[LINK] Should Roger allow a PICO Cell Cube annex his Cat?

[Tom Koltai]

Joking aside, the research in this area is lacking.

Of course, whilst there are a plethora of service providers that would
like to prove the safety of RF and EMF (and whom have the money to fund
such research) there are very few philanthropically inspired individuals
whom would consider funding the other side of the equation.

The seminal work describing the problem would appear to emanate from
Paolo Vecchia, Dept of Technologies and Health, Roma, Italy. And I
quote: [from:
http://w3.tue.nl/fileadmin/sbd/Documenten/IRPA_refresher_courses/RF_base
sforexposure_limitsRC-6.pdf]


Quote/
Dosimetric quantifies
The entity of a given effect of EMF exposure is related not only to the
level of the external
field, but also to the coupling of the field with the exposed body, or
selected organs. The
quantitative relationship by which the external exposure affects a
biologically effective parameter of
the target tissue is unique to n single exposure condition. Therefore,
effects are better described by
quantities that reflect the efficacy by which the external exposure
causes a certain biological effect.
These are termed biologically effective quantities, or dosimetric
quantities.

Different dosimetric quantities have been identified as appropriate for
different interaction
mechanisms and biological effects. In general - but not always - these
quantities me internal to the
body and therefore cannot be directly measured. A correspondence shall
therefore be established
between biologically effective quantities and external fields, taking
exposure conditions in due
account. This is accomplished through theoretical and experimental
modelling techniques that
constitute what is called dosimetry, in analogy with toxicology and
ionizing radiation. However, no
universally accepted concept of dose has been established for EMFs, in
the absence of any
convincing evidence of cumulative exposure effects.

The critical effect
Once the adverse effects have been established, and related to the
exposure through the
appropriate biologically effective (dosimetric) quantity, it is
generally possible to rank them
according to the exposure level at which each becomes relevant. The
critical effect is the established
adverse effect that is relevant at the lowest level of exposure. 

The adoption of limits below the threshold for the critical  effect
provides. "a fortiori", protection against any other adverse effect that
has been scientifically identified.

/Quote

There you are, best practices would appear to afford "a fortiori"
protection for Rogers cat.

A fortiori? Well, as best as we can determine without having the funds
for detailed research to the contrary.

Best Practices would appear to be based on an annex to a similar report
in a joint statement from:

The Swedish National Board of Health,
The Swedish, Icelandic and Radiation Safety Authority's 
>From the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority 
>From the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority

Exposure of the general public to radiofrequency fields
http://www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/2009/fi_FI/news_578/_files/8246826942
4050267/default/ANNEX161109EMF.pdf

the problem Roger, is that Science just hadn't studied your cats
individual organs to see if they would 
get cumulatively fried by a Bluetooth Keyboard adaptor over 15 years, or
not.

So, whilst Governments publish safety standards:

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/Publications/codes/rps3.cfm

The reality according to the Italians, Swedes, Fins, Norwegians and
Icelanders is, 

We just don't know. 
I guess RF is a little bit like Asbestos. It's safe isn't it ? 
[http://www.adfa.org.au/asbestoshistory.html]