Found: a low radiation cordless phone for the kids

Heinz

Should I worry that I can receive 5 analogue and 30 or more digital TV stations in my house with an internal aerial? Surely that means I am being swamped by RF? And my mobile works indoors too - so the RF from the cellular site must be slowly cooking me.

OTOH, if you can afford to pay £80 or so for a cordless phone which, without the 'low radiation switching' capability could be bought for £30 and it gives you peace of mind, go for it. Each to their own.

Stompa

Heinz wrote: »

Should I worry that I can receive 5 analogue and 30 or more digital TV stations in my house with an internal aerial? Surely that means I am being swamped by RF? And my mobile works indoors too - so the RF from the cellular site must be slowly cooking me

Yes but electromagnetic radiation obeys the inverse square rule, so it's being close to the transmitter that's the issue, not being close to the receiver.

Heinz

Stompa wrote: »

Yes but electromagnetic radiation obeys the inverse square rule, so it's being close to the transmitter that's the issue, not being close to the receiver.

That was my point about the internal aerial - I must be close to the transmitters (actually, I know the site is about 6 miles away pumping out ¼ million watts on 5 channels).

I have no idea how close the cellular mast is but my phone tells me signal strength maximum - so that must be close too.

Tinfish

Moonraker wrote:
"you may (or may not! ) have noticed that none of the subsequent posts actually agree with your rather hysterical views".

Listen mate. I posted this thread in good faith for any parents who may wish to take a precautionary approach regarding exposing their children to excess microwave radiation from wi-fi and cordless phones etc. If your not interested in the low rad phone I'm talking about, and if you dont wish to follow the latest advice from various independent health experts regarding the health risks of mobile radiation, then that is fine by me .But just back off with the "religious zealot" attack and go back to what you do best.

Moonraker wrote:
"You may (or may not! ) have noticed that none of the subsequent posts actually agree with your rather hysterical views".

Like I said, I fully expected this sort of reception on this forum. I mean, it is well known Sun-reader territory. Yet Heinz's comment (below) is hardly disagreeing with my point of view, neither was the chap who suggested that I buy a plugin-type phones rather that a cordless. So get your facts right, please.

Heinz wrote:
"if you can afford to pay £80 or so for a cordless phone which, without the 'low radiation switching' capability could be bought for £30 and it gives you peace of mind, go for it. Each to their own".

---

normanmark

Tinfish wrote: »

Norman wrote........:

"I think you're being a bit of a hypochondriac".

Hi Norman,
You can think what you want, but I've read a lot of the scientific research showing that cordless and mobiles are a health risk, especially for children.
If I took your attitude I'd let my kids carry on regardless using high radiation cordless phones and cell phones - which would increase their chances of getting brain cancer by a factor of five.
I suggest you read - with an open mind - what medical experts from around the world are saying, and rely less on your own theories >
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mobile-phone-use-raises-childrens-risk-of-brain-cancer-fivefold-937005.html

Regards

T.
----
---

You miss the most important point of the initial link in your first post.

However other scientists expressed doubts about the Swedish research.
One of the problems with studying the effects of mobile phone radiation is that it can take years for cancers to develop - perhaps much longer than mobile phones have so far been generally available.

The problem you have is there is no control group in all these tests given that 99% of people use mobiles now or things which emit these signals.
The point remains is that this evidence has not been proven whatsoever. So my point of being a hypochondriac stands quite valid. Until then you can read your scaremongering style Daily Mail articles (which doesn't even compare to anything when stating 'kids are 5 times more like to develop').

However don't complain if people post their views on this subject on a discussion board when they don't fit into the idealistic views that you may have on mobile phones and an apparant link to cancer.

normanmark

Tinfish wrote: »

Like I said, I fully expected this sort of reception on this forum. I mean, it is well known Sun-reader territory. Yet Heinz's comment (below) is hardly disagreeing with my point of view, neither was the chap who suggested that I buy a plugin-type phones rather that a cordless.

So you expect people to just read what you wrote & not contest it? I for one don't read the Sun & i don't read the Daily Mail thats for sure. Irrespective of what paper you read some common sense needs to be applied & that is of the sense that there is no evidence which proves that mobile phones cause cancer. Just a few scientists who have done some findings, which even other scientists are very skeptical about.

So get your facts right, please.

The irony is that the original point lacked any facts whatsoever.

Heinz

Tinfish wrote: »

Yet Heinz's comment (below) is hardly disagreeing with my point of view, neither was the chap who suggested that I buy a plugin-type phones rather that a cordless. So get your facts right, please.

Heinz wrote:
"if you can afford to pay £80 or so for a cordless phone which, without the 'low radiation switching' capability could be bought for £30 and it gives you peace of mind, go for it. Each to their own".

You appear to have your own way of interpreting what people say.

My '..... peace of mind, go for it' comment was merely meant to imply, "whatever floats your boat ......" not my agreement or disagreement.

KimYeovil

Guess you won't be taking your children to holiday in Cornwall or Wales, either. And don't let them near playparks - all those deathtrap swings and roundabouts. Don't forget charcoal filters for walking city streets. And don't drive them to school - terrible for their fitness.

I'm sure all these protections will keep them very healthy. (You may also want to start saving a trust fund to contribute to the psychologist's bills if they turn out to have an aversion to the bubble-wrapping.)

moonrakerz

As an ex-miltary man something in your list of “studies” that you reference caught my eye. You refer to “Kolodynski & Kolodynska, 1999: School children living near a radio location station in Latvia suffered reduced motor function, memory and attention spans” in support of your diatribe against “microwaves”.

Your use of this reference just shows that your knowledge of matters to do with radio frequencies is completely and utterly non-existent and that you are willing to believe any rubbish that is served up to support your argument. For a start “radio location stations” do not transmit anything – they listen !
AND you rubbished me for quoting something over 4 years old !

Kolodynski & Kolodynska actually refer to the one of the (in)famous “Woodpecker” or “Hen House” Radar sites at Skrunda. These were radio stations built by the Warsaw Pact for satellite tracking and for some unknown purposes (jamming ?)
These sites transmitted on frequencies in the range 156-162 Mhz or 10 - 40 Hz with a power output of up to 3 MW. This is NOT “microwave” frequency and was in fact very close to the VHF TV frequencies in use at that time.
These sites certainly posed a danger to people getting too close, as would any high powered radio/radar sites in use today. Your using this study to support your argument is like someone complaining about how dangerous pedal cycles are, then referencing a study into deaths caused by 44 tonne lorries !

Having mentioned TV:- my local TV mast transmits on a frequency of about half of the lowest frequency used by “mobiles” and about 4 times that of the site at Skrunda. Its power output is 500kW. Mobile phone masts transmit on about one ten thousandth of that power.

If you believe that mobile phones represent a hazard to you and your children, that is fine. You do what you think is right – but please don't quote rubbish to support this ! You are being conned, just as much as you are trying (perhaps innocently) to con others.

I referred to you being a possible "zealot" - I really do not understand why some people go to such lengths to "convert" others to their way of thinking. This applies equally to: this subject, nuclear power, global warming or (perhaps most of all !) religion !

Fini.

Stompa

Heinz wrote: »

That was my point about the internal aerial - I must be close to the transmitters (actually, I know the site is about 6 miles away pumping out ¼ million watts on 5 channels).

I have no idea how close the cellular mast is but my phone tells me signal strength maximum - so that must be close too.

Even so I'd hazard a guess that the levels would be many orders of magnitude less than those found in close proximity to a mobile/DECT phone transmitter.