Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: amdcad!amdcad.AMD.COM!rpw3@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Rob Warnock) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Possible Cancer Risk from Cellular Phones? Message-ID: Date: 30 Mar 89 04:07:58 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: [Consultant] San Mateo, CA Lines: 20 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 115, message 2 of 8 In article Ron Natalie writes: +--------------- | of these relatively low power levels (3 watts for cellular, 1-5 watts for ham +--------------- Note that all of the portable (handheld) cellulars I have seen are 600 mw max. [It's the transportables (luggables) that are 3 watts.] Is this to keep down the human exposure? ...or just to keep down battery drain? ;-} Also note that unlike ham and police radios, with handheld cellular the antenna tends to be held not in front of your face but off to the back/side of your head. [Given 1/R^2, a *lot* farther from your eyes...] Rob Warnock Systems Architecture Consultant UUCP: {amdcad,fortune,sun}!redwood!rpw3 DDD: (415)572-2607 USPS: 627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94403