snip

Regarding RF, have irrational phobias by all means if they make you feel
better. Sure too much exposure IS harmful, but there are SAR limits that
are waaaaay below that. There is also the inverse square law of physics
and our logarithmic relationships to sensory stimulus.


This is an interesting one, Adrian. My father-in-law worked for many years
for a government wireless department, which included overseas postings. He
worked in the proximity of moderately high powered HF transmitters - but not
so close to the antenna systems that you would imagine that the radiated RF
could be any kind of problem.

Over the years that I knew him, I lost count of the number of his colleagues
that literally dropped dead from heart attacks. No warnings. No previously
known health problems. Sadly, my father-in-law also finally succumbed to the
same fate. He was only in his mid fifties, reasonably trim and fit, didn't
drink and didn't smoke. There had been no warnings prior to the event, that
anything was wrong. He simply dropped down on the golf course from a massive
coronary, and died a few hours later in hospital, after suffering two more.

Rationally, as a person of science and a licensed ham radio operator who has
a fairly good working understanding of RF and its dangers, I should be
saying that it is pure coincidence, but I've always had this nagging doubt
that maybe *prolongued* exposure to even weak field strengths, even at the
relatively low frequencies of the HF bands, may do more physiological damage
than we believe ...

Arfa


Trying to reason with reference to the 'evils of corporate concerns' is
frankly a smoke screen to something else that you haven't yet understood,
and is not really a sensible starting point to a serious debate about
product safety.

--
Adrian C