移动手机辐射:危险的保护
Tele-Talk新鲜的花,深入分析和观点从受人尊敬的行业领导者
India has over a billion cellphones and about 400,000 towers, with an approximate average of two sets of antennae per tower, radiating extremely low energy non-ionising electromagnetic fields (EMF). The common man incorrectly equates this mobile EMF, which is millions of times weaker than hi-energy ionising radiation like X-rays, gamma rays as harmful radiation.<\/p>
India has over a billion cellphones and about 400,000 towers, with an approximate average of two sets of antennae per tower, radiating extremely low energy non-ionising electromagnetic fields (EMF). The common man incorrectly equates this mobile EMF, which is millions of times weaker than hi-energy ionising radiation like X-rays, gamma rays as harmful radiation.<\/p> However, ignorant sections of the public get scared or concerned by the prospect of exposure to even this weakest of radiation emanating from a cellphone tower or cellphone.Obviously , this is a ripe situation for innovative businesses spawned by enterprising persons with somewhat flexible ethics and principles.<\/p>
Commerce will be commerce and innovative and legitimate business activities that provide products or service of genuine consumer benefit are always welcome. Small deficiencies in such enterprises may be pardoned. However, it is quite another matter if some businesses knowingly create unwarranted fear of a harmless product or service.<\/p>
That happens to be the case with extremely low energy cell radiation used by crooked operators to profit by selling products of very questionable effectiveness. These are cons and scams and need to be recognised and stopped to protect the consumer.<\/p>
Providers of so-called `radiation protection devices' display remarkable ingenuity . For example, one party provides an `end-to-end seamless solution'. The person would first launch a scaremongering tactic by offering to test a room in your house or office for radiation levels.<\/p>
Once you agree, he would produce his so-called `radiation testing instrument', which is made according to a suspect design and specifications, totally non-standard and not conforming to Indian or international specifications.<\/p>
The results using this gauge for your room would be shown to be totally unsatisfactory: radiation values for your test-case room being shown to limits that are not of national or international standard. The person would now assure you that he can protect you from the health hazard of cellphone towers by fitting a radiation protection film on the room's walls. Of course, this creates the basis for the person to sell both test gauges and the costly `protection film'.<\/p>
A study by the Corporate EME Research Laboratory and Motorola Florida Research Laboratories test ed nine different mobile phone radiation shields, five of which claimed to block `99% of cellphone radiation'. The other four shields were claimed to emit a `reverse radiation' that would `cancel out the harmful radiation from cellphones'.<\/p>
However, the study found that, actually , none of the shields had any effect on the amount of radiofrequency radiation a cellphone user is exposed to from his or her cellphone.Even the powerful Consumer Protection Agency of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have reported that there is no scientific proof that radiation shields reduce exposure to electromagnetic radiation. They warn that these products may actually increase the radiation the phones emit! It is interesting to note that even the concerned page on the FTC website, consumer.ftc.gov, is titled `Cell Phone Radiation Scams'. The FTC is not alone in publishing such alerts to consumers. In its standing advisory, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has clearly advised that \u201cthe use of commercial devices for reducing radiofrequency field exposure has not shown to be effective\u201c.<\/p>
It is significant that the companies marketing the `shields' brazenly state that the product has been tested by \u201creputed medical institutions in India and a lab in the UK\u201c, but they cannot produce any government certificate or a certificate by an expert standards body of repute.<\/p>
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (Arpansa) has said that there is no evidence to support the claimed safety benefits of the so-called `shielding' that are attached to the handset.<\/p>
Arpansa cautions consumers in its fact sheet that such devices could force handsets to work at higher power because they interfere with the mobile phone technology known as `automatic power control'. This automatically reduces the telephone's power to the lowest level to maintain the quality of the call.<\/p>
Arpansa has also warned consumers that the slew of `neutralising' products often sold in the form of pendants, necklaces or stickers to be placed on the back of the phones, also have no proven health benefits.Invariably , any so-called `radiation chip' or `shield' or `armour' fixed on the phone would make the phone work harder to catch the signal, thereby causing the phone to consume more power, get hotter and lose operational efficiency .<\/p>
India's mobile radiation limits have a 50,000% safety margin built into them. It is high time we moved strongly against unscrupulous persons who whip up baseless fears among the public and profit from commerce based on this.<\/p>
The writer is president, Broadband India Forum<\/p>","blog_img":"","posted_date":"2016-05-28 10:36:09","modified_date":"2016-06-01 11:47:05","featured":"0","status":"Y","seo_title":"Cellphone radiation: Dangers of mobile protection","seo_url":"cellphone-radiation-dangers-of-mobile-protection","url":"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/tele-talk\/cellphone-radiation-dangers-of-mobile-protection\/1526","url_seo":"cellphone-radiation-dangers-of-mobile-protection"}">
印度有超过十亿手机和大约400000塔,近似平均水平的两套天线塔,电离辐射极低能量(EMF)的磁场。一般人错误地把这个移动EMF,数百万倍低于高能量电离辐射x射线,伽马射线有害辐射。
然而,无知的部分公共害怕或担心暴露在这种弱的前景从手机发出的辐射的塔或手机。显然,这是一个成熟的情况下对创新企业催生了进取比较灵活的道德和原则的人。
商务部将商业和创新和合法的商业活动,提供产品或服务的消费者利益总是受欢迎的。小缺陷在这些企业可能会被赦免了。然而,它又是另外一回事,如果一些企业有意创建不必要的害怕一种无害的产品或服务。
恰好是这样与极低的能量细胞辐射被弯曲的运营商销售产品的利润非常可疑的有效性。这些都是缺点,诈骗和需要认可和停止,以保护消费者。
提供所谓的“辐射防护设备的显示非凡的创造力。例如,一方提供了一个端到端无缝的解决方案。人首先启动一个危言耸听的策略提供测试一个房间在你的房子或办公室的辐射水平。
一旦你同意,他会产生所谓的“辐射检测仪器”,这是根据嫌疑人的设计和规范,完全不规范和不符合印度或国际规范。
结果使用这个衡量你的房间将会证明是完全不满意:辐射值测试用例的房间被证明不限制国家或国际标准。现在的人会向你保证,他能够保护你手机塔通过合适的健康危害的辐射防护膜在房间的墙上。当然,这创造了人出售的基础测试仪表和昂贵的“保护膜”。
公司的一项研究电磁辐射研究实验室和摩托罗拉佛罗里达研究实验室测试ed九个不同的手机辐射盾牌,其中5家声称块99%的手机辐射。其他四个盾牌都声称发出“反向辐射”,将“抵消有害辐射的手机”。
然而,研究发现,实际上,没有一个盾牌有任何影响射频辐射的手机用户暴露在从他或她的手机。即使是强大的美国消费者保护机构和联邦贸易委员会(FTC)报道,没有科学证据证明辐射盾牌减少电磁辐射。他们警告说,这些产品实际上可能增加手机发出的辐射!有趣的是,即使是在联邦贸易委员会网站上关注页面,consumer.ftc.gov,标题是“手机辐射诈骗”。联邦贸易委员会并不是唯一向消费者发布这样的警报。站咨询,世界卫生组织(世卫组织)显然已经建议使用商业装置来降低射频场接触没有证明是有效的”。
值得注意的是,企业营销的“盾牌”无耻国家产品测试了“著名医疗机构在印度和英国的实验室”,但是他们不能产生任何政府证书或证书由一个专家标准的名声。
澳大利亚辐射防护和核安全机构(Arpansa)说,没有证据支持声称安全利益的所谓的“屏蔽”连接到手机。
Arpansa提醒消费者在其简报,这些设备可能会迫使手机在更高的力量,因为他们工作干扰手机技术被称为“自动功率控制”。这种自动降低了电话的权力维持最低水平的质量。
Arpansa还警告消费者,大量“中和”产品经常出售的形式吊坠,项链或贴纸放在后面的电话,也没有证明有益健康。总是,任何所谓的“辐射芯片”或“盾牌”或“盔甲”固定在电话里会使手机努力捕捉信号,从而导致手机消耗更多的力量,越来越热,失去操作效率。
印度的手机辐射限制都有内置的安全裕度50000%。是时候我们强烈反对不道德的人煽动毫无根据的担忧公众和商业基于这个获利。
作者是总统,宽带印度论坛
免责声明:作者的观点仅和ETTelecom.com不一定订阅它。乐动体育1002乐动体育乐动娱乐招聘乐动娱乐招聘乐动体育1002乐动体育ETTelecom.com不得负责任何损害任何个人/组织直接或间接造成的。
However, ignorant sections of the public get scared or concerned by the prospect of exposure to even this weakest of radiation emanating from a cellphone tower or cellphone.Obviously , this is a ripe situation for innovative businesses spawned by enterprising persons with somewhat flexible ethics and principles.<\/p>
Commerce will be commerce and innovative and legitimate business activities that provide products or service of genuine consumer benefit are always welcome. Small deficiencies in such enterprises may be pardoned. However, it is quite another matter if some businesses knowingly create unwarranted fear of a harmless product or service.<\/p>
That happens to be the case with extremely low energy cell radiation used by crooked operators to profit by selling products of very questionable effectiveness. These are cons and scams and need to be recognised and stopped to protect the consumer.<\/p>
Providers of so-called `radiation protection devices' display remarkable ingenuity . For example, one party provides an `end-to-end seamless solution'. The person would first launch a scaremongering tactic by offering to test a room in your house or office for radiation levels.<\/p>
Once you agree, he would produce his so-called `radiation testing instrument', which is made according to a suspect design and specifications, totally non-standard and not conforming to Indian or international specifications.<\/p>
The results using this gauge for your room would be shown to be totally unsatisfactory: radiation values for your test-case room being shown to limits that are not of national or international standard. The person would now assure you that he can protect you from the health hazard of cellphone towers by fitting a radiation protection film on the room's walls. Of course, this creates the basis for the person to sell both test gauges and the costly `protection film'.<\/p>
A study by the Corporate EME Research Laboratory and Motorola Florida Research Laboratories test ed nine different mobile phone radiation shields, five of which claimed to block `99% of cellphone radiation'. The other four shields were claimed to emit a `reverse radiation' that would `cancel out the harmful radiation from cellphones'.<\/p>
However, the study found that, actually , none of the shields had any effect on the amount of radiofrequency radiation a cellphone user is exposed to from his or her cellphone.Even the powerful Consumer Protection Agency of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have reported that there is no scientific proof that radiation shields reduce exposure to electromagnetic radiation. They warn that these products may actually increase the radiation the phones emit! It is interesting to note that even the concerned page on the FTC website, consumer.ftc.gov, is titled `Cell Phone Radiation Scams'. The FTC is not alone in publishing such alerts to consumers. In its standing advisory, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has clearly advised that \u201cthe use of commercial devices for reducing radiofrequency field exposure has not shown to be effective\u201c.<\/p>
It is significant that the companies marketing the `shields' brazenly state that the product has been tested by \u201creputed medical institutions in India and a lab in the UK\u201c, but they cannot produce any government certificate or a certificate by an expert standards body of repute.<\/p>
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (Arpansa) has said that there is no evidence to support the claimed safety benefits of the so-called `shielding' that are attached to the handset.<\/p>
Arpansa cautions consumers in its fact sheet that such devices could force handsets to work at higher power because they interfere with the mobile phone technology known as `automatic power control'. This automatically reduces the telephone's power to the lowest level to maintain the quality of the call.<\/p>
Arpansa has also warned consumers that the slew of `neutralising' products often sold in the form of pendants, necklaces or stickers to be placed on the back of the phones, also have no proven health benefits.Invariably , any so-called `radiation chip' or `shield' or `armour' fixed on the phone would make the phone work harder to catch the signal, thereby causing the phone to consume more power, get hotter and lose operational efficiency .<\/p>
India's mobile radiation limits have a 50,000% safety margin built into them. It is high time we moved strongly against unscrupulous persons who whip up baseless fears among the public and profit from commerce based on this.<\/p>
The writer is president, Broadband India Forum<\/p>","blog_img":"","posted_date":"2016-05-28 10:36:09","modified_date":"2016-06-01 11:47:05","featured":"0","status":"Y","seo_title":"Cellphone radiation: Dangers of mobile protection","seo_url":"cellphone-radiation-dangers-of-mobile-protection","url":"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/tele-talk\/cellphone-radiation-dangers-of-mobile-protection\/1526","url_seo":"cellphone-radiation-dangers-of-mobile-protection"},img_object:["","retail_files/author_1463649813_temp.jpg"],fromNewsletter:"",newsletterDate:"",ajaxParams:{action:"get_more_blogs"},pageTrackingKey:"Blog",author_list:"TV Ramachandran",complete_cat_name:"Blogs"});" data-jsinvoker_init="_override_history_url = "//www.iser-br.com/tele-talk/cellphone-radiation-dangers-of-mobile-protection/1526";">
