Are Wi-fi and cell phones safe?

[alanora]

Hurray, another emoticon who's point is easily understood by me!

[handy]

--- Its just not right for a local govenrment to install wi-fi under these conditions. "

It would be private, local business (sonic) doing the installation.


"Just because you can't see it and you can't feel it doesnt mean its not toxic."

Everything is "toxic" if you get enough. Toxicity is measured as a ratio of dosage/body mass. Without that ratio, it's just a buzzword.

"Also the city is encourgaing our youth to have 100 % access to the internet and the RF exposure from the laptop is much higher. Radiowave sickness is a serious side affect of computer use. the computer is addicting, like the TV. We should not be encouraging it.

Ah, Yesss! Nobody here but us Addicts! Selflessly exposing ourselves to danger, in order to warn others! LOL

At Burning Man there's been a camp called the Mad Scientists' Collective.
Their motto is, "Better Living Through Reckless Experimentation"

I'm with them. Life is Risk. Have fun. Be careful.

[Braggi]

https://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphon...isk-219745.php

Fear not!

https://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...show_article=1
"... Among 420,000 callers tracked through 2002, there were 14,249 cancers diagnosed - fewer than the 15,001 predicted from national cancer rates. Nor did the study find increased risks for any specific tumour type...."

I guess that means cell phone use actually reduces cancer rates. Eh?






I've done a lot of searching on "radio wave sickness." Looks like another fabrication by an "industry" selling nonsense devices to protect us from a problem that doesn't exist. There are no official documents anywhere on the topic that I could find.

Sleep well, those who use cell phones and wifi.

One thing I will say, Sasu, you've got me reading more technical articles than I ever have on any other subject in such a short time. Truly, there is nothing to fear from wifi radiation, which amounts to a drop in the bucket compared to what all of us are exposed to on a daily basis.

It is certainly worth studying and watching for health concerns to crop up. But so far there ain't much out there.

-Jeff

[don]

Hi Sasu
Given that you say you know people that have gotten sick from wi-fi (I'm curious how they determine it was the Wi-fi), what about the millions of cordless phones in use for decades? I have not heard of health issues with them (and I haven't looked), nor do I see concern over their use and wonder if there is research showing that they cause illness as well, since they use a similar frequency and technology, and they are held against the head, much closer to a body than a home wi-fi system. It's difficult to absolutely prove that something is safe long-term unless you have long-term research. And we make trade offs all the time on unsafe behavior / technology use such as driving or being around automobiles, etc. and if we look at life itself statistically it is totally unsafe ~ 100% mortality! I think for most of us it is balancing between minimizing risk and enhancing life experience, and for those with extreme sensitivities, it's a more ~ and often really difficult ~ challenge.
Cheers
don

Hi Don, Yes it was mostly low emf's that were the source of our problems. My concern with city wide wi-fi is based on a lot of research that indicates that high frequency is also a concern. I have read many personal stories from people who've either gotten sick from wi-fi or their children have been harmed. This problem will be more apparent as more people are exposed and more people connect the dots between their health problems and electrcial sources.


The point is there are wired alternatives to wi-fi and it is unproven to be safe for long term use. The govt studies indicate that more research is needed and use prudent avoidance especially with children. The independant studies say its already too much. Its just not right for a local govenrment to install wi-fi under these conditions. Just because you can't see it and you can't feel it doesnt mean its not toxic. Also the city is encourgaing our youth to have 100 % access to the internet and the RF exposure from the laptop is much higher. Radiowave sickness is a serious side affect of computer use. the computer is addicting, like the TV. We should not be encouraging it.

[shoshana9]

Hi All,

On one of my replies to Sasu about Wi-Fi, I gave a link to the work of Dr. Ibrahim Karim, D.Sc. at www.biogeometry.com. I would love to get feedback about what anyone discovers about his research and work regarding EMF's, etc. Does anyone find this information helpful?

Having taken the beginning course in Biogeometry, I learned how to correct damaging electromagnetic charges inside dwellings. The energy is easily detected measurable and correctable.

If you search around his websites and other articles written about his work, you may find a story about how he helped a whole village return to "normal" health after something was installed in a church which began to sicken the animals, plants and people.

You may be surprised!

Our computer quirks are making this reply show up as Shoshana9. I am Phyllis Bala, [email protected]

[Braggi]

...
On one of my replies to Sasu about Wi-Fi, I gave a link to the work of Dr. Ibrahim Karim, D.Sc. at www.biogeometry.com. I would love to get feedback about what anyone discovers about his research and work regarding EMF's, etc. Does anyone find this information helpful?

Having taken the beginning course in Biogeometry, I learned how to correct damaging electromagnetic charges inside dwellings. The energy is easily detected measurable and correctable....

Save your money. Another huckster of nonsense "products" designed to cure a nonexistent problem.

The guy is an interior designer, not a physicist.

-Jeff

[Sasu]

Here are a few websites concerning electrical pollution. The first article addresses the "wi-fi is very low" argument and the second is a link to the info on cordless phone concerns.

https://www.antennafreeunion.org/art...t_gjhyland.htm

www.bioinitiative.org

https://www.energyfields.org/pdfs/Wi...as-Science.pdf
www.energyfields.org
https://www.radiationresearch.org/
https://www.antennafreeunion.org/
https://www.starweave.com/freiburger/
www.powerwatch.org.uk
www.safewireless.org
https://www.emrpolicy.org/
https://www.emrnetwork.org/
https://www.c-a-r-e.org/
https://www.feb.se/index_int.htm
https://www.ideaireland.org/emr.htm
www.LifeEnergies.com
www.mastsanity.org
https://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/news.php
www.mast-victims.org:
www.rfsafe.com/sars: For truth on SAR’s scam
www.cprnews.com: Cell Phone Radiation Worldwide News Website
www.emr.co.nz: New Zealand Electromagnetic Radiation Web site
www.emfbioeffects.org
www.microwavenews.com
www.wave-guide.org/ www.neilcherry.com/

• Electrical Pollution.com (*** Health effects, solutions, news....)
• Stetzer Electric
• Stray Voltage
• Safe Goeke Net (*** The Save Animals From Electricity website)
• Mike Holt (*** Articles about "stray voltage")
• EMF Guru (*** Roy Beaver's site. Info., links, great archives)
• Microwave News (Publishes studies and articles about the health effects of high frequencies)
• EMR Network (Electromagnetic radiation information)
• EMF BioEffects
• EMF Facts (Don Maisch's site. Great information, archives)
• RF Safe (Cell phone safety information. [commercial])
• National Foundation for Alternative Medicine (National Foundation for Alternative Medicine. Search for electrical pollution)
• Powerline Facts (The Power Line Task Force's site on "the state of scientific evidence regarding the impact of magnetic fields on human health")
• Buegerwelle (body science) (Primo links to articles)
• Wave Guide (EMR & RFR Bioeffects, public policy. Archives)
• Bio-electromagnetics (resources) (Good links)
• Power Watch (Very educational)
• Electro-sensitivity
• EMF Carcinogenicity
• Bridlewood/ (EMF information service)
• ICS Website (emf) (Lots of EMF information)
• Electrosensitivity - UK ( Electrosensitivity Issues)
• TetraWATCH ! (in affiliation with MAST SANITY)
• Goldsworth's Residents Against Masts (UK Advocacy Group Against Masts (tall, vertical antennas)
• https://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/public_health_emf.pdfhttps://www.stopumts.nl/english.php/

https://www.abradecel.org.br/wd/
https://www.next-up.org/intro3.php
https://www.der-mast-muss-weg.de/
https://www.mindfully.org/Technology...-EMF1jun04.htm
https://www.mindfully.org/Technology...enberg1997.htm
https://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3095831
https://www.lifeenergies.com/polluti.../emfip1-13.htm
https://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk...resonance1.php
https://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/...e_machines.htm
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/t...8rehab.html?hp https://www.mindfully.org/Technology...-EMF1jun04.htm
https://www.emfpollution.com/
https://bewisepolarize.com/radiation%20harmful.htm
https://www.smartgridnews.com/artman...ticle_309.html
https://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/Affset2007.php#1
https://www.antennasearch.com/



Robert Becker, M.D., father of using electricity in modern medicine to heal, wrote a book called "Cross Currents". He said, " I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time the greatest polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater, on a global scale than warming and the increase in chemical elements in the environment."

[Braggi]

Here are a few websites concerning electrical pollution. The first article addresses the "wi-fi is very low" argument and the second is a link to the info on cordless phone concerns.

https://www.antennafreeunion.org/art...t_gjhyland.htm

Sasu, have you actually read any of these? I just read the first one on your list. It's from 2000, and that means outdated, refers to other studies which presumably are even older, that is, it doesn't look like an actual study itself, and the language is completely inflammatory while at the same time much of what they claim has been proven wrong by later research.

Look for newer studies, that are ACTUAL studies, not "meta studies" which are studies of studies and are rife with problems. Understand that most of those websites you link to are SELLING stuff to solve a problem that doesn't appear to exist, based on the most recent, peer reviewed research.

Please go down that list of links you posted and read them with a critical frame of mind. Look for qualifiers such as "may cause ...," "may indicate...," etc. There are many buzz words and hype that expose the bias of the author(s) and these articles are typically easy to spot. The field(s) we are discussing are filled with such articles.

Please go to the trouble of doing that, post links from scientifically based sites that are NOT selling gadgets to "protect" you. If they offer "products" to protect you from the problems they describe, click away from that site.

Post your links one or two at a time and I will be willing to read.

Perhaps I should write an article on how to read a study with a critical mind. Anybody have one they could post here? Where's Carl Sagan when you need him? His book, "Demon Haunted World" is highly recommended.

Good luck to you. I hope you find wisdom, comfort and pleasure.

-Jeff

[Sasu]

Dr. [Olle] Johansson [of Sweden's Karolinska Institute]
explains that “The human body, whose cells, nerves and
organs function with electrical impulse, have difficulty
adapting to 60-Hertz cycles, let alone transient high
frequencies that last milliseconds. We are dealing with
amplitude-modulated or pulsed microwaves in the 2.45 Ghz
range (or nearby), in a form that has only been around to
any extent for the last 10-15 years. Compared to the
natural background fields, in which living cells have
developed during the last 3.8 billion years, these
electromagnetic fields are actually very, very strong. It
is thus wrong to believe that evolution has furnished us
with a safety protection shielding layer against such WLAN
(wireless local area network) [aka WiFi] signals. It has
not.”

[Sasu]

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff,

You don't believe me. No matter how many links I post you will not believe me even if they have credible studies (many of the links I posted are .org sites) Bioinitiative.org has been created by top notch researchers and scientists.

Its ok. When you start to beleive it you'll find lots of proof, until then you and Handy can have a drink together and make fun of me.

What do you care anyway? You live off the grid, lucky you.

[shellebelle]

You do know anyone can have a .org right? It doesn't validate their truth in study or as a non profit now an .edu that education and you must meet requirements but not sure what they are.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff,

You don't believe me. No matter how many links I post you will not believe me even if they have credible studies (many of the links I posted are .org sites) Bioinitiative.org has been created by top notch researchers and scientists.

Its ok. When you start to beleive it you'll find lots of proof, until then you and Handy can have a drink together and make fun of me.

What do you care anyway? You live off the grid, lucky you.

[Kermit1941]

Another thing: These kind of statistics are not the right ones to assess the dangers of smoking, IMHU.

For instance, jumping of the 11th floor into an empty swimming pool leads almost certainly to death.

Now suppose that 30% of people die in that way, and that (by inference, and given that death eventually is a certainty) 70% of death occur in non-jumpers.

Same statistics as in your case. Still we agree that jumping is a bad idea, no??

What you need to know is probability of diseases such as long cancer, emphysema, among smokers compared to probability among non-smokers.

When

[quote handy wrote: ]

True. But about 30% of people smoke, and 70% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. Again, the 'proof' is amplified from 'not safe' to DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

Fearmongering....

[/quote]


it surprised me because I had heard a quite different statistic.

I had heard that among people who were diagnosed with lung cancer,

98 percent of them were smokers.

I think that this is a more compelling statistic than would be obtained by asking what percent of smokers get lung cancer, or asking what percent of non-smokers get lung cancer.

However, it would also be good to know probability of diseases such as long cancer, emphysema, among smokers compared to probability among non-smokers.

If we knew the percentages of smokers that got lung cancer, and percent of non-smokers that got lung cancer, and also the percent of people who smoked, then we could apply Bayes theorem to calculate the percent of lung cancer victims who smoked, and the percent of lung cancer victims who did not smoke.


We need to distinguish several different probabilities.

The simplest approach is to estimate the proportion of smokers who get lung cancer, and estimate the proportion of smokers who don't get lung cancer, ( maybe because they die from other causes before they develop lung cancer? )

and estimated the proportion of people who don't smoke and still get
lung cancer, ( maybe because their spouse and/or co-workers smoke?)

Let p1 ( a not yet know number)
be the proportion of people who smoke and also get lung cancer.

Let p2 ( a not yet know number)
be the proportion of people who smoke and do not get lung cancer.

Then p1 + p2 is the proportion of people who smoke.

If it is true that 30% of people smoke, then

p1 + p2 = 30%.


Then we would have that 70% of people don't smoke.

How might we relate these proportions to the percent of smokers who get lung cancer, or the percent of lung cancer victims who smoke?


Let q1 be the proportion of people who do not smoke and still get lung cancer .


What is the proportion of lung cancer victims who do not smoke?

Remember that q1 is the proportion of people who don't smoke and also get lung cancer,
and the the total proportion of people who get lung cancer is p1 + q1.

So the proportion of lung cancer victims who do not smoke will be

q1/(p1 + q1).

Since we don't know what q1, p1 and p2 are, we can not really intuit what is happening here.

But we can still use what we have so far developed.

Suppose we did know the proportion of smokers who developed lung cancer and the proportion of lung cancer victims who smoked.

Let r1 be the proportion of smokers who developed lung cancer,
and
let r2 be the proportion of lung cancer victims who smoked.

Then

r1 = p1/( p1 + p2) = p1 / 30%

or p1 = 30% * r1.

also

r2 = p1 / (p1 + q1)
or
r2 * ( p1 + q1 ) = p1

r2 * p1 + r2 * q1 = p1

r2 * q1 = p1 - r2 * p1

r2 * q1 = ( 1 - r2) * p1


Once we get any three of these statistics, p1, p2, q1, r1,or r2,

we can calculate the other two.

and if we can measure all of them, we can check the accuracy of the measurements by the logical connection they must have.

We can also test unreasonable claims, such as


Handy's claim that 70% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers.


if (1 - r2) were equal to 70%

then

r2 would equal 30%

and

r2 = p1 / (p1 + q1) = 30%

30% ( p1 + q1 ) = p1

30% p1 + 30% q1 = p1

30% q1 = p1 - 30% p1

30% q1 = 70% p1

q1 = 2.333 * p1

This would be saying that the proportion of people who did not smoke and
got lung cancer was 2.333 times the proportion of people who smoked and
got lung cancer.


Is this not absurd?

I think the statistic that I remember is more likely.

Suppose it is the way I remember it.

That 98% of the people who get lung cancer smoked.

Then 2% of the people who get lung cancer did not smoke.

That is, q1/(p1 + q1) = 2%

q1 = 2% ( p1 + q1) = 2% p1 + 2% q1

98% q1 = 2 % p1

p1 = 49 q1

Now we have the interpretation that

the proportion of smokers who get lung cancer is 49 times
the proportion of non-smokers who get lung cancer.

This is much more believable.



Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Sasu]

Dr. Magda Havas, who wrote an expert report on the health and environmental
impacts of citywide WiFi for SNAFU, submitted the following letter to the NY
Times on energy efficient light bulbs which you may find of interest.

New York Times,
Letter to the Editor;

The two articles that appeared in the January 10th, 2008 issue of the NYT
on energy efficient lights [Any other Bright Ideas by Julie Schefo and
Remaking the Condo with Light and Air by Sidney LeBlance] were both
interesting but their failed to mention one very important point. Some of
these bulbs emit radio frequency radiation. This radiation flows through
the air and along electrical wires contributing to dirty electricity. Some
packages even have a warning about the radio frequency saying this light may
interfere with radio reception. Indeed this is something that most people
can test with a portable radio on AM. As you bring the radio close to an
energy efficient bulb that produces radio frequencies the radio will begin
to buzz. This is known as electromagnetic interference (EMI) and is a
concern for anyone using wireless technology such as mobile phones or
wireless computers.

But the real problem is that these frequencies are making people sick.
Three independent groups in the UK, including the British Association of
Dermatologists, the Migraine Action Association, and Epilepsy Action, have
reported illness among their members who have tried energy efficient compact
fluorescent lights (CFL). The most common symptoms are headaches-including
migraines, fatigue, confusion, dizziness, ringing in the ears, eyestrain,
nausea and skin irritations.

Not all energy efficient bulbs are the same. Some do not contribute to
dirty electricity and do not produce radio frequencies and this includes a
few compact fluorescent lights, some LEDs (light emitting dioxides) and some
halogen bulbs. Unfortunately most of the bulbs on the market will make
people sick. Reducing green house gases is important but doing it with
flawed technology that will make the user ill is not the right course of
action. If governments are going to ban the energy-inefficient but
electromagnetically clean incandescent bulb, then they should also ban bulbs
that produce radio frequency pollution.

I would encourage anyone who has recently purchased energy efficient bulbs
and has since developed any of the symptoms mentioned above to test the bulb
for radiation with a portable radio and if the radio buzzes to return the
bulb to the retail store for a full refund. Even if our government hasn't
done its homework, individual consumers can still make a difference.

Dr. Magda Havas, B.Sc. Ph.D.
Environmental & Resource Studies,
Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, K9J 7B8

[Zeno Swijtink]

Did anyone post these clippings about wireless concerns in Europe already?? I don't remember having seen this here.

I am posting them uncurtailed since I think this fits fair use since it is part of an ongoing discussion. But the links are provided. And it could be a project to follow up by searching the International Herald Tribune website.

-- Zeno

****

https://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09...wireless24.php

Cloud of worry gathers over wireless health risks

By Doreen Carvajal

Sunday, September 23, 2007

PARIS: While major cities around the world rush
to blanket neighborhoods with free wireless
Internet access, critics are questioning the
health risks that might be created by a wired
London or a Paris transformed from the City of
Light to City of Hot Spots.

The nagging fear is that electromagnetic waves
emitted by wireless technology could become the
tobacco smoke of the 21st century. Some
environmentalists are already demanding
restrictions, and government officials in some
countries are issuing warnings to limit use and
seeking reviews of the long-term health impact of
exposure to wireless networks and mobile
telephones.

"The exposure to electromagnetic fields is
rising, and it's widespread," said Jacqueline
McGlade, executive director of the European
Environmental Agency, a European Union
institution. "So, come what may, we should be
anticipating that even with a low dose, but with
wide exposure, this will require much more
inspection."

The agency, which last week issued a statement
urging caution, is paying close attention to the
results of an ongoing World Health Organization
study called Interphone that is evaluating
cellphone use by almost 7,000 brain tumor
patients in 13 countries, among them Japan,
Canada, Germany and France.

For the most part, national studies have detected
no consequences from the use of mobile phones for
a period of up to 10 years. But last spring,
Interphone published the results of studies of
1,500 brain cancer patients in the south of
England and Nordic countries.

"They found a significantly increased risk of
brain cancer for use of a period of more than 10
years on the same side of the head where the
tumor developed," said Elisabeth Cardis,
Interphone coordinator and director of the
International Agency for Research on Cancer in
Lyon, France. She said that larger numbers of
long-term users needed to be studied to give the
findings greater validity.

Wireless-network technology developed too
recently to be included in existing major studies
of the health impact from exposure to
electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, say
scientists, who note it is likely to be less
harmful because it emits less electromagnetic
energy than mobile phones placed directly on the
ear.

But school officials are looking for reassurance.
Teacher associations in Britain are demanding
further analysis before schools introduce
wireless computer networks, and the city of
Frankfurt is being even more cautious - school
officials there decided last year not to install
wireless systems until there was more health
research.

This month, the French Health Ministry ordered
the country's Agency for Environmental and
Occupational Health Safety to prepare a review of
available scientific information about the
effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields
from cellphones and Wi-Fi.

Members of the Green Party in the German
Parliament have also pressed the government with
similar questions this summer. In response, the
Federal Office for Radiation Protection advised
limiting use of mobile phones and wireless
networks as a precaution until more is known.

"Our main concern is to keep the total exposure
of electric magnetic fields as low as possible,
especially in schools and kindergartens," said
Sylvia Kotting-Uhl, a member of the German
Bundestag and spokesman for the Green Party on
the issue. "We will force the government to take
their own warnings seriously and to favor
cable-based technology."

Scientists are pressing for more information
about the impact of heavy usage and also on the
effect on children, concerned that developing
brains may react differently to exposure.

This month, Mobile Telecommunications and Health
Research, an £8.8 million, or $17.8 million,
study funded by the British government and the
telecommunications industry, ruled out short-term
adverse effects of mobile phone use on the brain
and cell functions of adults who were the
subjects of the study.

But these researchers also cautioned that further
study was needed of children and people who have
been exposed for more than 15 years, a critical
period because brain cancer symptoms typically
take that long to emerge.

The group is helping to start a long-term
surveillance study called Cosmos, looking at
200,000 cellphone users, beginning this year. It
will track light and heavy users of mobile phones
in Britain, Denmark, Sweden and Finland over the
next 25 years.

Its earlier study, which was paid for by the
British government and the mobile phone industry,
was coordinated by an independent group so as not
to be influenced by its backers.

Scientists note that mobile phones have not been
around long enough to find a sufficient number of
consumers who have been exposed for more than 15
years, a hurdle that is even greater when it
comes to Wi-Fi networks.

"You're restricted by reality," said Joachim
Schuz, a German researcher with the Institute of
Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen who is
participating in the Cosmos study. "So the reason
that there are no studies on long-term users is
because at the moment the long-term users are
just becoming a bigger group."

Schuz, who also participated in the Interphone
study in Germany, said that researchers in the
Cosmos study would have access to telephone
records, health records and questionnaires filled
out by telephone users. With that information,
researchers will be looking for associations
between phone use and a wide range of illnesses,
including cancer, Parkinson's disease, migraine
headaches, depression, sleep disturbances and
tinnitus, the clinical name for ringing in the
ears.

The Interphone study, which is expected to be
released next year, focuses in particular on
people with brain and neck tumors. Nearly half of
the electromagnetic energy is absorbed by the
tissues on the side of the head closest to the
handheld phone, scientists say.

While cancer researchers look for answers, others
are growing impatient. In August an international
group of cancer researchers and public health
experts issued a review of available studies on
electromagnetic fields called BioInitiative that
urged precautions.

The European Environmental Agency contributed a
chapter about historical lessons learned from
asbestos that showed that exposure could be
harmful even before there is convincing evidence
of harm.

"We don't want to wait until you have definitive
proof before you start taking actions," said
David Carpenter, who helped write the report and
a physician and professor of environmental health
and toxicology at State University of New York at
Albany, where the report was issued.

Thus far, Carpenter noted, most of the discussion
and research on the issue is taking place in
Europe and not in the United States.

"Our concern is that the health risks are rarely
part of the debate" in the United States, he
said. "If there's a downside, that needs to be
put on the table."

The French environmental group Priartém decided
not to wait. This month, it successfully pressed
two French supermarket chains, Carrefour and
Auchan, to shun a special telephone, Kiditel,
with GPS tracking technology, that is marketed
for young children.

"We were concerned that these are telephones that
have to be illuminated all the time," said
Jeanine Le Calvez, president of Priartém.

But industry groups like CTIA, an international
association for wireless telecommunications based
in Washington, steadfastly maintain that the
"overwhelming majority of research studies that
have been published in scientific journals around
the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a
health risk."

Le Calvez, though, remains wary. This month, her
group met with French Health Ministry officials
to push for a ban on telephones marketed for
children. She also takes a dim view of the free
wireless hot spots in Paris, which number at
least 400.

"A catastrophe," she declared. "The new system
increases electronic magnetic pollution and we
have such insufficient knowledge of the health
risks."

RELATED

https://environment.independent.co.u...cle2990155.ece

24 September 2007 07:36

Child safety fears prompt Wi-Fi code for Welsh schools

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Published: 23 September 2007

New safety rules are to be drawn up for Wi-Fi in
schools for the first time in Britain, after a
local authority officially voiced concern last
week about possible effects on children's health.

Carmarthenshire County Council is drawing up a
code of practice for using the technology that it
plans to enforce on local schools and hopes will
be adopted nationally. It says that the code is
"absolutely necessary" as the safety of children
should be "paramount".

The move, which was welcomed by the Professional
Association of Teachers, is the first such action
a local authority has taken over classroom Wi-Fi,
which has been installed in nearly half of all
primary schools and 70 per cent of secondary
schools in the country.

This spring, Britain's top health protection
watchdog, Sir William Stewart, called for an
official review of the use of the technology in
schools. But his concerns - first reported in The
Independent on Sunday - were ignored by the
Government.

The German government now recommends that people
should keep their exposure to radiation from
Wi-Fi "as low as possible" by choosing
"conventional wired connections", and sends
schools "instructional material" on the issue.
The technology is already banned in Frankfurt
schools.

Last week the European Environment Agency
suggested that "it would be prudent for health
authorities to recommend actions to reduce
exposures, especially to vulnerable groups such
as children".

Carmarthenshire is to survey UK and overseas
medical research, including evidence that mobile
phone use for over a decade can cause cancer,
before drawing up its code.

Councillor Ieuan Jones said: "We are going to
monitor the situation as closely as we can
because we all have these concerns. The dangers
of these Wi-Fi connections are possibly along the
lines of using hand-held mobile phones."

Meryl Gravell, the council leader, said: "A code
of practice is absolutely necessary. The safety
of our children in school is paramount for all of
us."

By contrast, the cabinet of Haringey Council in
north-east London last week threw out
recommendations for controls. In July its
Overview and Scrutiny Committee reached all-party
agreement that the council should recommend that
schools give preference to "wired-in" systems and
that they should consult with parents and staff
about the use of Wi-Fi. But the all-Labour
cabinet dismissed all its recommendations bar one
- that Wi-Fi systems should be switched off when
not in use, and then purely "as good
energy-conservation practice".

Councillor Martin Newton, the Lib Dem leader on
the committee, yesterday accused the cabinet of
"playing Russian roulette with the future of our
children".

--

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.,
section 107, some material is provided without
permission from the copyright owner, only for
purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and
research under the "fair use" provisions of
federal copyright laws. These materials may not
be distributed further, except for "fair use,"
without permission of the copyright owner. For
more information go to:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

[Valley Oak]

After reading this, it is the first time that I begin to feel concern for the possible health risks of wireless signals or radiation. Although the jury is still out on wireless, I am now feeling some apprehension about this issue, at least until the studies and other research are completed.

Edward

Did anyone post these clippings about wireless concerns in Europe already?? I don't remember having seen this here.

I am posting them uncurtailed since I think this fits fair use since it is part of an ongoing discussion. But the links are provided. And it could be a project to follow up by searching the International Herald Tribune website.

-- Zeno

****

https://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09...wireless24.php

Cloud of worry gathers over wireless health risks

By Doreen Carvajal

Sunday, September 23, 2007

PARIS: While major cities around the world rush
to blanket neighborhoods with free wireless
Internet access, critics are questioning the
health risks that might be created by a wired
London or a Paris transformed from the City of
Light to City of Hot Spots.

The nagging fear is that electromagnetic waves
emitted by wireless technology could become the
tobacco smoke of the 21st century...

[Sasu]

Sonic suggested I contact the wi-fi manufacturer, Meraki. Below is our on line communication:

Hello,

The City of Sebastopol plans to install your wireless system in the down town area. Please send me your safety information.

Thank you,
Sandi

Sandi,
Thanks for your interest in Meraki. I’d be happy to help you with anything you need to get started with Meraki products. I’m a little bit unclear on exactly what you need, but if you can clarify I’ll do what I can immediately. Find answers to many frequently asked questions at https://meraki.com/help, and if there’s anything else you need just let me know.
Regards, -Matt


HI Matt,

I checked your help page and did not find what I was looking for. Sonic is a local internet provider and they referred me to you as they are planning an installation in town. What I want to know is: How much radio frequencies will the wi-fi system add at the lamp pole, where someone might stand and 100 meters away and then 200 meters.
Also are you aware of the health effects of wireless controversy? I see no links on your site regarding this issue.
Thanks, Sandi

Sandi,

If you are concerned with the health effects of wireless networks, we’d recommend you conduct outside research on the topic. Meraki uses 2.4 GHz technology. If you decide that you’d like to move forward with plans to network Sebastopol, please let us know how we can help you get started.

Regards, -Matt

Meraki Sales [email protected]
(650) 810-8500 x 1



Ready to ask the council to reconsider and vote No on this installation yet? The independant researchers say no wi-fi and the govt agencys say "more research is needed." The WHO DENIES that power lines have any health effect! ??? That was proven how many years ago? So do we use our community as a test lab? NO NO NO NO!!!

https://www.petitiononline.com/mufifree/petition.html

[spam1]

It seems to me that any increase in RF will be fractionally more. There are already many, many wi-fi signals around Sebastopol (just go wardriving sometime and see). So, adding a couple more that provide free wi-fi will be a slight change, not a major change. And, in terms of health, maybe being able to use free wi-fi would save some people some money, which they could use to buy better health care?

Remember, back in Salem, it was well known anecdotally that some women could cause miscarriages and milk cows to dry up. The town fathers, just to be on the safe side, burned them all. After all, they may have been witches, and they can't take chances with the lives of the town children! Perhaps we should have a pogrom to search out and destroy all the wireless appliances that are beaming RF into the ether?

Seriously, with something like 2 billion cellphones on the planet, if there was even a tenuous connection, there is ample statistical size to see all but the very smallest of connections. I attended a CTIA study session and in it was reported highly likely health affects: cellular use was unequivocally linked to increased mortality, due to inattention when driving. The link here is so strong that it is unmistakable. But, I would still like to use my cell phone in the car, as well as eat, listen to the radio, and look at the scenery (all of which are distractive as well).

Sonic suggested I contact the wi-fi manufacturer, Meraki. Below is our on line communication:

Hello,

The City of Sebastopol plans to install your wireless system in the down town area. Please send me your safety information.

...

I checked your help page and did not find what I was looking for. Sonic is a local internet provider and they referred me to you as they are planning an installation in town. What I want to know is: How much radio frequencies will the wi-fi system add at the lamp pole, where someone might stand and 100 meters away and then 200 meters.
Also are you aware of the health effects of wireless controversy? I see no links on your site regarding this issue.
Thanks, Sandi

[Zeno Swijtink]

Electrical Pollution: Reducing Your Health Risks

Guest Speakers: Sandi Maurer and Michael Nuert

with*video clip by Blake Levitt,
followed by*panel discussion and Q & A's

Free Presentation:
Thursday,*January 31,*7-9 pm,

Palm Drive Hospital Meeting Room,
501 Petaluma Avenue, Sebastopol, 95472
(Main entrance, 1st door on left)

~This is a SCENT*FREE and CELL PHONE FREE event~


Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are emitted by almost everything electrical around us. We are continually exposed by power lines, appliances, tv's, radios, computers, cordless*& cell phones, cell towers, the wiring in your home and more recently wi-fi.**Did you know that the factor most closely linked to the appearance of childhood leukemia in modern societies is the original electrification of the home? More than two thousand studies have reported that EMFs cause important biological effects - including increased risk of cancer and suppression of the immune system.

Join us*and learn the truth about EMF's, and more importantly how to reduce your health risks at your home, schools*and places of work.*
We will also discuss the impact of wi-fi on our communities, why the London Resolution advises no -wi-fi in homes, schools and public places, and why*many experts and citizens in*our community are*requesting the city council to reverse their decision to implement free wi-fi in downtown Sebastopol.*

*The London Resolution (Nov. 2007) calls for no wifi in homes, schools and public places. The Paris library system has just banned wifi. The European Environmental Union advises no wifi. The CA EMF program and the World Health Organization urge governments to apply the precautionary principle especially concerning children.*

Sandy Maurer is*an*electrical pollution and electrical sensitivity researcher.

Michael Neuert, MA, BSME is an electrical engineer and environmental electrician, who has been testing and reducing EMFs for over 15 years. For more information go to www.emfcenter.com

Facilitated by Melissa Weaver, coordinator of*The Center for Sustainable Health, Sebastopol, CA.

For information please contact: Sandi Maurer at [email protected]*or [email protected]



Melissa Weaver, owner
Enhanced Health Systems,
Solutions for Sustainable Health
P.O. Box 1422
Sebastopol, CA 95473
www.sustainablehealth.com
(707) 823-3235 or 1 (800) 247-9881

[Braggi]

...
I checked your help page and did not find what I was looking for...

Perhaps what you are looking for doesn't exist. You never answered my questions regarding the links you've posted. Have you read any of the studies? Have you found any studies that show negative health effects from wi-fi systems?

Did you read the study I posted showing no negative health effects from cell phones over an entire country?

-Jeff

[don]

Hey Sandi

Your enthusiasm for your position regarding EMF's is clear, and may I suggest that you might be more successful in getting what you want from manufacturers and others and possibly further your cause if you had more understanding of what you are dealing with. It's obvious in what you asked for from the manufacturer that you do not understand the technologies, and it seems that you were emailing a salesperson, they probably didn't want to take their time in getting involved. It can take a great deal of time and effort educating someone who doesn't have a foundation to understand even the terminology. I would bet that they do have at least some of the information that I think you are looking for if they knew specifically what that was.

I think EMF's are a concern, and I have a 30+ year electronics / engineering background and have owned my own EMF meter for many years, so I am very much in favor of having a safe environment. However, the way you mix information about EMFs from very different soucres (such as house wiring (60Hz), cell phones (800-1950MHz) and Wi-Fi (2.4 GHz) and at different power levels and distances (cell phones up to 0.6 Watts pressed againt an ear and Wi-Fi transceivers at 0.2 Watts from 50 to a few hundred feet) and in the same basket makes no scientific sense, even if you get an emotional (fear-based?) response from those that do not understand the technology. Example: Using cell phone information to say the Wi-Fi in Sebastopl is bad does not make sense. And, if Wi-Fi is that bad, operating from such a distance, then I ask you once more, why wouldn't you want all cordless (home) phones banned as most of them use 2.4 GHz (same as Wi-Fi) and are use a close (against your ear) distance, much closer than the proposed Wi-Fi, and would involve many more people?

I'd like you to answer simple questions that Jeff, I and others have asked, and not just point us to some website or not respond at all. Less cheerleader and more answers and interaction please!

Thanks
don

Sonic suggested I contact the wi-fi manufacturer, Meraki. Below is our on line communication:

Hello,

The City of Sebastopol plans to install your wireless system in the down town area. Please send me your safety information.

Thank you,
Sandi

Sandi,
Thanks for your interest in Meraki. I’d be happy to help you with anything you need to get started with Meraki products. I’m a little bit unclear on exactly what you need, but if you can clarify I’ll do what I can immediately. Find answers to many frequently asked questions at https://meraki.com/help, and if there’s anything else you need just let me know.
Regards, -Matt


HI Matt,

I checked your help page and did not find what I was looking for. Sonic is a local internet provider and they referred me to you as they are planning an installation in town. What I want to know is: How much radio frequencies will the wi-fi system add at the lamp pole, where someone might stand and 100 meters away and then 200 meters.
Also are you aware of the health effects of wireless controversy? I see no links on your site regarding this issue.
Thanks, Sandi

Sandi,

If you are concerned with the health effects of wireless networks, we’d recommend you conduct outside research on the topic. Meraki uses 2.4 GHz technology. If you decide that you’d like to move forward with plans to network Sebastopol, please let us know how we can help you get started.

Regards, -Matt

Meraki Sales [email protected]
(650) 810-8500 x 1



Ready to ask the council to reconsider and vote No on this installation yet? The independant researchers say no wi-fi and the govt agencys say "more research is needed." The WHO DENIES that power lines have any health effect! ??? That was proven how many years ago? So do we use our community as a test lab? NO NO NO NO!!!

https://www.petitiononline.com/mufifree/petition.html

[Zeno Swijtink]

I think there is enough evidence accumulating to warrant a moratorium on installing community sponsored public wi-fi in Sebastopol and embark on an environmental and health impact and a cost-benefit analysis to see how best to further the goal of cheap and convenient universal access to information and communication. There are more ways of loving a cat than choking it with cream.

*****

ISIS Press Release 30/01/08

Cordless Phones and Malignant Brain Tumours
************************************

Cordless phones depend on the same microwaves that power cell phones and other wireless telecommunication and may be far more hazardous. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Cordless phones at least as dangerous as mobile phones

Cancer researchers in Sweden found strong links between malignant brain tumours and using cordless phones, which are comparable to those for using mobile phones [1, 2].

The cancer research team led by Lennart Hardell at the University of Orebro showed that people who have used mobile phones or cordless phones for more than 2 000 h are all at greatly increased risks of getting malignant brain tumours.

The odds of getting malignant brain tumours compared with those who have never used these phones - expressed as odds ratio, OR ˆ was 5.9 times for analogue mobile phones (older type of mobile phones), 3.7 tines for digital mobile phones and 2.3 times for cordless phones. (OR of 1 indicates no increased risk compared to non-users; OR<1 indicates decreased risk; and OR>1 indicates increased risk.)

For all malignant brain tumours in people who have used the phones for more than ten years, the ORs were 3.0 and 2.8 for analogue and digital mobile phones respectively, and 3.3 for cordless phones. For high-grade astrocytomas (malignant tumour of the astrocyte, a glial cell), the corresponding ORs increased further to 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9 respectively.

The risk of malignant brain tumours is increased for any phone use, regardless of how many years or hours of use. The ORs for analogue and digital mobile phones were 1.5 and 1.3 respectively, and for cordless phone, 1.3. When considering malignant tumours on the same side of the head the phone is used, the ORs rose to 2.1, 1.8, and 1.7 respectively for malignant tumours, and to 2.4, 2.3 and 2.0 respectively for high-grade astrocytomas. This is yet another indication that the tumours are associated with exposure.



Read the rest of this article here
https://www.i-sis.org.uk/cordlessPhonesBrainTumours.php

Or read other articles about electromagnetic field effects
https://www.i-sis.org.uk/SO_emf.php

[Sasu]

The article Zeno posted mentions the Interphone study. Here's a link to info about the controversy over the release of that study:
https://www.microwavenews.com/

Heres a portion of that article:

January 30... It's time to end the deadlock. It's time to release the results of the Interphone study, the largest and most expensive cell phone epidemiological study ever attempted. Any further delay would be close to scandalous.

A draft of the final paper with the combined data from the 13 participating countries was completed close to two years ago. One member of the Interphone team —Canada's Dan Krewski— has said that the holdup is due to disagreements over editing the manuscript, that is, changing a comma here or a comma there. We doubt that what's going on. Krewski told us this close to six months ago and the paper has still not been submitted for publication.

The real reason, we believe, is that the study shows that there are tumor risks following long-term use of a mobile phone and that some of the Interphone researchers don't want to go public.

Why? As Elisabeth Cardis, the Interphone study director, explained last October, the interpretation of the data is "not straightforward" (see our October 9 post). This allows one faction to hold up the process by arguing that there is no point scaring the public if the elevated risk estimates may be spurious.

At the same time, the worldwide wireless industry —now worth on the order of a trillion dollars— and the governments that tax them are applying pressure, subtle or otherwise, to keep the lid on.



[quote=Zeno Swijtink;48134]Did anyone post these clippings about wireless concerns in Europe already?? I don't remember having seen this here.

[Sasu]

Don, Its too bad you did not come to our class last night.

Rather than telling me I don' t understand what I am dealing with, tell me how I could've better posed the question to Meraki. I'd like to hear.

I never claimed to be a scientist, nor an expert. I have been researching this subject which is exhaustvely massive and very complicated. Since you are so experienced perhaps you could be less critical and more educating?

"why wouldn't you want all cordless (home) phones banned as most of them use 2.4 GHz (same as Wi-Fi) and are use a close (against your ear) distance, much closer than the proposed Wi-Fi, and would involve many more people?"

I recommend people do not use cordless phones. I do not use one, do not use a cell or a microwave or wi-fi. Its obvious, isnt it, the difference between someone using a cordless phone in their own home and placing wi-if all over town?

The state of California and The National Institute of Health advocate No and Low cost avoidance!

So Sebastopol defies the states and The Fed's recommendation.. and why?
Did you read the Robert Becker article ? https://www.energyfields.org/science/becker.html

Becker wrote the book "Cross Currents" I recommend it.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I think it is important not just to reject wi-fi but to keep our eyes on the big goal: universal and open access to information and communication.

This is an application of the precautionary principle where you not just vote one proposal up or down, but try to find the best solution to a clearly stated goal explored in a full context.

It's not just sufficient to reject wi-fi. Maybe wireless on the C spectrum is the way to go:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31357

[alanora]

Is this the new version of the tower of babel that will bring us to our knees?

[Braggi]

Sasu, again you are posting links with no information.

You have posted no studies that have anything to do with wi-fi. OK, I confess, I haven't read them all, but the first two have nothing. I've read enough. I'm beginning to wonder what Madga Havas is trying to accomplish. She's certainly not acting like a scientist.

Again I ask, have you read any of the stuff? If you had you wouldn't be worried about wi-fi. There are NO STUDIES that show wi-fi causing any harm to anyone. The energy levels are very very low. Far lower to most of what we are already exposed to.

The literature you have posted is an empty suit. Again.

I really feel like making my own petitions and having people sign in favor of the wi-fi system. Do I have to tell them I don't live in Sebastopol? I wonder if Healdsburg is considering it.

You are making a poor case against wi-fi, Sasu.

I hope the Council is at least a little scientifically savvy. For some reason, I have my doubts. Politicians? Oh boy.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

...

This is an application of the precautionary principle where you not just vote one proposal up or down, but try to find the best solution to a clearly stated goal explored in a full context.
...

Good, I like that. I've done a lot of reading on the subject and found no reason for alarm. In fact, radiation of far greater intensities are tolerated quite well by everyone in modern societies.

If you have information to the contrary, please share it.

-Jeff

[Sasu]

https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/studies.asp

[Braggi]

https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/studies.asp

Sasu, these are reposts of previous posts. None of them show harm to humans from wi-fi.

The cell phone studies are in error as has been proven by larger, better studies.

I'll assume you agree or that you haven't read any of the studies.

-Jeff

[don]

Feb 5, 2008
LONDON (Reuters) - Using a mobile phone does not increase your risk of brain cancer, according to a new Japanese study that is the first to consider the effects of radiation on different parts of the brain.
The finding adds to the growing body of evidence that mobile phones are safe.
Scientists at Tokyo Women's Medical University compared phone use in 322 brain cancer patients with 683 healthy people and found that regularly using a mobile did not significantly affect the likelihood of getting brain cancer.
They also studied the radiation emitted from different types of phones to assess the affect on different areas of the brain.
"Using our newly developed and more accurate techniques, we found no association between mobile phone use and cancer, providing more evidence to suggest they don't cause brain cancer," Naohito Yamaguchi, who led the research, said.
His team's findings were published in the British Journal of Cancer.
Scientists around the world have been monitoring the effects of radio-frequency fields on human health for around 60 years.
Public concern over the safety of mobile phones has grown as more and more adults and children rely on them for everyday communication, although the evidence to date has given the technology a clean bill of health.
Despite an explosion in mobile phone use around the world since the 1980s, the number of cases of brain cancer has hardly changed.
A few studies have shown an association between mobile phones and cancer but the majority have found no link. The largest study to date, involving 420,000 people, showed no association with any type of cancer, even after 10 years of use.
"So far, studies have shown no evidence that mobile use is harmful, but we can't be completely sure about their long-term effects. Research is still ongoing," said Lesley Walker, Cancer Research UK's director of cancer information.

Sasu, these are reposts of previous posts. None of them show harm to humans from wi-fi.

The cell phone studies are in error as has been proven by larger, better studies.

I'll assume you agree or that you haven't read any of the studies.

-Jeff