[Ti] Laptop Health Warning!

[Bob Jacobsen]

At 5:23 PM -0600 11/23/02, luke wrote:
>On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 02:54  PM, Bob Jacobsen wrote:
>
>>So let's be quantitative about "much".  The induced potentials of 
>>the maximum RF power density allowed by regulation (which is much 
>>larger than typical doses, including when transmitting antennae are 
>>placed against the head or lap) is more than a factor of 100,000 
>>smaller than typical cellular potentials,
>
>cellular potentials being RF inside of cells?  Do normal healthy 
>human cells generally emit or naturally contain RF?  It seems like 
>you are saying that cells somehow generate / broadcast RF GREATER 
>than that of the cellphone... ??  Potential?

Yes, they do.

_Anything_ that's at room temperature radiates EMF.  Most of that is 
in the "long infrared", but it extends all the way down through 
microwaves to the wavelengths we've been talking about.  Those 
amplitudes are quite small.

But for cells, there's a more important process.  Cells maintain an 
"ion potential" by moving ions (individually and as molecules) across 
their boundaries.  Basically, they're sweeping certain things out, 
and pulling others in.  Because cells are small, the charge of 
individual ions is not negligible.  As the number of ions inside and 
outside change due to the random nature of the transport, the 
difference in potential changes.  This doesn't radiate in the same 
way that cell phone signals do, but that doesn't matter; it still 
effects the voltage inside the cell.  And it's _much_ larger than the 
max voltage within regulatory limits.

>>and more than a factor of 500 smaller than the fluctuations in 
>>those potentials due to living at room temperature.
>
>does room temperature create a state wherein RF is less stable?  The 
>potential from the cells?  What would be a good source for me to 
>read about the cellular potentials of which you specifically 
>mentioned?

I don't have the references with me on a Saturday night, but perhaps 
a good starting point would be the series of articles in Nature 
during 1999-2000.  They were in the science news section, and provide 
a good overview.

>>So "it doesn't take much", but the effects being talked about in 
>>this thread are very, very, very too small to be considered enough.
>
>the 'effects' of the electronics in Ti books is EASILY felt by 
>anyone who's willing to stop by my place and rest their finger on my 
>Ti book's chassis...

Not as radio energy, it isn't.  And you've been exposed to heat since 
the day you were born; your ancestors have been dealing with it for 
10's of thousands of years.

>If the 'potential' of the battery (which is enough to kill you if 
>attached to you heart) is being converted into other forms and or 
>states of energy (and dissipating in 2 hours or less) - are we 
>saying that "there is NO MEASURABLE  affect on one's health"?

If somebody cut you open to attach your PowerBook battery to your 
heart, you're already dead.  That's about as meaningful as saying 
that your PowerBook would be dangerous if it feel out of a tree on 
you.

As to measurable effect - yes, I am saying that for within-regulation 
RF limits.  The US has spend 10's of M$ studying this, and no 
_measurable_ risk to health in the general population has been 
identified.  Does that mean there isn't one? No.  Nor that one won't 
someday be measured. But today, there is no agreed-to evidence that 
such has been measured.

>and are we stating it as an indisputable fact?  And are we saying 
>that we understand the phenomenon life to the degree that we can 
>state, as indisputable fact, that the RF in mobile electronics etc. 
>have ONLY positive, beneficial, or neutral effects, with NO adverse 
>affects whatsoever?

That of course is a different standard.  You're welcome to stick to 
it, but I suggest you turn off your electric lights as a first step 
in dealing with the risk.

>>A good place to start is to actually study the scientific literature on this.
>
>Suggestions?

See above.  A visit to the physics department library at your local 
college or university will find that and others.

>>What you'll find is that most of the popular statements are known 
>>to be over-wrought to the point of fear-mongering.
>
>sometimes statements are just stated as conceptual conversational 
>possibilities and sometimes the fearful blow things out of 
>proportion...
>
>my original questions:
>
>my question would be - Is the 'heat' purely radiated infrared [thermal] heat?

Purely?  Of course not.  99%? Sure.  99.9%? Probably.  Etc.

Perhaps you see the problem.  "Purely", "indisputable", etc are words 
that have meanings.  If that is really your standard, which is your 
right, then you _should_ be concerned.  But if you're honest and 
consistent, you should be _much_ more concerned about other things.

>  os does the computer emit any radio frequency waves of a high 
>enough power to cause cumulative disruption of normal cellular 
>functioning after considerably long exposure?

We have measurements covering years of exposure in certain 
populations: We have comparative studies of kitchen staff in 
commercial kitchens with and without microwave ovens, covering in 
some cases 14 years; no effect.  We have epidemiological studies of 
10's of thousands of users of military radio and radar systems; no 
clear effect.  We have preliminary results from a large EU study of 
cell-phone users; a slight positive effect, which may well be due to 
the few hundred people who used them to call for medical help in 
life-threatening situations.

>after all - don't microwave ovens use high frequency 
>electro-magnetic waves to cook food?

If you put cake batter in a 30 degree oven for 400 minutes instead of 
a 300 degree oven for 40 minutes, do you still get a cake?

If you put your hand on a stove burner, you get burned.  Does this 
mean you have a long-term risk from putting your hand on a 70 degree 
table top?

>>Bob Jacobsen (Bob_Jacobsen at lbl.gov, 510-486-7355, fax 510-495-2957)
>
>Respectfully,
>Luke Mazzeri (my credentials, if any, are not impressive, and will 
>unquestionably have no more significance in 300 years than laptops 
>and cellphones themselves)

In 300 years, mine probably won't matter either.  But today, I'm a 
professor of physics at Berkeley, and I do know something about this.
-- 
--------------
Bob Jacobsen (Bob_Jacobsen at lbl.gov, 510-486-7355, fax 510-495-2957)