1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

cell phone use in hospitals

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by maryann, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote in message
    news:FETvb.11675$Hb.3372598@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    >
    > Clearly all cell phones transmit, but regardless, ICU rooms rather
    > than allowing anything that hasn't been proven dangerous, go the route
    > of allowing only equipment that has been proven safe.
    >


    That is understood and the right thing to do. My only beef is when the
    hospital staff is using the same thing I have and then turning around and
    yelling at me (although I am not using mine and it is turned off). I had
    that happen a bunch while my mom-in-law was in the hospital.


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe



    › See More: cell phone use in hospitals
  2. Reply-To: "Thomas M. Goethe" <xspamgoethe11xxxxxx@lycos.com>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: user-0cal4k6.cable.mindspring.com (24.170.146.134)
    X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1069600505 61277185 24.170.146.134 (16 [192964])
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
    Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular:42642 alt.cellular.nextel:11588 alt.cellular.verizon:127538 alt.cellular.sprintpcs:125503

    "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    news:39p0svchlflc8p7qtmiv8jqct64mgm8acs@Pern.rk...
    > On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:54:19 -0500, Stromm Sarnac
    > <strommsarnac@yahoo.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    > > I'm guessing here, but I think Nextel's PTT uses a different frequency
    > >than their "cell" service.

    >
    > Nextel (they're not a cellco, they're a common carrier) uses a lower
    > frequency than cell phones.


    Pretty close though, still between 800 and 900 Mhz for the xmit and
    receive channels.


    --
    Thomas M. Goethe
  3. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:27:45 GMT, David S <dwstreeter@att.net> posted
    in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:40:57 GMT, "John Eckart" <JEckart@mail.com> chose to
    >add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
    >
    >>Anyone know of any other places where you can't use cell phones, like missile silos or something?

    >
    >Courthouses, I believe, but for legal, not technical, reasons.
    >
    >A few years ago, I was in the habit of carrying my 2M HT everywhere. When I
    >went in for jury duty, they had a hissy fit over it. I ended up taking it
    >and my small Swiss army knife back to my car. (They had called enough
    >people for 5 juries but only ended up needing 1 or 2; I sat all day reading
    >a book and went home.)


    Price club used to argue about my dual-band HT. Now people in
    shopping clubs block the aisles making phone calls.
  4. "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote in message
    news:FETvb.11675$Hb.3372598@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
    > For what it's worth, I know that when my (GSM) cell phone is
    > communicating with the tower, I can hear it on my car's FM radio. I
    > usually know when the phone is going to ring before it does.
    >
    > Clearly all cell phones transmit, but regardless, ICU rooms rather
    > than allowing anything that hasn't been proven dangerous, go the route
    > of allowing only equipment that has been proven safe.


    But spread-spectrum (CDMA) transmission is qualitatively different from
    single-frequency (GSM, TDMA, analog) transmission. It is almost impossible,
    I think, for a low-power spread-spectrum transceiver to interfere with any
    reasonably built (i.e., hospital-quality or airline-quality) device. The
    long-term solution, of course, is to upgrade all cell phones to some form of
    CDMA. In the meantime, CDMA cell phones should, when put into CDMA-only
    mode (to exclude analog), display a message that says, "Safe for use in
    hospitals and on airplanes."
  5. Tom Ayers

    Tom Ayers Guest

    "Lawrence G. Mayka" wrote:
    >
    > But spread-spectrum (CDMA) transmission is qualitatively different from
    > single-frequency (GSM, TDMA, analog) transmission. It is almost impossible,
    > I think, for a low-power spread-spectrum transceiver to interfere with any
    > reasonably built (i.e., hospital-quality or airline-quality) device. The
    > long-term solution, of course, is to upgrade all cell phones to some form of
    > CDMA. In the meantime, CDMA cell phones should, when put into CDMA-only
    > mode (to exclude analog), display a message that says, "Safe for use in
    > hospitals and on airplanes."


    For the sake of discussion, let's assume CDMA is safe and TDMA and
    variants are not. It's easier to have a blanket statement forbidding
    them all. You can't expect the doctors and nurses to know (or care)
    which ones are safe and which are not. If you allow only CDMA but no
    others, the argument could arise - Why can he use his phone but I cant!
    Most of us here know the difference, but to the general public, a cell
    phone is a cell phone. Patient care is their concern, and it is always
    better that they (the hospitals) err on the side of caution.

    72/73
    Tom
    --
    If it ain't broke, let me try...
  6. ll

    ll Guest

    Bill T wrote:
    > Employees are there to do their jobs, and cell-phones would
    > distract by facilitating personal calls on company time.


    By that (poor) logic, so do landlines.
    Do hospitals _prohibit_ landline use by employees?

    > I assume other industries (non-sales) also restrict cell-phone
    > use on the job.


    What _percentage_ of (non-sales) jobs would that be?

    If medical equipment manufacturers make equipment that can be
    seriously affected under "typical conditions" by devices such as
    cell phones (which I doubt), then someone who has actually been
    harmed in such a circumstance (and I'm not convinced that there
    has been) ought to sue them. The end result would then be that
    _new_ models of equipment would operate correctly. As it should.

    For the statistically challenged, one undocumented anecdote
    in a nation of ~300 million people doesn't make a case.

    Bureaucratic organizations that are in denial about modern
    technology (or that simply don't care) need to be dragged
    into the twenty-first century.
  7. W4PHM

    W4PHM Guest

    Top posting again y'all.

    Hair dryers and really high wattage things like curling irons
    often use direct 60 hz. current to heat up the elements that
    are being used, the same would hold true for something like
    an electric space heater. 60 cycle electrical interference is
    something I see all the time, especially in a patient's house
    if I happen to be running an ECG in a patient's home, which
    is rare. 60 cycle is a problem because the appliance has
    minimal shielding and in a place like a patient's home there is
    minimal filtering in their appliances, unlike a hospital. GFCI
    and proper grounding of electrical equipment minimizes any
    of this spurious RF.

    Patrick

    <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
    news:41867252.C3C15CE6@ix.netcom.com...
    > W4PHM wrote:
    > >
    > > I will apologize about top posting in advance, while it may not
    > > be proper net etiquette, I prefer it when I am reading others posts.
    > >
    > > I am an amateur radio operator and have a bit of experience with
    > > RF power and interference. I would stake my entire career on the
    > > fact that medical equipment, even ECG, is well shielded enough not
    > > to be exposed to interference from any device above 100 Mhz. or
    > > so. In fact, when I am on the ambulance, we often use VHF radios
    > > to contact the hospital, as well as 800-900 Mhz. equipment all at about
    > > 50-90 watts with antennas less than 5' away from the patient and I have
    > > never seen any problems. The interference from a high tension power
    > > line or an electrical transformer on the pole outside the ER would be
    > > more likely to cause problems than a cell phone, a hand held radio
    > > or an FRS rig.
    > >
    > > A hair dryer now, that may be a different story. But oh well, that is
    > > another thread for another day.
    > >
    > > If anyone has any anecdotal or better evidence contradicting my opinion,
    > > please post it, I would love to be proven wrong.
    > >
    > > Patrick Mason M.S., EMT-I
    > > W4PHM, WPWK542
    > > Virginia

    >
    > I want to hear more about the hair dryer. Talk to me.
    >
    > KM
  8. W4PHM

    W4PHM Guest

    Great Post Al, LMAO.

    Patrick Mason MS, EMT-I
    W4PHM, WPWK542

    "Al Klein" <rukbat@verizon.org> wrote in message
    news:3n6eo0p3sq1i2u45q11285a40g0hr044m4@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:14:17 GMT, "W4PHM" <W4PHM@ARRL.NET> said in
    > alt.cellular:
    >
    > >I am an amateur radio operator and have a bit of experience with
    > >RF power and interference. I would stake my entire career on the
    > >fact that medical equipment, even ECG, is well shielded enough not
    > >to be exposed to interference from any device above 100 Mhz. or
    > >so.

    >
    > Your career is safe, Pat. BTW, unless that call is original issue
    > (which would be around WWII?), I've been on the air at least as long
    > as you have (W2PMX), and I've never seen commercial medical equipment
    > bothered by RF, of the type that can come from a cell phone, either.
    >
    > >A hair dryer now, that may be a different story. But oh well, that is
    > >another thread for another day.

    >
    > Yeah - that could melt the plastic.
  9. Bill T

    Bill T Guest

    >> Employees are there to do their jobs, and cell-phones would
    >> distract by facilitating personal calls on company time.

    >
    > By that (poor) logic, so do landlines.
    > Do hospitals _prohibit_ landline use by employees?


    No, but if you make personal calls while not on a break, it won't be a
    positive in your employee evaluation. Again, whether you get away with it
    depends somewhat on your position in the hospital hierarchy. An ICU nurse
    can make and receive a few personal calls, but the orderlies have to sneak
    off to an unoccupied office / lounge to do the same.

    >
    >> I assume other industries (non-sales) also restrict cell-phone
    >> use on the job.

    >
    > What _percentage_ of (non-sales) jobs would that be?


    I don't know. Do secretaries or factory workers use cellphones on the job?

    >
    > If medical equipment manufacturers make equipment that can be
    > seriously affected under "typical conditions" by devices such as
    > cell phones (which I doubt), then someone who has actually been
    > harmed in such a circumstance (and I'm not convinced that there
    > has been) ought to sue them. The end result would then be that
    > _new_ models of equipment would operate correctly. As it should.
    >
    > For the statistically challenged, one undocumented anecdote
    > in a nation of ~300 million people doesn't make a case.
    >
    > Bureaucratic organizations that are in denial about modern
    > technology (or that simply don't care) need to be dragged
    > into the twenty-first century.


    I agree



    Bill T
  10. RE/
    >Top posting again y'all.


    Just for the record... I *prefer* to read top posts... maybe I'm the only one,
    but still...
    --
    PeteCresswell
  11. Richard Ness

    Richard Ness Guest

    I concur..... and have argued for it more than once.
    Does anyone, normal anyway, post replies to e-mail on the bottom?
    I actually have had people argue that they do. I doubt their credibility.
    And, they also tend to be quite vocal (and rabid).

    I say to them.... get a life. I'm gonna top post, so deal with it.



    "(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message news:no9go0llund9udgf30sujt35ilim1ngql2@4ax.com...
    > RE/
    >>Top posting again y'all.

    >
    > Just for the record... I *prefer* to read top posts... maybe I'm the only one,
    > but still...
    > --
    > PeteCresswell
  12. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 06:57:30 GMT, "Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net> said
    in alt.cellular:

    >I don't work in teaching hospitals any more, but I would strongly doubt that
    >interns and residents would dare to flaunt their local cellphone use rules.


    I'm not guessing, just reporting what I see. The rules allow the
    interns and residents (and vampires and household staff) to use cell
    phones, but forbid patients and visitors due to the "fact" that
    *their* phones are dangerous if used in a hospital.
  13. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 05:32:12 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
    <dannyb@panix.com> said in alt.cellular:

    >In <df6eo05s70hg79uespk6h64f855qis15d3@4ax.com> Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> writes:


    >>doctors using cell phones. I've been told that the cell phones the
    >>doctors use are "special phones", but there are no "inherently safe"
    >>cell phones.


    >cough, cough. Certain types of cellular systems are less likely to cause
    >interference with medical (and other) electronic equipment than others.


    These types being?

    >And if you add in lots of mini base stations throughout the facility so
    >the phone powers down to bare minimum on transmit...


    The hospital in question has repeaters, but no mini bases.

    >danny " not to mention the NYC hospital that has a rotating radar
    > antenna on one of its roofs " burstein


    Which would be sending out a very tight beam horizontally, with very
    little signal leaking down into the building.
  14. In <k9mgo01ls62p2jt67228b3741l62l8vtp0@4ax.com> Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> writes:

    >On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 05:32:12 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
    ><dannyb@panix.com> said in alt.cellular:


    >>In <df6eo05s70hg79uespk6h64f855qis15d3@4ax.com> Al Klein <rukbat@verizon.org> writes:


    >>cough, cough. Certain types of cellular systems are less likely to cause
    >>interference with medical (and other) electronic equipment than others.


    >These types being?


    If you'd have bothered reading the next paragraph in my post, you'd have
    seen the answer.

    >>And if you add in lots of mini base stations throughout the facility so
    >>the phone powers down to bare minimum on transmit...


    >The hospital in question has repeaters, but no mini bases.


    Don't know what definitions you're using so I won't comment further.

    >>danny " not to mention the NYC hospital that has a rotating radar
    >> antenna on one of its roofs " burstein


    >Which would be sending out a very tight beam horizontally, with very
    >little signal leaking down into the building.


    Duh. Read again. "roofs" is plural. that beam most assuredly lights up the
    upper floors of the nearby structures. In a high powered pulse, no less.

    (Won't even hazard a guess as to side lobe leakage).
    --
    _____________________________________________________
    Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
    dannyb@panix.com
    [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
  15. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:47:01 GMT, ll <lkslittle@REMOVEcomcastTHIS.net>
    said in alt.cellular:

    >Bureaucratic organizations that are in denial about modern
    >technology (or that simply don't care) need to be dragged
    >into the twenty-first century.


    That's a lethal disease to the Luddite types.
  16. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:04:33 -0800, "Richard Ness"
    <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> said in alt.cellular:

    >Does anyone, normal anyway, post replies to e-mail on the bottom?


    Most of usenet does.
  17. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:22:26 -0800, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
    said in alt.cellular:

    >On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:04:33 -0800, "Richard Ness"
    ><richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:


    >>I say to them.... get a life. I'm gonna top post, so deal with it.


    >There's nothing inherintly wrong with it


    Other than the fact that one has to read from the bottom up.
  18. RE/
    >(and vampires...


    ?
    --
    PeteCresswell
  19. In <67nho0lhig26o2s46l3ei0lchlqk8du2o8@4ax.com> "(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> writes:

    >RE/
    >>(and vampires...


    the blood drawing technicians. Commonly nurses, but quite a few facilities
    (when permitted by State laws) use lesser trained (and lower paid...)
    folk.

    --
    _____________________________________________________
    Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
    dannyb@panix.com
    [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
  20. "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:j0ggo098q6m13pjrpdqegeffioo10ofbhn@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:04:33 -0800, "Richard Ness"
    > <richardno@damnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I concur..... and have argued for it more than once.
    >>Does anyone, normal anyway, post replies to e-mail on the bottom?

    >
    > Yes. That was the norm for many years til Microsoft decided to
    > re-invent a new standard.
    >
    > It depends on whether you want to make an email conversation more like
    > a game of Jeopardy or more like a normal conversation. But then again
    > most top posters don't have a clue about editing their replies and
    > would just as soon throw the whole entire post back at you rather than
    > clean up after themselves.


    The problem with the old convention (bottom posting) is that too many
    posters nowadays don't trim the quoted material. I, for one, don't like to
    scroll through screen after screen of old quoted text before I get to the
    one-liner reply at the bottom.

    --
    John Richards

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?