UTStarcom PCS1400, Руководство пользователя

Страница: 109 / 128

109
causes brain tumors or other ill effects. Their recommendation to limit wireless
phone use by children was strictly precautionary; it was not based on scientific
evidence that any health hazard exists.
9. Do hands-free kits for wireless phones reduce risks from
exposure to RF emissions?
Since there are no known risks from exposure to RF emissions from wireless
phones, there is no reason to believe that hands-free kits reduce risks. Hands-free
kits can be used with wireless phones for convenience and comfort.
These systems reduce the absorption of RF energy in the head because the phone,
which is the source of the RF emissions, will not be placed against the head. On
the other hand, if the phone is mounted against the waist or other part of the
body during use, then that part of the body will absorb more RF energy. Wireless
phones marketed in the U.S. are required to meet safety requirements regardless
of whether they are used against the head or against the body.
Either configuration should result in compliance with the safety limit.
10. Do wireless phone accessories that claim to shield the head
from RF radiation work?
Since there are no known risks from exposure to RF emissions from wireless
phones, there is no reason to believe that accessories that claim to shield the
head from those emissions reduce risks. Some products that claim to shield the
user from RF absorption use special phone cases, while others involve nothing
more than a metallic accessory attached to the phone. Studies have shown that
these products generally do not work as advertised. Unlike "hand-free" kits,
these so-called "shields" may interfere with proper operation of the phone. The
phone may be forced to boost its power to compensate, leading to an increase in
RF absorption. In February 2002, the Federal trade Commission (FTC) charged
two companies that sold devices that claimed to protect wireless phone users
from radiation with making false and unsubstantiated claims. According to FTC,
these defendants lacked a reasonable basis to substantiate their claim.
SAFETY