OT: RF (was: RE: E11/WinME results....)

From: ajp166 <ajp166_at_bellatlantic.net>
Date: Thu Feb 15 20:08:09 2001

From: Ross Archer <dogbert_at_mindless.com>
>By the way, ANSI has a standard for RF exposure limits. I don't recall

As do OSHA.

>the std. number offhand but it shows that certain frequencies are likely
>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
>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
>Apparently, it's the heating effect of RF that tends to do the most
>until the frequency gets quite high.

The ability of RF to penetrate the body also goes down with increasing
frequency. Also at incresing frequency the ability to focus RF power
becomes easier and the antennas more compact adding to the
the risk.

All RF should be considered with care. IT's energy radiated and if
you are in a concentrated field (IE: in front of a dish antenna) then
the risks go up as compared to a diffuse field.

Received on Thu Feb 15 2001 - 20:08:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:44 BST