being used regularly for more than a decade.
>
> I don't think that there's a doubt that radiation in any form causes
> some sort of damage. The question is to what degree.
>
> The average cell phone user does not put the phone to his head (to
> talk) for more than a few minutes a day. But then again, the cell
> phone goes up right against the head when you talk.
>
> I sit in lecture halls with hundreds of students for hours every day.
> Practically everyone has a cell phone, inducing the 2 kids beside me,
> and the 2 in front/back. These phones must still be emitting radiation
> even when not being used (as in people talking into them) as they are
> in communication with cell towers constantly (to check for text
> messages, things like that). What risk does that pose?
>
> What about going into a busy subway station every day with people
> constantly talking on their cell phones around you? Many of them less
> than 1 m away in proximity.
>
> So to what degree does cell phone usage pose a threat?
>
> I thought this would be a good place to post this as you all are
> engineers and have a good understanding of how cell phones and this
> sort of energy behaves on the "physics" level. And I realize I may
> have sounded like a complete idiot writing this post, but please, bear
> with me.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[cole]

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 12:32:00AM -0400, solarwind wrote:
> I don't think that there's a doubt that radiation in any form causes
> some sort of damage. The question is to what degree.

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation.  This energy transfer to nearby
tissue results in local temperature elevation.  From the small amount of
energy transmitted from a cell phone, this heating effect is usually
minimal and temporary.

On the other hand, ionizing radiation can cause cellular modifications at
an atomic level, leading to permanent tissue damage.  Such sources are UV,
X-rays, and gamma rays.

Cell phones do not radiate ionizing radiation.  

> So to what degree does cell phone usage pose a threat?

It is hard to quantify any permanent damage due to the cumulative effect
of repeated tissue heating.

> And I realize I may have sounded like a complete idiot writing this
> post, but please, bear with me.

Not at all, this is a very important issue that we need to be aware of.

Take care,
-Chris

--
| Christopher Cole, Cole Design and Development, LLC          cole@... |
| Embedded Software Development and Electronic Design       http://coledd.com |
| Stow, Ohio, USA                                                800-518-2154 |
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[enkitec]

    Mobile phones and brain tumors

    http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobph.pdf

    Mark

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Sean Breheny]

Hi Adam,

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:21 AM, M. Adam Davis <stienman@...> wrote:
> Radiation affects biological material.  That is to say that biological
> material reacts or acts/grows/etc differently in a radio field than
> otherwise.

While I certainly would not declare RF exposure to be safe, I have
never heard of any definitively proven effects of RF on living tissue
beyond heating effects. Do you have information otherwise?

>
> However, minor magnetic fields of short duration appear to leave no
> lasting change.  While under the influence of a field there is a
> difference, but everything goes back to normal except in the case of
> overexposure.

I'm not sure why you make reference to magnetic fields here
specifically. Are you talking about DC or low-frequency magnetic
fields? At cell phone frequencies, there are going to be both electric
and magnetic fields present in roughly comparable magnitude quite
close to the antenna (i.e., the far field is not very far out)


> Further, the radiation decreases exponentially by distance, so at one
> meter there is no known biological affect for standard cell phones
> signals.

Actually, it is not quite exponential. Very close to the antenna
(i.e., less than 1 wavelength) it may not decrease very much with
distance at all. Between 1 and 10 wavelengths, it drops very fast
(i.e., dipole field rather than a plane wave, roughly 1/r^6 for power,
or 1/r^3 for field strength). Beyond 10 wavelengths, the power per
area drops as 1/r^2 and the field strength drops by 1/r.

>
> Lastly, the transmitter in the phone is very, very, very weak - we're
> talking mW, not watts of transmitting power.

Are you sure about this? Given how warm the phone gets during a call,
as well as the distance it must cover reliably, I'd guess that the
peak power is about 1 or 2W and the average at least a few 100 mW.

>
> On the other hand, this is a pretty good reason to text instead of
> call - the transmission burst is very small and short, and it's away
> from the head.

Interesting advice. I do not have a regular phone - only a cell phone.
Therefore, I am particularly concerned about this. My strategy, since
neither I nor most other people I call are big into texting, is to use
headsets and get the phone away from my head, usually on the desk in
front of me. I have found, though, that many headsets do not work all
that well. I tried several wired headsets first and they had strange
quirks like my phone sometimes deciding to mute the microphone of the
headset for no apparent reason. So, I now use a Bluetooth earpiece -
of course that itself is RF but much lower power.

Sean

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Tamas Rudnai]

We can tell to cancel to sell their cell so we keep our cell and won't go
too early to the hell.

(sorry, it's a day like this to me)

Tamas


On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Sean Breheny <shb7@...> wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:21 AM, M. Adam Davis <stienman@...> wrote:
> > Radiation affects biological material.  That is to say that biological
> > material reacts or acts/grows/etc differently in a radio field than
> > otherwise.
>
> While I certainly would not declare RF exposure to be safe, I have
> never heard of any definitively proven effects of RF on living tissue
> beyond heating effects. Do you have information otherwise?
>
> >
> > However, minor magnetic fields of short duration appear to leave no
> > lasting change.  While under the influence of a field there is a
> > difference, but everything goes back to normal except in the case of
> > overexposure.
>
> I'm not sure why you make reference to magnetic fields here
> specifically. Are you talking about DC or low-frequency magnetic
> fields? At cell phone frequencies, there are going to be both electric
> and magnetic fields present in roughly comparable magnitude quite
> close to the antenna (i.e., the far field is not very far out)
>
>
> > Further, the radiation decreases exponentially by distance, so at one
> > meter there is no known biological affect for standard cell phones
> > signals.
>
> Actually, it is not quite exponential. Very close to the antenna
> (i.e., less than 1 wavelength) it may not decrease very much with
> distance at all. Between 1 and 10 wavelengths, it drops very fast
> (i.e., dipole field rather than a plane wave, roughly 1/r^6 for power,
> or 1/r^3 for field strength). Beyond 10 wavelengths, the power per
> area drops as 1/r^2 and the field strength drops by 1/r.
>
> >
> > Lastly, the transmitter in the phone is very, very, very weak - we're
> > talking mW, not watts of transmitting power.
>
> Are you sure about this? Given how warm the phone gets during a call,
> as well as the distance it must cover reliably, I'd guess that the
> peak power is about 1 or 2W and the average at least a few 100 mW.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, this is a pretty good reason to text instead of
> > call - the transmission burst is very small and short, and it's away
> > from the head.
>
> Interesting advice. I do not have a regular phone - only a cell phone.
> Therefore, I am particularly concerned about this. My strategy, since
> neither I nor most other people I call are big into texting, is to use
> headsets and get the phone away from my head, usually on the desk in
> front of me. I have found, though, that many headsets do not work all
> that well. I tried several wired headsets first and they had strange
> quirks like my phone sometimes deciding to mute the microphone of the
> headset for no apparent reason. So, I now use a Bluetooth earpiece -
> of course that itself is RF but much lower power.
>
> Sean
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.mcuhobby.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Artem Zezyulinskiy / SEDATELEC]

Sean Breheny a écrit :

> Hi Adam,
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:21 AM, M. Adam Davis <stienman@...> wrote:
>  
>> Radiation affects biological material.  That is to say that biological
>> material reacts or acts/grows/etc differently in a radio field than
>> otherwise.
>>    
>
> While I certainly would not declare RF exposure to be safe, I have
> never heard of any definitively proven effects of RF on living tissue
> beyond heating effects. Do you have information otherwise?
>
>  

We have produced a headphones that apply 25-Hz magnetical field on the
human head. The effect is to calm the patient.
This is used in psycological clinics.


Artem
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Dwayne Reid]

At 10:32 PM 9/30/2009, solarwind wrote:
>Cell phones emit energy in the form of radiation. There has been a lot
>of "controversy" as to if this radiation is bad for your health or
>not.

One thing to consider if you are truly concerned about having a 600mW
transmitter close to your brain: use a Bluetooth headset and make
sure that your phone is a couple of feet away from you.  Bluetooth
operates in the low mW region and would therefore pose less risk.

You could also use an old-fashioned bag phone (actually useful in
vehicles) - again, with some form of hands-free headset or speaker
phone arrangement.

Do keep in mind that I am simply offering alternatives.  I truly
don't have an opinion on whether 600mW in close proximity to my brain
is dangerous or not.  That said: I do use my bluetooth rig a lot -
but for reasons of convenience rather than safety.  Voice recognition
within the phone is a wonderful improvement!

dwayne

--
Dwayne Reid   <dwayner@...>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
[phone] voice          [phone] fax
www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[solarwind]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Artem Zezyulinskiy
<artemzez@...> wrote:
> We have produced a headphones that apply 25-Hz magnetical field on the
> human head. The effect is to calm the patient.
> This is used in psycological clinics.

Wow, how does this work?

----------

I was inspired to post this only after getting my iPhone. I was never
into cell phones much before. Also, +1 for the iPhone 3GS - it comes
with headphones with a built in microphone and voice control feature
that is surprisingly accurate and useful.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[solarwind]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Sean Breheny <shb7@...> wrote:
> Interesting advice. I do not have a regular phone - only a cell phone.
> Therefore, I am particularly concerned about this. My strategy, since
> neither I nor most other people I call are big into texting, is to use
> headsets and get the phone away from my head, usually on the desk in
> front of me. I have found, though, that many headsets do not work all
> that well. I tried several wired headsets first and they had strange
> quirks like my phone sometimes deciding to mute the microphone of the
> headset for no apparent reason. So, I now use a Bluetooth earpiece -
> of course that itself is RF but much lower power.

So, relatively, how much radio energy does a Bluetooth headset output?
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Dario Greggio (in giro)]

M. Adam Davis ha scritto:

> On the other hand, this is a pretty good reason to text instead of
> call - the transmission burst is very small and short, and it's away
> from the head.


I may agree, but it takes definitely too much time to me to type an SMS :)
If only I had a  keyboard...
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Michael Rigby-Jones-2]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On
Behalf
> Of solarwind
> Sent: 01 October 2009 17:09
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] Cell Phones & Cell Damage
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Sean Breheny <shb7@...>
wrote:
> > Interesting advice. I do not have a regular phone - only a cell
phone.
> > Therefore, I am particularly concerned about this. My strategy,
since
> > neither I nor most other people I call are big into texting, is to
use
> > headsets and get the phone away from my head, usually on the desk in
> > front of me. I have found, though, that many headsets do not work
all
> > that well. I tried several wired headsets first and they had strange
> > quirks like my phone sometimes deciding to mute the microphone of
the
> > headset for no apparent reason. So, I now use a Bluetooth earpiece -
> > of course that itself is RF but much lower power.
>
> So, relatively, how much radio energy does a Bluetooth headset output?

Bluetooth RF power depends on classification of the device, the majority
of hands free headsets are class 2.

Class 1 100mW ~100 meter range
Class 2 2.5mW ~10 meter range
Class 3 1mW   ~1 meter range

The range associated with each class is nominal, and depends on
environmental conditions of course.

For comparison the output from a digital cell phone (e.g. GSM) is much
higher, maybe 2 watts maximum.  However, this is reduced as required to
increase battery life, so it will only be running at the highest power
if you are a long way from a cell tower.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Artem Zezyulinskiy / SEDATELEC]

solarwind a écrit :

> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Artem Zezyulinskiy
> <artemzez@...> wrote:
>  
>> We have produced a headphones that apply 25-Hz magnetical field on the
>> human head. The effect is to calm the patient.
>> This is used in psycological clinics.
>>    
>
> Wow, how does this work?
>  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation

PS : think about electrical power lines in your home - it's the same
thing :) I know people that isolate all electrical cables by aluminum foil.

Artem
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Matt Rhys-Roberts]

I have only once owned a mobile phone, a Motorola M301, about 15 years
ago. I was very worried by the way it would heat my face up during use,
and seemed to make the backs of my eyes feel hot as well. I dumped it
after about one year of use and have lived happily without one ever since.

The only rigorous sources of info on the bioeffects of man-made EM
radiation I can suggest are:

* Dr G J Hyland (one of his early reports can be seen at
http://www.iegmp.org.uk/evidence/hyland.htm - Google for his other
papers elsewhere)

* Powerwatch (http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/) : "Powerwatch is a
non-profit independent organisation with a central role in the UK
Electromagnetic Field and Microwave Radiation health debate."

I understand that it's not necessarily the carrier frequency that upsets
biological life, rather it's the modulation scheme and spectral content,
which can give rise to epilepsy, sleep disruption, stress etc.

It's a very interesting subject and I hope it could lead to a lot of
employment for engineers seeking to communicate and distribute power in
ever healthier ways.

Matt

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Ruben Jönsson]

> I have only once owned a mobile phone, a Motorola M301, about 15 years
> ago. I was very worried by the way it would heat my face up during use,
> and seemed to make the backs of my eyes feel hot as well.

This happens to me too, but I think the reason is rather depending on who I
talk to than what phone I use.

Sorry - I couldn't resist :-)

/Ruben
==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT [phone]
FAX INT [phone]
ruben@...
==============================

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Tamas Rudnai]

2009/10/2 Ruben Jönsson <ruben@...>

> > I have only once owned a mobile phone, a Motorola M301, about 15 years
> > ago. I was very worried by the way it would heat my face up during use,
> > and seemed to make the backs of my eyes feel hot as well.
>
> This happens to me too, but I think the reason is rather depending on who I
> talk to than what phone I use.
>

Good one :-)

BTW: You can use the earphones (alias James Bond set) so that you can keep
the radiation away from your face. Obviously there are some radion with the
bluetooth ones so it does not look to take that much difference, however,
the transmitter power used by BT is much less than the handheld makes.

Tamas

>
> Sorry - I couldn't resist :-)
>
> /Ruben
> ==============================
> Ruben Jönsson
> AB Liros Electronic
> Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
> TEL INT [phone]
> FAX INT [phone]
> ruben@...
> ==============================
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.mcuhobby.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[MicroControllers - PIC mailing list]

In message
<e726f69f0910010804t3bc61e7ax7bb67e51029d5064@...>, Sean
Breheny <shb7@...> writes
>> Lastly, the transmitter in the phone is very, very, very weak - we're
>> talking mW, not watts of transmitting power.
>
>Are you sure about this? Given how warm the phone gets during a call,
>as well as the distance it must cover reliably, I'd guess that the
>peak power is about 1 or 2W and the average at least a few 100 mW.
Depends on the network, depends on the phone and your proximity to a
cell base station, the power level is adaptive and should ramp up to the
maximum as necessary. There are fairly strict limits on the power
emitted from a cell phone (800mW seems to stick for some reason) but
there are different classes of phone with different power levels.  Line
of sight you can get away with surprisingly low power levels over decent
distances.
>
>I tried several wired headsets first and they had strange
>quirks like my phone sometimes deciding to mute the microphone of the
>headset for no apparent reason.
I go through three or four wired headsets a year because of this, I
prefer wired headsets over bluetooth. There is also some evidence that
using some wired headsets actually worsens the RF exposure.
>So, I now use a Bluetooth earpiece -
>of course that itself is RF but much lower power.
I'm not an RF or power line nut but it seems only sensible to minimise
exposure to any form of RF that's not necessary.
>
>Sean
>

--
Clint Sharp
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[MicroControllers - PIC mailing list]

In message <4AC5BA53.4050909@...>, Matt Rhys-Roberts
<matt@...> writes
>
>* Powerwatch (http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/) : "Powerwatch is a
>non-profit independent organisation with a central role in the UK
>Electromagnetic Field and Microwave Radiation health debate."
Powerwatch are kooks bundled in with the electrosensitivity mob.
>

--
Clint Sharp
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[M. Adam Davis-2]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Clint Sharp <piclist@...> wrote:
> Powerwatch are kooks bundled in with the electrosensitivity mob.

If one isn't busy, there's good money to be made building
electrosensitivity meters...

-Adam
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist