[Ti] Laptop Health Warning!

[Bob Jacobsen]

At 3:38 PM -0500 11/23/02, MBurke6225 at aol.com wrote:
>Current scientific thought is uncertain about electromagnetic force effects
>on physiology, and the ever shifting standards reflect that uncertainty.

There is certainly some uncertainty.  But there is also a lot that's 
well understood.  This aspect of science is often misrepresented to 
people; just because things change on the margin is no reason to 
assume that well-established things should not be used as the basis 
for decisions.

For example, although Newton's theory of motion was eventually 
replaced by Einstein's, all of the machines designed using Newton's 
laws still worked.  The earlier theory wasn't as accurate as the 
newer one, but it still was quite predictive.

We _know_ that current cell-phone power densities in the few-GHz 
range don't cause cellular changes that result in cancer rate 
increases of more than 0.07% in general populations of hundreds of 
thousands of people.  It's unlikely that result will be invalidated.

Most of the changes in regulatory standards, at least in this area, 
have not been based on measurements of effects, but rather based on 
citizen pressure & improved technology of measurement and deployment. 
In the EM standards area, I'm not aware of a regulatory change in the 
last 19 years that's been due to a measured biological effect.

>
>Until science finds the causal focus -  with anything electronic we should
>just exercise discretion.   It could be nothing or it could be an atomic
>bullet.   Anyway, a laptop is not meant to be a lap warmer that's why we have
>dogs.

Discretion is a good idea.  That includes balancing risk & reward, 
and developing a real understanding of the science that _does_ tell 
us about these technologies.

An example:  I live in Berkeley, California, one of the most 
irrational environmental communities on the planet.  There is 
currently a moratorium on cell-phone tower construction here, due to 
concerns over EM radiation and effect on people's views of the bay. 
Residents continue to use cellphones.  Having the towers located out 
of town results in _increased_ dosage to the residents, as modern PCS 
phones raise their output power to make connections.

Example 2:  Until recently, the city emergency services were unable 
to mount their transmitters on a sufficiently tall downtown tower, 
resulting in limited coverage in the north-east hills.  This 
occasionally resulted in ambulance crews being delayed in calling for 
medical advice while responding. In at least one case, the crew had 
to borrow a landline phone from a nearby homeowner to get clearance 
to start a procedure.  Although I've never seen a formal study, I'd 
be willing to bet that the increased risk of death from poor EMS 
communications is _much_ larger than the risk of the EM radiation.

Bob
-- 
--------------
Bob Jacobsen (Bob_Jacobsen at lbl.gov, 510-486-7355, fax 510-495-2957)