3 ms·
> an attenuation more than adequate to prevent the cell phone from working, is not nearly enough to assure a person's safety On the contrary, if the shielding
by chdir 12y ago
> an attenuation more than adequate to prevent the cell phone from working, is not nearly enough to assure a person's safety
On the contrary, if the shielding is ineffective to stop even the cell phone from working, can it be concluded that it definitely won't stop the 2.4GHz radiation. Hence there's a radiation leak.
Update: To answer my own comment, quoting from the source : "Traps and seals that work well at 2.45 GHz might not work so well at lower frequencies. It is true that apertures below cutoff have a shielding effectiveness that improves as frequencies get lower. However, the absorption loss associated with shielding materials gets worse at lower frequencies. Since microwave ovens operate in a very narrow frequency band, their shielding can also be narrow band.
"
- lutusp 12y ago>> an attenuation more than adequate to prevent the cell phone from working, is not nearly enough to assure a person's safety > On the contrary, if the shielding is ineffective to stop even the cell phone from working, can it be concluded that it definitely won't stop the 2.4GHz radiation. Hence there's a radiation leak. "On the contrary"? You ended up agreeing with me. > To answer my own comment, quoting from the source : "Traps and seals that work well at 2.45 GHz might not work so well at lower frequencies. The converse is also true. Depending on shield design, a shielding scheme meant for one frequency may not work at all well on another. My original claim was that the cell phone test is no assurance of microwave oven safety, for multiple reasons.