Re: Dangers of SSTCs ! ! ! Measured

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Jim Lux by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>

There's also a power absorption in a volume issue, not just a surface power 
density (at the neuron or elsewhere) issue.  Inasmuch as the body is a 
fairly good conductor at <1 MHz, you probably are more concerned about 
current density than E field.

The actually observed effects from high power RF fields (excluding RF 
shocks/burns) in humans at lowish frequencies have tended to be from bulk 
resistive heating, particularly in ankles and wrists: low "conductive" 
cross section compared to all the bone around them, so the current density 
is high, and the thermal effects are more prominent.

There's a fascinating report from the Air Force on all this that covers it 
in excruciating detail. I posted the link a few months back.

At 07:37 AM 3/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" 
><Mddeming-at-aol-dot-com>
>
>
>Hi All,
>The problem with EM radiation is not the number of watts output power, but 
>rather watts/mm^2 or perhaps watt-hrs/mm^2 measured AT the surface of the 
>neurons. Just as the light from a 5-watt laser focused into a 0.1mm^2 beam 
>at a distance of 1cm will feel different than that from a thousand-watt 
>lightbulb at 2 meters, so a 1/2 watt uhf transmitter held against the 
>skull for several hours every day over years MIGHT or might not have more 
>effect than a 20KW Tesla coil at 10 meters several minutes a week. 
>Frequency, power density, and duration would seem to be the relevant 
>variables for study. Any volunteers? ;-)
>
>Matt D.