Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 119

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Are Wi-fi and cell phones safe?

    On November 20 the Sebastopol City Council approved city wide wi-fi. On December 12 the City planning director declared the project exempt from CEQA (enviornmental report). Considering there will be an electromagnetic radiation field increase we need to know what the current radiation levels are and how much the proposed wi-fi will add. In some neighborhoods it could add as much as 100X radiation! Neither Sonic, nor the manufacturer of the system can accurately predict what the increase will be.
    Despite hearing health concerns the council pushed this agenda through in two weeks, without a CEQA determination.
    Bioinitiative.org calls for a new biology based safety standard from non-ionizing radio frequencies (cell towers, cell phones, microwaves, wi-fi). The London Resolution, issued November 27, 2007 calls for NO wi-fi in homes, schools and public places. The radiation levels in the plaza are already many times over the safety standard. The health implications of increasing our exposure are unacceptable.
    Call or write City Council members asking them reverse their decision to place wi-fi in Sebastopol, or ask them to reverse the CEQA exemption and re-agendize this issue.

    Sandi Maurer, aka Sasu
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #2
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasu: View Post
    On November 20 the Sebastopol City Council approved city wide wi-fi. On December 12 the City planning director declared the project exempt from CEQA (enviornmental report). Considering there will be an electromagnetic radiation field increase we need to know what the current radiation levels are and how much the proposed wi-fi will add.
    Does this health concern not apply much more to radiation from mobile phones, in the near field — the health effects located close to the source of transmission? Wi-Fi systems emit much less radiation than mobile phones.

    https://news.independent.co.uk/healt...cle3036005.ece

    https://www.strategy-business.com/li...ideas/li00004?

    Dr Michael Clark, of the Health Protection Agency, says published research on mobile phones and masts does not add up to an indictment of Wi-Fi:
    "All the expert reviews done here and abroad indicate that there is unlikely to be a health risk from wireless networks.... When we have conducted measurements in schools, typical exposures from Wi-Fi are around 20 millionths of the international guideline levels of exposure to radiation. As a comparison, a child on a mobile phone receives up to 50 per cent of guideline levels. So a year sitting in a classroom near a wireless network is roughly equivalent to 20 minutes on a mobile. If Wi-Fi should be taken out of schools, then the mobile phone network should be shut down, too—and FM radio and TV, as the strength of their signals is similar to that from Wi-Fi in classrooms."[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifi#Q...f_health_risks

    Maybe to be precautionary, Sebastopol should wait and try to use bandwidth in the 700-MHz band being reclaimed in 2009 from analog television. Google is going to bid on it for Wi-Fi purposes.

    At present, wireless local area network (WLAN) are in the 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz public spectrum bands, a much shorter wavelength.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. Gratitude expressed by:

  4. TopTop #3
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    The wi-fi is lower than a cell phone at your head, however area wide wi-fi will increase overall exposure to everyone, whether or not they use wi-fi internet or cell phone and it will radiate pulses 24 hours a day. This means our indoor and outdoor spaces ( parks too) will have a constant presence of radiation. Your exposure will be greatest if you live near a light pole, especially on the second floor.

    Using a computer with wi-fi increases your RF exposure greatly. In light of the current independant scientific reviews, encouraging this kind of exposure is unwise. Computer addiction , radio wave sickness and electrical sensitivity are real health conditions. We as a community should not encourage this by placing it all over town.

    The fact is there are alternatives, wires and they work well. Why the risk?
    Bioinitiative.org read section 1 and section 17.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. TopTop #4
    shellebelle
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    I'll risk it! Wooo hoooo WIFI!!!!!!!!

    I figure I have far greater risk from other things and I LOVE my internet!
    Last edited by Barry; 12-16-2007 at 09:31 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. TopTop #5
    pp_twinkie
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    All bodies are different...not everyone can handle more radiation.
    Last edited by Barry; 01-11-2008 at 06:08 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  7. TopTop #6
    sharingwisdom's Avatar
    sharingwisdom
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Until this situation changes, check the product Q-Link https://www.q-linkproducts.com/ I have friends who are very sensitive to electro-magnetic radiation and they told me that this product really helped them. You wear it as a necklace.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by pp_twinkie: View Post
    All bodies are different...not everyone can handle more radiation.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. TopTop #7
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom: View Post
    Until this situation changes, check the product Q-Link https://www.q-linkproducts.com/ I have friends who are very sensitive to electro-magnetic radiation and they told me that this product really helped them. You wear it as a necklace.
    What a deal! A necklace that protects the whole body from radiation! Oh yeah! If you believe it, it works, right? Heh heh.

    Here's a fine quote from the movie, The Road to Wellville :
    "Health! The 'open sesame' to the sucker's purse!"

    I'm with ShelleBelle. Crank up the wireless which has a far smaller environmental impact than anything with wires.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  9. Gratitude expressed by:

  10. TopTop #8
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    >Crank up the wireless which has a far smaller environmental impact than anything with wires.

    How so?

    The fact is electricty can kill you at a certain voltage. So what does the RF voltage flying around in the air do to the smallest of our friends? Or to the oak trees whos arches create a big receptive antennae.

    And where does it go?
    It measures on water pipes, metal in your house, dirty electricty in your walls.

    And even if you love wireless, does that mean everyone else has to be exposed?

    Study up folks! This ain't progress. This is the cigarette industry x1000
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  11. TopTop #9
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasu: View Post
    How so?
    Study up folks! This ain't progress. This is the cigarette industry x1000
    Sasu, can you provide some links to articles from credible sources supporting the notion that wireless frequencies cause harm to anyone or anything?

    I haven't seen anything to be alarmed about.

    Have you?

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. TopTop #10
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Sasu, can you provide some links to articles from credible sources supporting the notion that wireless frequencies cause harm to anyone or anything?

    I haven't seen anything to be alarmed about.

    Have you?

    -Jeff
    Sasu provided earlier this link:

    https://bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. TopTop #11
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink: View Post
    Sasu provided earlier this link:

    https://bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf

    Odd, I didn't see that link in her posts. I did download the section on brain tumors. It's all about cell phones and the bottom line numerous times is that "no association" could be made. Then in the conclusions they suggest there is a "moderate" increase in risk. I'm not educated enough in the way of statistics to figure how they came up with their summary but a cursory skim of the report didn't scare me much. I don't have a cell phone so I'm not real worried about them anyway. I didn't see anything on wireless networking

    I don't think that collection of documents is being taken very seriously by the industry, which, of course, is no reason to discount it, but surely, "more studies are necessary to draw firm conclusions."

    Sadly, a person can't really opt out of exposure without landing on a small desert island. Even there, satellite transmissions would get to you. And then there's that big yellow thing up there. Lots of radiation coming from that. And the stars too. It's hard to avoid radiation.

    I agree it's a challenging issue, but so far there doesn't appear to be much to worry about. I hope it stays that way. I do have my internet connection beamed to me via wireless, so I'll watch for negative effects and I'll let you know.

    Meanwhile, browsing the Web I found this:
    https://compnetworking.about.com/cs/...lthhazards.htm
    Q. Are wireless signals a health hazard?

    From Bradley Mitchell,
    Your Guide to Wireless / Networking.
    A. Some have speculated that prolonged exposure to wireless network devices could cause memory loss or other brain damage. However, potential health hazards from the microwave signals of WLANs have not been validated scientifically. In fact, using a WLAN is most likely much safer than using a cell phone. Why? A typical home wireless network transmits radio signals in the same general frequency range as microwave ovens. Yet compared to ovens and even cell phones, wireless network cards and access points transmit at very low power, anywhere from 100 to 1000 times less. In addition, WLANs send radio signals only intermittently, during data transmisssion, whereas cell phones transmit continously while powered on. Overall, the cumulative exposure to microwave radiation from a WLAN remains much, much less than exposure from other radio frequency devices.



    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. Gratitude expressed by:

  15. TopTop #12
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    If Barry would grant permission [Granted! -Barry] to upload a 51 page report from Magda Havas on the health effects of radio frequencies I will do that. THis report was prepared for the SF Tech connect project. Earthlink backed out of that deal stating financial problems.

    The fact is if you dont beleive EMFs will effect you you can find proof on the web that that's true. And if you beleive thay can effect you you will find proof of that too. It would be interesting to see which side has more proof.

    So you can have your own health experience and find out . That 's how we found out about it. Ironically I had two houses previously tested for EMFs and there was nothing plugged in around our beds, but the fields were from the wiring.
    Or you can visit other websites like microwave news or SNAFU's site or buy meters and protective fabrics from lessemf.com or the yahoo group esense or energyfields.org... the list goes on.
    Last edited by Barry; 12-19-2007 at 06:48 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. TopTop #13
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Thank you Barry!
    Attached is the report from Magda Havas which was prepared for the SF Tech connect project. Her report is in oppostion to wi-fi. Earthlink backed out of that deal stating financial problems.

    BTW people are listening to the Bioinitiative report. The London Resolution was issued Nov 27, 2007 calling for no wi-fi in homes, schools and public places. The EU (European enviornmental union) and the German Government advise NO wi-fi.

    The FCC set a standard for RF which they decided would not heat tissue so they declared that as safe. The Technology industry creates products based on that standard. The FCC limit was based on short term exposure, not long term exposure. Wi-fi is both a constant exposure and a long term exposure. With a cell phone you can use it then turn it off. You cannot turn off city wide wi-fi.

    Also you cannot appeal it legally because the FCC Communication Act says you cannot appeal for reasons of health. The US Government and industry has been hearing about the health effects of EMF's since the 80's. It doesn't surprise me they'd create a law like this, as un-american as it is. (read: Paul Broeder, Currents of Death and Cross Currents by Robert Becker)
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. TopTop #14
    Big Bob's Avatar
    Big Bob
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    I believe that you are exposed to significantly more EMF from other sources around you Sandi. Have you twisted all your wires both inside and outside the walls of your home, eliminated televisions, microwaves, and computers, electric blankets, flourescent lighting, and all other sources of EMF from your home and work environments?
    Until you have done all that, and then clad your home in metal to keep out all the other radiated signals, then the WIFI emissions are likely indiscernable.
    In my work I have spent a lot of time twisting wires to prevent radiation of EMF which causes "cross-talk" and false signals, but have only known of 1 home in the Sebastopol area which had all it's wires twisted on installation to reduce the EMF, and the folks living n that home are unprotected once they leave their home.
    IMHO you are overstating the significance of WIFI EMF.
    I do welcome more scientific proof, specifically showing data on WIFI (not speculation) supporting your claim of danger.
    I suspect you are getting more radiation from other sources while you are sitting at a computer reading this post, and that you should investigate the protective necklace mentioned previously, or some other kind of personal protection so that you can venture out in the world feeling safe.
    Bob
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. TopTop #15
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    I agree with you that the most exposure people have is what is closest to them. I have spent a year reducing my exposure to EMFS. I live with most of the power off at the breaker. I have removed the florescent lights, microwave, dimmers, etc. I have stetzer filters plugged in below the breaker box. I know the computer is my worst exposure.
    The ambient RF in my house is low. (.006uW/cm2) Put pulsed wi-fi on a lamp pole and the RF coud be 100x higher 24 hours a day.

    I hope you can read the Magda Havas report I posted.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. TopTop #16
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasu: View Post
    I agree with you that the most exposure people have is what is closest to them. I have spent a year reducing my exposure to EMFS. ...

    Sasu, I appreciate your concern about radiation exposure. However, how do you explain the fact that as modern appliances proliferate in homes around the world life expectancy continues to rise? People are living longer, healthier, happier lives than ever before. There is less disease now, not more, with the exception of obesity related illnesses. Even considering the obesity issue, we are still living longer. Surely if exposure to electro magnetic fields was harmful to health, life expectancy would be getting proportionately shorter as more and more electronic items enter our homes and lives.

    I'm curious about these "Stetzer filters." I looked at their website and it looks like they will be every bit as effective as the previously mentioned necklaces at improving health. How did you hear about them? Have you spoken to a PG&E representative to see if they are recommended? Anyone who's asking me for six or seven hundred dollars to "clean up" the electricity in my homes by plugging in dubious devices I would question very closely. None of the "papers" listed on their site appear valid nor did I see any explanation of how their devices work. Looks like a scam to me.

    I do hope you are feeling well. I know one of the best things you can do to increase life expectancy is to reduce chronic stress. Perhaps the best thing you can do is quit worrying about these things. I doubt you are being harmed by the electrical fields in your home. Life is pretty good with electricity.

    -Jeff
    Last edited by Braggi; 02-07-2008 at 10:26 PM. Reason: changed thousand dollars to hundred dollars to correct factual error.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. Gratitude expressed by:

  21. TopTop #17
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Jeff,

    First of all I want to thank you for your interest in dialoging with me on this matter. Do you live in Sebastopol? Did you receive the recent PGE Bill? They have a paper on EMF's. First they tell you that they are harmless. Then they tell you what you can do to protect yourself. This is the mixed message industry line.

    >>>However, how do you explain the fact that as modern appliances proliferate in homes around the world life expectancy continues to rise? People are living longer, healthier, happier lives than ever before.

    Do you really believe people are healthier? I'd like to see the statisitics on that. The cancer rate is 50%! Modern medicine may be prolonging lives, but people are not healthier! Leukemia,Alzheimers. Depression ALS, Lou Gehrigs are all linked to EMF's. The WHO classifies electricity as a class 2 (possible) carcinogen.

    >>>I'm curious about these "Stetzer filters." How did you hear about them?
    I belong to a yahoo group of people who have ES, the filters are a help for dirty electricity.

    >>>Have you spoken to a PG&E representative to see if they are recommended?
    PGE is INDUSTRY and they make money selling electricity. They want you to beleive its safe. Michael Neuert, a local emf guy I work with, tested these filters and his conclusion is if you are going to have electricity the filters are a good idea. They cost about $600, not $6000.


    >>>>>I know one of the best things you can do to increase life expectancy is to reduce chronic stress.

    Ironically reducing our exposure to electricity dramatically reduced our stress. That said maybe our home had higher levels than what you are living with. We had magnetic fields of 3 mg in our bedrooms and body electric fields near 5 volts per meter.

    You know we still use electricty, we just use it judiciously. We are using 50% less and saving money on our PGE bill. I figure it helps a bit with global warming too. Its a win win situation for us, except PGE loses a bit of money.
    Last edited by Sasu; 12-21-2007 at 07:33 PM. Reason: spelling error
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. TopTop #18
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Sasu, I appreciate your concern about radiation exposure. However, how do you explain the fact that as modern appliances proliferate in homes around the world life expectancy continues to rise? People are living longer, healthier, happier lives than ever before. There is less disease now, not more, with the exception of obesity related illnesses. Even considering the obesity issue, we are still living longer. Surely if exposure to electro magnetic fields was harmful to health, life expectancy would be getting proportionately shorter as more and more electronic items enter our homes and lives.
    This seems to me a fallacious argument. An malicious agent that increases its impact over time does not necessarily show up in a simple health statistics as longevity. Think of car crashes, smoking or environmental pollutants.


    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    I'm curious about these "Stetzer filters." I looked at their website and it looks like they will be every bit as effective as the previously mentioned necklaces at improving health. How did you hear about them? Have you spoken to a PG&E representative to see if they are recommended? Anyone who's asking me for six or seven thousand dollars to "clean up" the electricity in my homes by plugging in dubious devices I would question very closely. None of the "papers" listed on their site appear valid nor did I see any explanation of how their devices work. Looks like a scam to me.
    -Jeff
    If you search Google Scholar there is some research reported in peer reviewed journals. One paper by the Magda Havas mentioned by Sasu is "Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity with Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis"

    https://www.informaworld.com/smpp/co...8405314~db=all

    A review from Public Health, Journal of The Royal Institute of Public Health is at

    https://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/public_health_emf.pdf

    This area of dirty electricity and radiation is new to me. It stands to reason that some people may be more sensitive to it than others. It may also interfere with circulation of dust indoors.

    "The fetus and infant are especially vulnerable to toxicants that disrupt developmental processes during relatively narrow time windows." "Environmental hazards: evidence for effects on child health." J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2007 Jan-Mar;10 (1-2):3-39.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...=pubmed_DocSum

    As a community, I think it's worthwhile to develop our understanding of it and include standards in an ordinance for green (and healthy) building design.
    Last edited by Zeno Swijtink; 12-21-2007 at 09:56 AM. Reason: Added some more questions and links
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. TopTop #19
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasu: View Post
    Jeff,

    ... Do you live in Sebastopol? Did you receive the recent PGE Bill?

    I don't have time to respond completely, but no, I live off the grid out in the hills west of Healdsburg. I probably get less exposure than most folks.

    Yes, life expectancy continues to improve. The surprise is that more and more people are staying relatively healthy into old age.

    The cancer that radiation affects most is leukemia. Leukemia rates are dropping. Perhaps emf prevents cancer. I'll leave it at that.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. TopTop #20
    Ridinrn
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Yippee! I'm with you. I think free WIFI is great. Look at all the hotspots across the US already. I can't wait. Does anyone know when it will be up and running?





    Quote Posted in reply to the post by shellebelle: View Post
    I'll risk it! Wooo hoooo WIFI!!!!!!!!

    I figure I have far greater risk from other things and I LOVE my internet!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. TopTop #21
    Sasu's Avatar
    Sasu
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Thank you Zeno for your research! great links.
    Last edited by Sasu; 12-21-2007 at 07:35 PM. Reason: specify who
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  26. TopTop #22
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink: View Post
    This seems to me a fallacious argument. An malicious agent that increases its impact over time does not necessarily show up in a simple health statistics as longevity. Think of car crashes, smoking or environmental pollutants.
    Straw man Zeno. You can do better than this. There's no comparison.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink: View Post
    If you search Google Scholar there is some research reported in peer reviewed journals. One paper by the Magda Havas mentioned by Sasu is "Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity with Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis"
    Zeno, please. These aren't studies. This is opinion and anecdotes. Magda Havas is arguing for studies, not doing them.

    As far as the 51 page document is concerned, there are a lot of inconclusive studies cited. The most damning are of people who have television transmitters on their balconies. Duh. That's more power than a wireless network by several orders of magnitude. I didn't read all the study summaries, but I did read a lot of them. What I learned: don't be a lab mouse or rat. They might put a cell phone with nonsense signals running on them for hours and then cut open your brains. This is so far from human usage it's laughable. What lousy studies. All the others concern cell phone towers, radio and TV transmission towers, and don't appear to control for socioeconomic status. One summary even stated it's contents didn't control and were of dubious merit.

    This is histrionics, not science.

    I welcome the real studies. I have an open mind.

    The sad note in all this is that people who truly wish to "opt out" can't. I personally don't see the danger, but I don't wish to upset those who aren't interested in wi-fi and are frightened. Frankly, I think all you people should toss your cell phones so the cell people take down those towers which broadcast so much more powerful signals than the proposed wi-fi systems.

    I don't have cell phones in my family. It's not that I don't like them or that I'm scared of them, I think they're a rip off. I've yet to find a plan that I think is economically justified. When wi-fi is available enough, I can use my computer and then I'll probably never need a cell phone. Cool.

    Quackwatch has a very good article featuring links to studies on the topic of high power lines and how safe they are. I won't post it until I hear all the complaints about Quackwatch first, so go ahead and post.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. TopTop #23
    gnc sebastopol
    Guest

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Sasu: View Post
    Thank you Zeno for your research! great links.
    Let's see. it seems the arguments in favor so far break down something like this
    -I don't care, I want my wi-fi
    -we are exposed to radiation anyway, what's a little more?
    -there is no definate proof that it is unsafe.
    -relax, don't worry, trust the men with the money/power
    -we are living longer, healthier, happier lives, so it must be ok.(is that with or without prozac?)

    It seems that there is a least enough information that there may be a risk, that it would be wise to stop, or at least slow down and let the community weigh in before this decision is made for us. The problem is that there are still too many things that we don't know. We should require proof that it is safe, 'unlikely to be a health risk' is not enough for me.

    K
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. TopTop #24
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by gnc sebastopol: View Post
    ... The problem is that there are still too many things that we don't know. We should require proof that it is safe, 'unlikely to be a health risk' is not enough for me.

    K
    Let's see, how about we apply the same "burden of proof" of all products sold as "nutritional supplements?" There would be very few on the market.

    A level of radiation already an order of magnitude below what we already live with is "unlikely to be a health risk." That's sounds pretty good and pretty accurate.

    There is no way to prove something completely safe and you know it.

    Now, how 'bout that cell phone I bet you carry? I sure don't like being exposed to its radiation. In fact, how about shutting down the grid power in your store? Might be dangerous electrical spikes in there.

    I got no cell phone. I live without grid power. I know you can do it.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. TopTop #25
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink: View Post
    Does this health concern not apply much more to radiation from mobile phones, in the near field — the health effects located close to the source of transmission?
    I am still reading up a little on the Wi-Fi research, but this recent study on cell phone use is worrysome:

    Siegal Sadetzki, et al. "Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors—A Nationwide Case-Control Study." American Journal of Epidemiology (Published by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health). Advance Access published December 6, 2007

    Sadetzki is at the Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Unit, Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. The parotid gland is the largest of the salivary glands.

    Received for publication March 1, 2007; accepted for publication October 8, 2007. It's a case-control study, not as reliable as a randomized experiment with control group, but still.

    Abstract

    The objective of this nationwide study was to assess the association between cellular phone use and development of parotid gland tumors (PGTs). The methods were based on the international INTERPHONE study that aimed to evaluate possible adverse effects of cellular phone use. The study included 402 benign and 58 malignant incident cases of PGTs diagnosed in Israel at age 18 years or more, in 2001–2003, and 1,266 population individually matched controls. For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio = 0.87; p = 0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated. However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g., heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks. For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively. The risk for contralateral use was not significantly different from 1. A positive dose-response trend was found for these measurements. Based on the largest number of benign PGT patients reported to date, our results suggest an association between cellular phone use and PGTs.
    case-control studies; cellular phone; head and neck neoplasms; Israel; parotid gland

    See attachment for complete paper
    Last edited by Zeno Swijtink; 02-24-2008 at 10:32 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  30. TopTop #26
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by gnc sebastopol: View Post
    Let's see. it seems the arguments in favor so far break down something like this
    -I don't care, I want my wi-fi
    -we are exposed to radiation anyway, what's a little more?
    -there is no definate proof that it is unsafe.
    -relax, don't worry, trust the men with the money/power
    -we are living longer, healthier, happier lives, so it must be ok.(is that with or without prozac?)

    It seems that there is a least enough information that there may be a risk, that it would be wise to stop, or at least slow down and let the community weigh in before this decision is made for us. The problem is that there are still too many things that we don't know. We should require proof that it is safe, 'unlikely to be a health risk' is not enough for me.

    K
    I am still thinking this through but one other thing occurred to me.

    I do have wi-fi, and so I can "see" that I have five neighbors who have also wi-fi. Their signal is strong enough to be picked up by my laptop inside my house.

    So possibly, if the City decides to provide open access wi-fi in town, I and my neighbors can all get rid of our private sender and the total radiation we are all exposed to me actually go down.

    Does this make sense? Geeks help us out.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  31. TopTop #27
    Willie Lumplump
    Guest

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink: View Post
    (1) "No increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user." (2) "Analysis restricted to regular users . . . showed consistently elevated risks."--from abstract
    How could these two apparently contradictory statements be reconciled?
    Quote odds ratio = 0.87
    I've never heard of this. What is it?
    Quote For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively.
    So the lower end of the confidence interval for cumulative call time (i.e., the variable most likely to be associated with elevated risk) differed only slightly from 1, that is, no effect.
    Quote A positive dose-response trend was found for these measurements.
    But an r2 value of .000001 would be a positive dose-response trend, so really the foregoing statement means nothing without an accompanying correlation coefficient and, preferably, a p value. Since the authors of the paper must have known this, why did they omit the values from their abstract?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  32. TopTop #28
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink: View Post
    So possibly, if the City decides to provide open access wi-fi in town, I and my neighbors can all get rid of our private sender and the total radiation we are all exposed to me actually go down.

    Does this make sense? Geeks help us out.
    I don't know if qualify as a geek :nerd: , but I'll try...

    I am not familiar with the Sebastopol plan, but in many localities the municipal wi-fi is operates at relatively low speed (but still faster than dial-up). I think this is done to protect the revenues of the local telco/IP provider. Sonic.net is pretty cool, so we'll see. If it's fast, then theoretically you shouldn't need your own internet connection. However home wireless routers also create a home network. That functionality would not be available on the municipal net.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  33. TopTop #29
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump: View Post
    How could these two apparently contradictory statements be reconciled? I (...)
    I included the paper for those who wish to do a deeper study

    Odds ratio is a measure of effect size. See Wikipedia.

    The apparent contradiction in the abstract:

    "For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user": In the entire study population being a regualr user was not statistically associated with increased risk of PGTs.

    "However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g., heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks. For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively. ": Conditional on being a regular user, how heavy a regular user you are was associated with increased risk of PGTs.

    This may be because of insufficient sensitivity of the study to measure differences between your average regular user in the Israeli sample and incidental irregular users, because of sample size, eg.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  34. TopTop #30
    gnc sebastopol
    Guest

    Re: Sebastopol city wide wi-fi radiation increase

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Braggi: View Post
    Let's see, how about we apply the same "burden of proof" of all products sold as "nutritional supplements?" There would be very few on the market.
    There is a bit of a difference, I am not forcing you to take supplements. If I start putting them in your water supply, I agree, I should show you some proof that they are safe.

    I didn't say wi-fi is bad, or we should all turn off our lights. I just think it would be a good idea to do a bit more research before the decision is made.

    by the way...what was the bet? I don't have a cell phone.
    K
    Last edited by Barry; 12-24-2007 at 03:07 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email