When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
respect and, consequently, safer?

TIA,
-- 
Martyn Tindall
Leeds, England, United Kingdom

"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in 
message news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net...
> When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
> possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
> more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
> bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
> can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
> ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
> assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
> respect and, consequently, safer?

You may find this site interesting:

http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/wireless/dect/dect_basics.php

I appreciate it doesn't answer your main questions but it gives an overview 
of the workings of DECT phones.

"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in 
message news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net...
> When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
> possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
> more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
> bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
> can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
> ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
> assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
> respect and, consequently, safer?
>
> TIA,
> -- 
> Martyn Tindall
> Leeds, England, United Kingdom

Any radiation exposure for long periods of time will cause harm.  It doesn't 
matter what mode the transmission is, whether it's AM/FM/SSB/CW/DATA MODES. 
What matters is power level and how close you are to it, also for how long 
and what frequencies are used.  Warnings have been on transmitters for at 
least 60+ years!
Don't be too worried or paranoid, I haven't seen any real evidence that a 
cordless phone has made anyone ill or killed them yet.  That's excluding 
scroungers after money or people who will find an excuse for everything.

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:58:09 +0100, "Rob"  wrote:

>
>"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in 
>message news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net...
>> When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
>> possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
>> more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
>> bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
>> can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
>> ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
>> assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
>> respect and, consequently, safer?
>>
>> TIA,
>> -- 
>> Martyn Tindall
>> Leeds, England, United Kingdom
>
>Any radiation exposure for long periods of time will cause harm.  It doesn't 
>matter what mode the transmission is, whether it's AM/FM/SSB/CW/DATA MODES. 
>What matters is power level and how close you are to it, also for how long 
>and what frequencies are used.  Warnings have been on transmitters for at 
>least 60+ years!
>Don't be too worried or paranoid, I haven't seen any real evidence that a 
>cordless phone has made anyone ill or killed them yet.  That's excluding 
>scroungers after money or people who will find an excuse for everything.
>
>
Thanks, that seems reasonable.  I don't pretend to understand the
technology, but I remember reading that the power level used by DECT
'phones is high and remains high for the duration of the call.
Apparently mobiles adjust the level down to the minimum required to
maintain contact with the mast.  Is that your understanding?

Regards,
Martyn
-- 
Martyn Tindall
Leeds, England, United Kingdom

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:43:09 GMT, "John Riggs"
 wrote:

>
>"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in 
>message news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net...
>> When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
>> possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
>> more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
>> bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
>> can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
>> ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
>> assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
>> respect and, consequently, safer?
>
>You may find this site interesting:
>
>http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/wireless/dect/dect_basics.php
>
>I appreciate it doesn't answer your main questions but it gives an overview 
>of the workings of DECT phones.
>
Thanks, I'll have a look.

Regards,
Martyn
-- 
Martyn Tindall
Leeds, England, United Kingdom

"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in 
message news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net...
> When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
> possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
> more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
> bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
> can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
> ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
> assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
> respect and, consequently, safer?
>
> TIA,
> -- 
> Martyn Tindall
> Leeds, England, United Kingdom

Analog cordless phones should not be used as they can be picked up on an 
ordinary radio scanner (29 & 31 MHz).

In article , Mike GW8IJT
 scribeth thus
>"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in 
>message news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net...
>> When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
>> possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
>> more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
>> bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
>> can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
>> ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
>> assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
>> respect and, consequently, safer?
>>
>> TIA,
>> -- 
>> Martyn Tindall
>> Leeds, England, United Kingdom
>
>Analog cordless phones should not be used as they can be picked up on an 
>ordinary radio scanner (29 & 31 MHz).
>
>

1.8 odd and 49 I believe?..
-- 
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
news:SkY3HRSBJOGIFwqu@bancom.co.uk...
> In article , Mike GW8IJT
>  scribeth thus
>>"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in
>>message news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net...
>>> When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
>>> possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to 
>>> be
>>> more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
>>> bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
>>> can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
>>> ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
>>> assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
>>> respect and, consequently, safer?
>>>
>>> TIA,
>>> -- 
>>> Martyn Tindall
>>> Leeds, England, United Kingdom
>>
>>Analog cordless phones should not be used as they can be picked up on 
>>an
>>ordinary radio scanner (29 & 31 MHz).
>>
>>
>
> 1.8 odd and 49 I believe?..

The original CT1 phones used 1.6/1.7 MHz & 47 MHz.

Eight more channel pairs were later added at 31 & 39/40 MHz.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/publication/ra_info/ra193.htm

Martin

"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in 
message news:48178481.1129687@news.individual.net...
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:58:09 +0100, "Rob"  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in
>>message news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net...
>>> When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
>>> possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
>>> more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
>>> bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
>>> can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
>>> ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
>>> assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
>>> respect and, consequently, safer?
>>>
>>> TIA,
>>> -- 
>>> Martyn Tindall
>>> Leeds, England, United Kingdom
>>
>>Any radiation exposure for long periods of time will cause harm.  It 
>>doesn't
>>matter what mode the transmission is, whether it's AM/FM/SSB/CW/DATA 
>>MODES.
>>What matters is power level and how close you are to it, also for how long
>>and what frequencies are used.  Warnings have been on transmitters for at
>>least 60+ years!
>>Don't be too worried or paranoid, I haven't seen any real evidence that a
>>cordless phone has made anyone ill or killed them yet.  That's excluding
>>scroungers after money or people who will find an excuse for everything.
>>
>>
> Thanks, that seems reasonable.  I don't pretend to understand the
> technology, but I remember reading that the power level used by DECT
> 'phones is high and remains high for the duration of the call.

So thats why I need a sodding great battery in my mobile, and even though 
its pretty new, it seems to go flat pretty quickly when talking, but 
unfortunatly my missus can talk for hours and hours on two crappy AAA cells 
in the DECT phone!. If you are really worried you can get low radiation DECT 
phones from here:-

http://www.lowradiation.co.uk/index.php?id=focus

> Apparently mobiles adjust the level down to the minimum required to
> maintain contact with the mast.  Is that your understanding?

Unfortunatley radition is governed by something called the "inverse square 
law". That is the power required increases with the square of the distance. 
So ignoring the walls (which do absorb a lot of power) if all other things 
are equal, I would guess that your mobile is say 100 times further from the 
mast than your DECT is from the base station (3 yards againts 300 yards 
perhaps), then the power required is 100x100 = 10,000 as much. You may see 
this factor (10,000) written as 40db in technical press. So yes it will 
adjust to minimum transmitted power, but typically the power needed will be 
higher than for a DECT phone, the power of which is deliberatly restricted 
to allow re-use of frequencies in a much smaller area than GSM/3G.

The good point to this is that for a fixed level of transmit the power 
recevied decreases with the square of the distance. So double the 
separation, reduces the expousre level to 1/4 of the original distance. This 
means  "small" increaes in separation greatly reduce radiation exposure. Get 
a DECT with a speaker feature (my old Philips work really well in this mode) 
and then leave it on the chair arm or  table top whilst in use. That will 
greatly reduce your exposure. As they run at full power put the base unit 
that radiates all the time some where "out of the way" (mine is in the hall, 
there is a thick wall between me and the hall). The loft may be a good place 
but you may increase expose while sleeping...

>
> Regards,
> Martyn
> -- 
> Martyn Tindall
> Leeds, England, United Kingdom

Martyn Tindall wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:58:09 +0100, "Rob"  wrote:
> 
>> "Martyn Tindall"  wrote in 
>> message news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net...
>>> When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
>>> possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
>>> more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
>>> bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
>>> can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
>>> ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
>>> assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
>>> respect and, consequently, safer?
>>>
>>> TIA,
>>> -- 
>>> Martyn Tindall
>>> Leeds, England, United Kingdom
>> Any radiation exposure for long periods of time will cause harm.  It doesn't 
>> matter what mode the transmission is, whether it's AM/FM/SSB/CW/DATA MODES. 
>> What matters is power level and how close you are to it, also for how long 
>> and what frequencies are used.  Warnings have been on transmitters for at 
>> least 60+ years!
>> Don't be too worried or paranoid, I haven't seen any real evidence that a 
>> cordless phone has made anyone ill or killed them yet.  That's excluding 
>> scroungers after money or people who will find an excuse for everything.
>>
>>
> Thanks, that seems reasonable.  I don't pretend to understand the
> technology, but I remember reading that the power level used by DECT
> 'phones is high and remains high for the duration of the call.
> Apparently mobiles adjust the level down to the minimum required to
> maintain contact with the mast.  Is that your understanding?
> 

DECT power levels are 10 mW for the handset and around 
100mW for the base.
There's at least one company supplying systems to the 
worried that will vary power levels.
http://www.lowradiation.co.uk/
I believe analogue cordless power levels are about the 
same, on average.  DECT handsets will hit higher peak 
levels, but measurements of exposure are based on 
average power absorption.
Analogue sets may use lower frequencies with greater 
penetration into the body.
This is explained in a little more detail here:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733767519

GSM handset max power level is typically 2W, reducing 
in steps to around 3 mW
(PCS levels are 1W and 1mW).  They vary power levels 
both to minimise interference and to conserve battery 
power.

Unless you're standing next to a mast, a GSM mobile 
will nearly always be transmitting at a higher power 
than DECT.

>GSM handset max power level is typically 2W, reducing 
>in steps to around 3 mW
>(PCS levels are 1W and 1mW).  They vary power levels 
>both to minimise interference and to conserve battery 
>power.
>
>Unless you're standing next to a mast, a GSM mobile 
>will nearly always be transmitting at a higher power 
>than DECT.
>
Underneath a mast the levels will be very low. They don't "aim" their
aerials there;!...

-- 
Tony Sayer

In news:48163fb8.1401444@news.individual.net,
Martyn Tindall  typed, for 
some strange, unexplained reason:
: When DECT 'phones appeared, I recall concerns were voiced about a
: possible threat to health from the radiation, which was claimed to be
: more dangerous than that from mobiles.  Partly for this reason, I
: bought analog cordless 'phones.  Are there any boffins out there who
: can explain the basics of cordless 'phone radiation to me and,
: ideally, shed some light on the safety issue?  And am I right to
: assume that analog 'phones are quite different to DECT ones in this
: respect and, consequently, safer?
:
: TIA,

Here we go again. You're far more likely to be killed by being run over by 
a bus than to suffer any ill effects from a phone, whatever type it is.

Yawn......


Ivor

"Martyn Tindall"  wrote in 
message news:48178481.1129687@news.individual.net...
>
> Thanks, that seems reasonable.  I don't pretend to understand the
> technology, but I remember reading that the power level used by DECT
> 'phones is high and remains high for the duration of the call.
> Apparently mobiles adjust the level down to the minimum required to
> maintain contact with the mast.  Is that your understanding?

That's correct. In addition, DECT base stations transmit continuously, even 
when the handset is not in use. Orchid make a low radiation DECT phone which 
breaks this norm: http://www.lowradiation.co.uk/

Oliver.