RF biological hazards? (fwd)

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: RF biological hazards? (fwd)
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:43:33 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

----------
From:  Jim Lux [SMTP:jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net]
Sent:  Thursday, May 07, 1998 1:17 PM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: RF biological hazards? (fwd)

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 22:45:08 +0100
> From: R M Craven <craven-at-globalnet.co.uk>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Re: RF biological hazards? (fwd)
> 
> I am glad to see that a lot of people are commenting on this topic.
> 
> My original concern which has been adressed to a cetrtain extent is
> that the RMS heating effects, deep inside the body, might be doing
> unfelt harm.
> 
> I suppose one way that this could be investigated would be to get a
> joint of pork, uncooked, and then ensure a path to ground occurs via
> the meat. The temperature at some subcutaneous point could be measured
> (alcohol rather than Hg in glass thermometer). Assuming the pork is
> fatty, the inside would be thermally insulated so a protracted
> run-time would hopefully generate a measurable rise in temperature.

They've actually done this. That is how the recent specs for Specific
Absorption Rate were developed. They used lab animals with temperature
probes and "phantoms" in the RF field. The phantoms are supposed to be an
RF replica of the human body (or head) and are made with saline gelatin
(among other things), as well as what was interestingly described in one
paper as "a heterogenous composite of bovine muscle, fat,  and connective
tissue and bone". I'll be the latter was a uncooked roast with the bone in!