OK, I came up with a third, from Electronic Works
Relevant stuff,
Again, this is cause for concern? 5 friggen centimeters? Ok, Ok, 25 centimeters, but still.
I think the signs, and the policy, are a sham.
That’s right, until you READ THEM! Because beneath the surface, they don’t.
However, I can see that the opinions of people who work in hospitals and have some familiarity with the issues, AND the information in your own purported supporting cites, does not convince you.
So I give up. Believe what you want, just obey the posted signs out of courtesy if nothing else.
What is it that you want, yojimboguy? Seriously.
I’ve given, so far, three different sites that state unequivocally that the reported, or perceived, threat that cell phones pose to critical hospital equipment is infinitesimally low, if almost non-existent.
Sure, there is a threat, but you’d have to be so close to the susceptible equipment that it’s almost absurd to think it’d happen. And even given that, there’s far more things that seem to pose a risk to the equipment that singling out cell phones alone, to me, is ridiculous and a sham.
Show me a site that says otherwise. Show me something, outside of your own anecdotal observations, that state that the figures presented, and the conclusions drawn, are completely wrong or flawed. Then I’d be willing to back down more. Until then, I’ll be content in telling the hospital staff to buzz off when using my cell phone in a hospital.
One final link, since I’ve been searching on this subject and continue to think I’m right. From the American Anethesiologists Newsletter - May 2002
Again, relevant snippets,
Come on, doctors can use them but not visitors?
Sham city.
I don’t need to find any cites if my own when yours are making my point so well
Your first cite says (why do I need to repeat this?):
Your second cite says:
Your third cite reports that 4 of 33 medical devices (12%) showed “disruption of critical function” at a distance of 25cm or greater.
None of these sites has specified a distance beyond which cell phones are unambiguously safe, or beyond which they detected no interference. They ALL say, the closer the cell phone, the more chance of interference, and vice versa.
What I want is for you to understand that these are in no way “infinitesimally low, if almost non-existent.” When you are in the midst of dozens or hundreds of patients and pieces of medical equipment, and dozens or hundreds of calls made each day, that means there is a virtual certainty there will be DAILY interference of one level or another. Patients and gear might be in front of you. They might be upstairs, or downstairs, and completely out of your sight. There might be communications cables running under your feet, which themselves are subject to interference.
You are right that it is unlikely that your cell phone call is unlikely to cause a problem. I assume you have a PCS phone? , since that was the technology specified as being safer.
You are also right that every electronic device generates fields which can possibly cause such interference. Hospitals deal with this by testing and controlling their own equipment as much as practical.
You’re just flat out wrong characterizing such rules as a “sham”.
And, I’m sorry, but I would have loved to be a witness to the “uncommanded movement of a motorized wheelchair” incident.
Not only isn’t it particularily dangerous, it could be fun!
Sorry, sorry, we’re trying to be serious, I know.
Again, yojimboguy (And it’d be nice if these posts came in the order they were meant), the numbers we’re talking about are pretty damn low. Maybe not infinitesimal, like I said, but damn close, if you ask me.
A couple of points, since we seem to be back to being somewhat civil.
So what? There’s any number of things that are “known source[s] of interference” in a hospital setting, cell phones only representing a small proportion of that figure.
For instance (And only as a single example): How come I don’t see paramedics, ambulance staff, and others, remove their walki-talkies when they enter the ER? It’s been shown without a doubt that it interferes with equipment more than cell phones.
Why? Because, as the sites I provided have shown, they’d have to be right smack next to the equipment for a problem to result.
I’d venture to guess- and it’s only a guess- that it’s been so infinitesimal a problem that removing their them isn’t warranted, or even reasonable.
But again, that’s only one example and only one situation, I’m sure they’re are countless others out there.
I admit, they’re are situations where cell phones create EMF disturbances, that’s not a point of contention with me. But come on, does it really warrant the level of concern and regulation that exists today?
I don’t think so. And I think I’ve provided sites that back up that sentiment.
Personally, and with only a bit of evidence, I think the policy was implemented out of perceived problems that never arose, and that never will, along with simple apathy and the notion that the status quo is good for all.
I say nonsense.
There are a lot of reasons to limit cell phone uses in certain areas of the hospital, for various reasons. But saying it endangers the lives of patients and others is a bit of a misnomer, if you ask me.
The risk of killing someone certainly is very low, but then again the risk of killing someone from milli-amp level currents induced through the power system is also very low. And yet when you go into hospitals, look for all of the special red outlets in use for isolated power so that these small currents don’t kill people. You’ll even find ammeters placed throughout the hospital so that they can measure the potential fault current, which has to be kept to something like 6 microamps or less (that number is from memory so it could be wrong). Hospitals traditionally go to great lengths to prevent even the rarest of circumstances from harming a patient. Cell phones shouldn’t be any different.
The more likely danger is that you are going to screw up someone’s monitoring equipment. If I worked in a hospital and had to rush to a room to find out if a patient was ok just because some numnutz decided to violate the no cell phone rule I’d be a little irate to say the least.
I’m sure most equipment is fairly immune unless you are right on top of it, but I know certain types of measurements are looking for very weak electrical signals from the body. A cell phone is going to play hell with this type of circuitry.
Walkie-talkies do interfere with equipment. On the other hand, the people who use them are trained to be aware of the fact that this does happen, so they are smart enough (one would hope) not to use a walkie talkie next to a piece of critical equipment. The average visitor to a hospital doesn’t get this training and wouldn’t know the difference between what kinds of equipment was sensitive and what wasn’t, so why not just ban the only piece of equipment that a visitor is likely to carry which generates a huge amount of RF (compared to most electrical devices)? Personally I think the sign should read “cell phones and 2 way radios” since some people do carry personal walkie talkies these days but those are rare.
I don’t think they need to be banned from the entire hospital, but they should be banned at least from the patient areas.
I think they should be banned. Sorry if I don’t have any cites to back it up other than pointing to the electrical engineering degree hanging on my wall and 14 years of design experience to go with it (about 2 years of which involved designing medical and neurobiology research equipment).
If there is the slightest possibility that they could cause a problem then why allow it? Hospital communication worked before mobile phones came into being. Mobiles are not necessary - people are in hospital to get better and that comes first. If there is 100% proof that mobiles never, ever cause problems (forget from 25cm, I want there to be no chance whatsoever) then fair enough, until then we should (IMHO) keep them out of hospitals.
This is an impossible standard of proof, and really can’t be used.
CnoteChris, you are simply miscalculating the risks involved. It is apparently no longer “100% bullshit” or “infinitesimal”, as you’ve backed off from these statements. Yet is still a “sham” and “misnomer” that these might endanger patients?
I shall quote in full an Industry Incident Alert issued recently in the UK :-
" Shell have issued the following warning following three separate incidents :
1 Phone was placed on boot ( trunk ) lid during fuelling , it rang and the ensuing fire destoyed the fire and pump.
2 An individual sufferd burns to the face when fumes ignited as he answered a call durin fuelling
3 An individual suffered burns to the thigh and groin as fumes ignited when the phone , which was in his pocket , rang during refuelling.
Lessons Learned:
IT IS A MISCONCEPTION THAT MOBILE PHONES CAN’T IGNITE FUEL/FUMES
It is believed that the more modern phones ( those that light up when either switched on or when they ring ) have enough energy released to provide the spark for ignition."
I rest my case.
[hijack]
This is one of the most mind-blowing things I’ve ever read. Not saying it’s not true – but it’s quite astonishing.
Exactly what heat source is igniting these gasoline vapors? Does the little bitty light on a cell phone generate any kind of heat? I mean, you can lay your finger on the light all day long, and feel absolutely no warmth. Now, a cell battery feels warm after extended use, but hardly too warm to touch – and presumably, not warm enough to ignite gasoline vapor.
So, what’s going on here? What are the physics behind gasoline vapor ignition?
[/hijack]
Wrong, it’s an Urban Legend. See another version of your story here. Search at Snopes using “cell and gas and ignite”.
That said, cell phone manufacturers themselves acknowledge a theoretical risk, and recommend turning them off during feuling operations, according to Snopes.
At the hospital where I work, the whole issue is a non-issue. Our building, (only two years old) is constructed in such a way as to render cellphones useless. There is so much steel and concrete in the building that almost no RF gets in or out. Anyone using a cellphone inside of three feet into the building loses their signal. It aslo renders outside pagers inoperative. (We have a low energy in-house transmission system for our pagers, with antenni sticking out of the celing at regular intervals.)
I’d be curious to see if this was really true (The training of people who use walkie-talkies not to use them near critical equipment). Not that I have much exposure to these people, but I’ve never heard of it.
Because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
A website I ran into last night explained this far better than I would have. I could find it again, if it really were really important, but the gist of it was this-- in times of emergencies, when communication with others is oftentimes critical to the health and wellbeing of the patient (The example they gave was drug allergies and a couple of other things I can’t remember now), weight must be given to real life consequences of allowing cell phone use, over the perceived dangers of its use (*Heavily paraphrased, but close to their point).
And, close to my point (Imagine that). The reason that this strikes the nerve that it apparently has, all goes back to the instances in the hospital where I wasn’t allowed to use my cell phone. It was one of the few times I truly appreciated having instant, and convenient, use of a phone and being told I couldn’t use it (Once on the floor, with the expectation that I’d move outside to use it. The other, the blanket statement that their use is banned on the hospital premises), for less than clear reasons, was irritating as hell to me, both then and now.
Granted, in my case the situations weren’t life threatening and the need to have instant communication with the outside world, on my part, was relatively low. But my personal needs, for the shear sake of my staying calm and (To me, at least) being in control of the situation, were high. I needed that contact. Anything that could have alleviated some of that stress, and some of that emotion, seems to me to be advantageous to the hospital, especially when the risks seem to be minimal as they are.
Imagine you replaced my GF and her toothache with a family member who’d been in a serious car accident. Imagine a hospital worker approaching one of their family members in the waiting room (As was my case) trying to reach outside family members and friends and telling them they couldn’t use their cell phone. That’s appropriate?
Do the risks to patient’s health from EMF emissions outweigh the benefit to that family member?
Not even close, if you ask me (And granted, it’s extreme example, but one that I’m sure has come up).
Hospital go to great lengths to try and pacify and alleviate (I know, not the best word choice, but it’s early) peoples fears and concerns when there. In my case, that outside link, that outside support line, would have been beneficial.
Again, considering the true threat to patients that comes from using a cell phone, I don’t see where the risks outweigh the benefit.
Only to the degree in which hospitals limit, and enforce, no cell phone policies. It simply doesn’t match the threat.
And this-
Makes me wonder if that wasn’t the reason Hennepin County installed the cell phone transmitters and receivers that they did (After a serious referb, about the only thing original in the hospital are its outside walls).
I’d be curious to see if, down the road, your hospital didn’t do what they did.
I went back and read the snopes link. Nice article. I particularly like their quote at the end that sums up their sentiment. It about sums up my sentiment on this matter, and related matters, too-
Here here!
Absolutely, I would think. Unless I grossly misunderstand the primary purpose of a hospital, it is to take care of patients. Everything else – such as alleviating the stress of family members – is secondary. I might feel greatly comforted by having my pet guinea pig with me in the hospital when I go to visit my ailing granny, and I might rationalize this by noting that scientific studies have shown that only 12% of patients exhibit a negative reaction to having a guinea pig placed within 25cm of their person, but this doesn’t mean I should be allowed to bring it into the hospital.
I’m all for anti-authoritarianism, questioning the status quo, and all that other groovy stuff, but sheesh, hospital staff have enough to deal with without being told to “buzz off” by visitors who think they’re competent to set their own rules about where cell phones can and can’t be used.
This information was given to me at a safety briefing at the company I work for ( one of the largest in the UK ) it looks as though our safety department has been conned by this urban myth and should have checked its facts. The ironic thing is that the company is a natural gas transporter and so is aware of the dangers of explosions. I apologize for spreading the myth but when your own company issues it on its own headed notepaper you would think it was genuine.
Thank you, Mikan. Yours is the most pertinent comment I’ve read in this whole thread, and deserves highlighting and commendation.
Visitors who tell hospital staff to ‘buzz off’ when confronted with requests to comply with hospital rules deserve to be escorted off the hospital grounds at the minimum, and merit prosecution if their actions in any way disrupt patient care.
QtM, MD
Another hijack…
I design electrical systems for Naval vessels, and in that function (many years ago) I used to calculate fault currents in our power distribution network. In small circuits, they were in the thousands of amps. in larger circuits, they were orders of magnitude higher.
You must mean something else (transients?), or this is my opportunity to learn something…