[LINK] Mobile Phone for USO - Was NBN low income scheme

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Frank O'Connor
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2011 1:22 PM
> To: Jan Whitaker
> Cc: link at anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] NBN low income scheme
> 
> Agreed,
> 
> And as I said a few months back, if the NBN wants to provide 
> an 'always on' guarantee for the phone service then the 
> cheapest and most convenient way to do this would not be to 
> install a battery that has to be replaced every few years, it 
> would be to provide a cheap and basic mobile phone and 
> charger for NBN users who need same and/or don't have a 
> mobile of their own. ($50-60 unit cost in Dick Smith ... 
> probably way less if purchased in bulk with specialised SIM's 
> keyed to whatever telco the NBN elects to use)

Um a couple of points. In most of Metropolitan Australia (93% of the
population), the Power Grid now has very few blackouts necessitating the
use of Standby or backup power options. 

In Country areas whwere Brownouts and lightning outages are more
commonplace, the NBN will be delivered by high frequency microwave.

> There are smart and stupid ways to guarantee basic phone 
> service ... and we should look for the cheapest, most 
> reliable and convenient ones before we recommend huge capital 
> outlays that may or may not work and which require 
> maintenance and replacement overheads that are probably not 
> cost-effective.
> 

A difficult to solve conundrum.

Many years ago, a member of this list and one of Australia's eminent
Journalists, (Stewart Fist) championed the scenario that Mobile Phones
were a source of possible Cancer causing RF emissions.

Earlier this year, the WHO suggested that mobile phones were possibly
carcinogenic to humans, based on an increased risk for glioma, a
malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.[1]

Last week, the World Health Organisation decided that the methodology
used for Testing RF Emissions, i.e.: a 2 metre tall 100+ Kilo Male was
probably not suitably average in build to use as the testing model.
(Paper d.o.i. ref and Abstract at [2])

Possibly anything promoting low frequency penetrating RF emissions now
conclusively demonstrated to be causal in increased risk of gliomas
should possibly not be offered as a USO (alternative) by a Government
organisation. 

Governments job is generally to protect the population.

Maybe we could just leave the copper in place.

References:

[1] IARC Press Report
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf AND Video:
(4 videos)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fcc-test-measure-cellphone-radiation-cancer
-risk-flawed/story?id=14750275 

[2] Paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21999884 
Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation,
especially in children.
Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, de Salles AA, Han YY, Herberman RB, Davis DL.
doi:10.3109/15368378.2011.622827
Source

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah,
Salt Lake City , Utah , USA.
Abstract

The existing cell phone certification process uses a plastic model of
the head called the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM),
representing the top 10% of U.S. military recruits in 1989 and greatly
underestimating the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for typical mobile
phone users, especially children. A superior computer simulation
certification process has been approved by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) but is not employed to certify cell phones. In the
United States, the FCC determines maximum allowed exposures. Many
countries, especially European Union members, use the "guidelines" of
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP),
a non governmental agency. Radiofrequency (RF) exposure to a head
smaller than SAM will absorb a relatively higher SAR. Also, SAM uses a
fluid having the average electrical properties of the head that cannot
indicate differential absorption of specific brain tissue, nor
absorption in children or smaller adults. The SAR for a 10-year old is
up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model. When electrical
properties are considered, a child's head's absorption can be over two
times greater, and absorption of the skull's bone marrow can be ten
times greater than adults. Therefore, a new certification process is
needed that incorporates different modes of use, head sizes, and tissue
properties. Anatomically based models should be employed in revising
safety standards for these ubiquitous modern devices and standards
should be set by accountable, independent groups.