Are Wi-fi and cell phones safe?

[Sasu]

Find out who funded that study.

Some people get headaches from cell phones. Because you think it's safe, do you force them to use one?

people have adverse health reactions to wi-fi and other wireless devices. So you impose this technology on a whole city because you believe its safe?

And knowing that there are many studies saying it is not safe how can you be sure you are right?

And just because its not your experience (yet) how can you be sure its not someone elses?

[Karl Frederick]

Jeff,

Have you read studies which were capable of detecting effects which might not be obvious until exposure had been maintained for several years?

Karl

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]

Single Small-Scale Industry-Funded Study in Japan Claims Mobiles Clear of Cancer Risk - Oh Yes?
Latest study from Japan press release states "Japanese study clears mobiles of brain cancer risk" .
This is rather a far-fetched statement and one can only be suspicious of the motives. One study can never alone be "proof".

In September 2007 a pooled analysis of the 11 existing studies into brain tumours and phone use over 10 years was made.[i]
The scientists found that for tumours on the side of the head where the phone is held people were twice as likely to get a glioma, and two and a half times more likely to get an acoustic neuroma Hardell and Mild (on the MTHR) from Sweden who carried out the
analysis have also conducted their own independent studies into long term use, which show for over 2000 hours use the risk increases five times on the same side of the head where the phone is held.

In September Professor Mild told The Independent on Sunday: "I find it quite strange to see so many official presentations saying that there is no risk. There are strong indications that something happens after 10 years." He also said that mobiles should not be given to children, whose thinner skulls and developing nervous systems make them particularly vulnerable.

Interestingly, this advice was given to French parents by the French Health Ministry in December 2007 [ii] after the release of an Israeli Interphone study on salivary gland tumours showed a 50% increased risk on the same side as the phone was held. [iii]

"The time is past when it could be said that this technology does not causedamage; apparently it damages health," said Dr Sadetzki [iv] According to Sadetzki, director of the Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, current regulations do not relate to cancer as caused by radiation but to the health risks posed by the instrument heating up.Dr Sadetzki also called for children¹s use to be limited.

There was no press release about this Industry funded research presumably because it showed negative effects. However the large study was conducted in 16 countries and studied 466 patients and 1266 controls.

In January more research funded by the MMF found that radiation from mobile phones delays and reduces sleep, and causes headaches and confusion. [v]

Again there was no release on the news wires since this research had found adverse effects despite that it was performed at 2 blue-chip universities in the USA and Sweden.. Likewise it was only reported by the mainstream media in the UK.

It is hard to comment on this new Japanese study since there is as yet no access to the paper however The Guardian seem to have been able to get an advanced copy. This study needs to be put into context when it is made available.
Update: The Guardian have said that this study was sponsored by Cancer Research but in fact the study said it was entirely funded by the Japanese Government and Mobile Phone industry. The Guardian got it wrong ."The study, funded by Cancer Research UK, was published yesterday in the British Journal of Cancer.'
In fact The study conducted in Japan was fully funded by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (the equivalent of OFCOM in the UK) with the grateful cooperation of the surgeons and the staffs of the participating institutions. Read Here "A non-significant increase in OR among glioma patients in the heavily exposed group may reflect recall bias."
A recent report on Australian TV gives the alarming statistic that brain tumours in children have risen 21% in the last 10 years and are now the number one cause of death in children. [vi]
The Stewart Report warned back in 2000 that children should only use mobiles for emergencies. This needs to be enforced by the government.
Note the Interphone studies are industry funded and concentrate on short term users.

Interesting that this Japanese study was only released at 6pm on Tuesday 5th February but by just after 7.30pm the story was already written up on The Guardian web site to be printed on Wednesday. The study is not available online and yet The Guardian seem to have read it.
It is interesting to note that The Guardian chair talks on phone risk for MP¹s paid for by the Mobile Operators Association.
They are also promoting WiFi in schools despite The Chairman of the HPA¹s doubts and no safety testing.

For more information on The Guardian involvement please read Martin Walker¹s recent essays.

https://www.slingshotpublications.com/guardian1.html Guardian of What?

[Sasu]

2007 Update
Activities of The EMR Policy in 2007 continue to challenge current US policy for human and wildlife exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and to educate the public on the inadequacy of US RF safety policy. Current US policy does not protect humans and wildlife from long-term, low-intensity exposure to antenna radiation. Given here is a listing of the major EMR Policy Institute activities carried out throughout 2007 to address these problems. These are the activities that your donations are supporting.

Congressional Staff Briefing
On May 10, 2007, with the assistance of the staff of Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, The EMR Policy Institute presented an educational briefing for Congressional staff entitled: “Wireless and Broadcast Radiation Pollution - A U.S. Regulatory Health Issue and What To Do About It.” We have made 4 additional trips to DC throughout 2007 to follow up on this initiative.

Each speaker’s PowerPoint presentation is posted here for you to down load and/or print out free of charge:

Intro and Speakers
Introductory Power Point presentation that presents the speakers and gives an overview of US federal policy on radiofrequency radiation and the need to address it as a public health issue.

Slides prepared by Cindy Sage, MS, EMR Environmental Consultant since 1982. Ms. Sage is the author of numerous articles and books on electromagnetic fields, health effects and public policy. She is a regular presenter at international conferences on the science and public policy issues related to EMR exposure. Her slides compare international radiofrequency radiation exposures standards and illustrate The Precautionary Principle for public health policy. See also: www.bioinitiative.org

PowerPoint presentation of Deb Carney, JD, Vice President of The EMR Policy Institute and attorney for Canyon Area Residents for the Environment, Golden, Colorado.
See also: www.c-a-r-e.org EMF Tower Facts link and www.hdtvhonestly.com/

PowerPoint presentation of Martin Blank PhD, Professor - Columbia University Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics. Dr. Blank is one of the world’s most published scientists in bioelectromagnetics with 38 chapters in books; 175 professional papers in peer-reviewed journals; and over 27 reviews of books related to his field of expertise.

PowerPoint presentation of Albert Manville, PhD, Senior Wildlife Biologist at the US Fish and Wildlife Service. He is the nationwide lead on anthropocentric impacts on migratory birds for the Service. Dr. Manville has been Chairman of the federal Working Group on Avian Mortality and Communications Towers since 1999.
See: www.fws.gov/birds/

PowerPoint presentation of Whitney North Seymour, Jr., JD who was Co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1969. Mr. Seymour’s career has included two terms as State Senator in New York State and a term as federal prosecutor in New York. His private legal practice has included pro bono counsel for three petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging U.S. federal RF safety policy.

PowerPoint presentation of B. Blake Levitt, who is a Medical/Science Journalist and former New York Times writer. Ms. Levitt is the author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves (Harcourt Brace, 1995) and editor of Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience? Or Environmental Hazard? (Safe Goods/ New Century, 2001). For information on her books see: www.blakelevitt.com

You can participate again in this initiative by contacting your members of Congress and asking them to join with Congressman Welch to support "revitalization" of the federal Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG). Americans need the RFIAWG to take the lead on getting the US federal health agencies to protect Americans from adverse health effects of RF radiation through research, analysis and recommendations. Visit our Action Alert page for all the information you need to participate.

Support of the BioInitiative Report
The EMR Policy Institute provided staff support to publicize the release of the report of the BioInitiative Working Group in August 2007. This is a landmark educational document on the science of EMR bioeffects that we emphasize in our visits to Congressional offices and in our interactions with other public health organizations.

Be sure to visit www.bioinitiative.org to read the full report – The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). The press release that announced the report describes its importance this way:

The report provides detailed scientific information on health impacts when people are exposed to electromagnetic radiation hundreds or even thousands of times below limits currently established by the Federal Communications Commission (US FCC) and International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection in Europe (ICNIRP). The authors reviewed more than 2000 scientific studies and reviews, and concluded that the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health. From a public health policy standpoint, new public safety limits and limits on further deployment of risky technologies are warranted based on the total weight of evidence.

Public Education Forum
The EMR Policy Institute assisted in organizing and cosponsored the April 2007 Sheffield, Massachusetts public education forum on Cell Towers and Wireless Technology with Citizens Concerned About Wireless Technology (CCAWT) of Egremont, MA. Co-Sponsors were: The Berkshire Litchfield Environmental Council, Housatonic Environmental Action League, Housatonic River Initiative and The Berkshire Natural Resources Council.

After the forum author B. Blake Levitt collaborated withTheresa Morrow, the activist who was the inspiration for the forum, to write an article on environmental radiation issues. Sadly Ms. Morrow died of breast cancer in May '07 shortly after the forum. Their article entitled “ElectroSmog – What Price Convenience?” appeared in the July issue of West View, a new newspaper published in the West Village of New York City. Comments can be sent to the Executive Editor, George Capsis, at [email protected]


Our challenge to the permit issued for a cell tower on Beebe Hill in Falls Village, CT continues.
Our appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court has been accepted. Linked here is the brief for Case No. A.C. No. 29086 Carl Borneman, M.D., and EMR Policy Institute, Inc. vs. Connecticut Siting Council, and Nextel Communications, Inc. Pro Bono legal services have been provided by Whitney North Seymour, Jr, and Gabriel North Seymour. The arguments include:
• Whether the Connecticut Siting Council’s implementing regulations, along with related statutes and regulations, are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to the facts of this case?
• Whether the Siting Council error in blindly accepting the telecommunication company’s claim of no adverse environmental effect was a shocking dereliction of its public responsibility.


Challenge to Earthlink/Google San Franciso Plan for City-wide WiFi
The EMR Policy Institute continues to support the efforts of SNAFU (San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna Free Union – www.antennafreeunion.org ) to file a formal challenge to the Earthlink/Google proposal for citywide WiFi in San Francisco. Doug Loranger has led the efforts in San Francisco for responsible wireless siting for more than 10 years. The EMR Policy Institute has assisted by:
• Providing funds for legal representation
• Providing referrals for expert statements on RF biological effects and RF levels of proposed WiFi system
• Providing on-line resources for SNAFU fundraising efforts

Earthlink/Google withdrew its proposal in September. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom then put a non-binding resolution for city-wide WiFi on the November ballot. It won approval.

The Associated Press published the following report on San Franciso WiFi on Jaunary 4, 2008:
Meraki Networks, a Silicon Valley startup, promised Friday to blanket San Francisco with free wireless Internet service, reviving EarthLink and Google’s scrapped plans to build a high-speed network. Meraki hopes to complete the project within the year by persuadingSan Franciscans to set up free radio repeaters on their roofs and in their homes.

Here are links to the pertinent documents:
Fiscal Feasibiliy Analysis of a Municipally-Owned Citywide Wireless Broadband Network. Prepared for the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco by the San Francisco Budget Analyst, January 11, 2007

Wall Street Journal article – August 16, 2007, B1 by Amol Sharma: Wireless -- With Strings Attached. Cities Building Wi-Fi Networks Are Running Into Hurdles, Including Mounting Costs

SNAFU Appeal of Planning Department Determination of CEQA Categorical Exemption for EarthLink WiFi Proposal, File No. 070077, Case No. 2007.0097E

Expert Comment of Magda Havas, PhD: Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of Proposed San Francisco Earthlink Wi-Fi Network

Report of Mitch Maifield, BSEE, Professional Engineer: Earthlink-Proposed San Francisco-Wide Wi-Fi Network: Observations and Calculations for Relation to Exposure Limits.

Guest Editorial: Citywide Broadband -- Time to Start Anew by Doug Loranger, BeyondChron, Oct. 26, 2007

UK Register and San Francisco Chronicle articles on citywide WiFi Proposals

Participation in National Academy of Sciences RF Research Project: Identifying Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communications Devices
The EMR Policy Institute joined with The Center for Science in the Public Interest and Louis Slesin, PhD, in opposing the composition of the expert panel chosen by the NAS to carry out this project. Our opposition is based on lack of diversity with respect to both expertise and outlook of the panel members as well as too heavy a reliance on ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, for composition of the panel.

The letters of opposition are linked here:
June 14, 2007 letter of opposition submitted to the NAS by The EMR Policy Institute

June 8, 2007 letter of opposition filed by The Center for Science in the Public Interest

June 8, 2007 letter filed by Louis Slesin, PhD, editor and publisher of Microwave News


Public Comment at NAS Wireless Research Workshop
The EMR Policy Institute sent two representatives to Washington, DC to attend and to provide comment from the public at the NAS Project Workshop August 7-9, 2007: "Workshop to Identify Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communications Devices.

Links to written comments on this project:
Comment of The EMR Policy Institute

Comment of Richard Albanese, MD

Comment of B. Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist and author.

Comment of William J. Bruno Ph.D., working in theoretical biology and biophysics at Los Alamos National Laboratory since 1990.

Attendance at national environmental conferences
The EMR Policy Institute sent representatives to attend these conferences and distributed handouts on EMR/RF Radiation health and environment effects on the literature tables at these events.

October 19, 2007 Heinz Foundation 11th Annual Conference on Women’s Health and the Environment
The attendance was approximately 1,500. See the agenda and list of speakers at: http://www.heinzfamilyphilanthropies...7%20Boston.pdf


December 4 & 5, 2007 Annual meeting of the Coalition for Healthier Schools hosted by The Healthy Schools Network.
This year’s topic is Building Healthy Schools from the Ground Up. See the agenda at: http://www.healthyschools.org/docume...endaTravel.pdf

Read The Healthy Schools Network’s position on wireless technology in schools in their Supreme Court amicus brief at: http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/...amicus_hsn.pdf

The EMR Policy Institute provided these articles for distribution on the literature tables as these conferences:
Dirty Electricity: An invisible pollutant in schools. Magda Havas, PhD, Trent University, Ontario.

Electrosmog – What Price Convenience? By B. Blake Levitt and Theresa Morrow.

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://MuniWireless.com tracks municipal Wi-Fi projects

******
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../MNCDU8UKU.DTL

Mountain View's Meraki proposes free Wi-Fi network for S.F.
Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, January 4, 2008

San Francisco's plan to provide citywide wireless Internet access, which foundered last summer when EarthLink pulled out, is being revived by a Mountain View company that wants to turn the city into a test site for its vision of a low-cost, community-powered system.

For what would be the country's largest so-called mesh network, a system that uses a constellation of "repeater antennas" to spread signals, Meraki says it will donate enough equipment and Internet access to provide free wireless service to all residents. The network would use as many as 15,000 wireless antennas to relay signals from home to home in a type of digital daisy-chain.

San Francisco is the only city offered free service from Meraki, which plans to use the city as a showroom of sorts to sell its products to other municipalities and communities around the world.

Whether the plan works will be up to residents, who the company hopes will volunteer to erect thousands of devices on their rooftops, balconies or in windows.

Since the venture will use private property, it does not require city approval. Instead, Meraki is betting on San Franciscans' innovative spirit.

"There is no network like this," said Sanjit Biswas, chief executive and co-founder of Meraki.

Meraki, through an initiative called Free the Net, has been testing its mesh system in San Francisco's Mission, Lower Haight and Alamo Square neighborhoods since the spring. About 500 repeaters already are in use, providing service to 40,000 users.

With the backing of venture capital firms Sequoia Capital, DAG Ventures and Northgate Capital, which have contributed $20 million, Meraki plans to blanket the city for less than $5 million, compared to the estimated $14 million to $17 million EarthLink had estimated it would cost to build a city network.

Meraki officials said they expect every neighborhood to get some access by the end of this year.

Meraki said it will deliver download speeds of 1 megabit per second, which is three times as fast as the speed for free access proposed in the city's original plan. The company will not gather private user data, Biswas added.

Security will be similar to that of Internet hot spots - that is, not infallible - so users should be careful about using the system for sensitive transactions, the company said.

The Meraki network won't be required to be as reliable as EarthLink's was supposed to be because the company has no large-scale agreement with the city. But it still could help the city reach its goal of bridging the so-called digital divide.

Nathan Ballard, spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom, said the city has been working with companies like Meraki, FON and SFLan to help build out wireless projects to reach the most needy. The city already is using some of the technology in housing authority properties and is looking at expanding those efforts to other low-income areas, he said.

"We are working with these entities to explore how the city can support and partner with these efforts - helping publicize and grow the network without the bureaucracy and politics that challenged our last effort to bring free Wi-Fi to San Francisco," he said.

Aaron Peskin, president of the Board of Supervisors, said he wanted to hear more details about the system but was intrigued by the premise.

"It sounds like it might fill some of our needs," Peskin said.

The key to Meraki's model is that it doesn't require a lot of expensive antennas. The repeater antennas that form the largest part of the network sell for $49. Their signals connect to larger outdoor antennas that sell for $99. Together, they can deliver Internet access using a minimal number of Internet connections.

The San Francisco network, for example, can feature one DSL line that supports anywhere from 10 to 50 repeaters. With the mesh structure, Meraki also can reroute traffic to avoid any malfunctioning antennas. This gives the network stability and reach at a low cost. With the San Francisco project, Meraki also will pay for the Internet access so users won't be asked to share their personal Internet connection.

That differentiates Meraki's network from FON, a Spanish company that has given away a number of free routers in San Francisco in an attempt to create a similar community-based network.

Esme Vos, founder of https://MuniWireless.com, a group that tracks municipal Wi-Fi projects, said the FON network hasn't really taken off, in part because users are asked to share their network connection. But, she said, Meraki faces the same challenges in getting users to install new equipment.

"That's why these wireless operators like to deal with one partner. You just put up antennas on city light poles and you're done," Vos said. "Here you have to deal with individual owners."

Vos also questioned whether the system will be able to deliver enough bandwidth when it grows to serve the entire city.

Biswas said the network still will be able to deliver high speeds because of the way it's configured.

After a tough year for municipal wireless in which projects in San Francisco, Houston and Chicago were canceled or postponed, cities have been looking for alternatives, said wireless consultant Craig Settles of Oakland. The Meraki example in San Francisco could inspire communities to look at such a low-cost approach in lieu of larger, more expensive networks, he said.

"What Meraki offers cities is a lower cost and a low resource-intensive approach," Settles said. "This allows a city to achieve a noble goal with the economic realities of the day."

Free the Net

Meraki wants to build a free wireless network to eventually cover all of San Francisco - provided residents agree to install antennas on their property. To sign up, go to https://sf.meraki.com.

E-mail Ryan Kim at [email protected].

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

[Braggi]

******
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../MNCDU8UKU.DTL

Mountain View's Meraki proposes free Wi-Fi network for S.F.
Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, January 4, 2008
...

How exciting. I read about a county in Oregon that had a terrible communications system among their various emergency services. They decided to set up a county wide wi-fi and it worked so well they decided to just let everyone use it. So the whole county has free wi-fi. I think this is the coming thing and one day soon all cities will have it.

If I lived in San Francisco I'd volunteer to host an antenna immediately.

The nice thing about this article is that the network discussed is already up and running in some areas

-Jeff

[Sasu]

See this TV spot which features Doug Loranger, SNAFU, responding to the questions about potential health impact of Meraki WiFi systems..
San Francisco's WiFi plans are being bypassed by Meraki, an organically growing free WiFi service, with no planning and no control, therefore unregulated and "no fault" as the consumer is direct to the manufacturer. To say there is no health impact, as that woman who works at home does, may not be true. There will be hot spots for those who have those antennas glued to their windows and from the relay antennas inside. I wonder who the consumer goes to when they are suffering ill effects in their home due to a patchwork set up like that? The FCC must be overjoyed to see Meraki spread like that.



https://www.ktvu.com/video/15276315/index.html

[Lorrie]

Hi all!
On this topic I can write as a bona-fide expert.

That magical mysterious EMF and the human body. Nice topic, full of misinformation and concepts spun faster than a child's top. So, if you would allow me a moment in your mind...I'll try to spackle the mental cracks that have been left behind. Warning - this will be long and I will do my best to translate the technical details into human consumable concepts.

Ready? No? Too bad...into the fray we go ;-)

There are 3 primary factors people are (or should be) concerned about
when discussing EMF. They are:
1. POWER
2. FREQUENCY
3. IONIZING or NON-IONIZING

First one is POWER.

What is Power? Glad you asked!

Power is a relative (not an in-law, think physics... like Einstein... Relativity) measure of potential to do "work."

In electrical terms we break that down to Power (in Watts) equals Voltage (Electromotive force) times Current (in Amps designated as letter I) or P=E*I.

So 1 Watt is 1 Volt times 1 Amp. Ok, so we can play with that a bit now to get a "feel" for the numbers and make them real.

An LED flashlight generally uses around 5 to 6 Volts and consumes .5 to .8 Amps (or techies write it 500-800mA.) Quick math means that flashlight is using peak 4.8 Watts and minimum 2.5 Watts. And you can point that thing at your skin all day long with no effect because the beam's energy is Reflected from your skin incredibly reducing the
power of the visible light (Aha! Foreshadowing) it actually
penetrates the outer (dead) skin layer.

But dangers arise when power levels go up, can you say microwave oven?
...Wiki the history of the RadarRange it's a good quick read.

Suffice to say when we are talking about real harmful "radiant" power of EMF (Electro Magnetic Frequencies which is, well any form of radiated field energy really) we are talking about power levels that are greater than 100 Watts into the kiloWatt (1000 Watt) to MegaWatt (1,000,000 Watt) ranges.

(Hmm big M is Mega, little m is milli or times .001 very important)

Big Power levels, regardless of frequency, is a sloppy deadly mess unless it is carefully contained with lots of
math and precise geometry. As long as the transmission lines are spaced exactly so, it makes an actual pipe that incredible amounts of power can flow through. Any deviation creates loss, hot spots, and yes...leakage.

And like a leaky pipe can flood a basement, a leaky
transmission line can make an area electrically "ring" like a tuning fork under the right conditions. And of course the more POWER leaking, the easier it is to make a brick fly or an unintentional standing field Electro Magnetic build.

Ok Dave... I need a break my head hurts! Fine. Take a break here and then come back... I'll wait.

(yep, waiting...)

Oh Hi! Welcome back.

Recap: High Power is Not Bad, it is just Risky to be around and should be handled by trained professionals. So what does this have to do with Wi-Fi?

Ya know, you are just full of the right questions today!

A wi-fi 802.11b,g,is an EMF transmitter. And the ones we use commercially max out at 600 milliWatts. That is .6 Watts, 4 times LESS power than that LED flashlight.

You see the magic of wi-fi is not all in the transmitter, most of it is in the receiver that can pick our microVolts (0.000001 Volt) from the background noise. Since the energy at the antenna radiates outward like an outward expanding donut smoke-ring, the further you are away
the smaller the area of a pie wedge touches you, that means less exposed available power. And just like putting a flashlight right up to your finger, the more power means eventually it can be forced to pass through you.

(Safety tip - Do not Duct Tape the wi-fi radio and it's antenna to your body... over time -years- it will begin to make that part of your body warm, and you will probably electrocute yourself in the shower...so just don't do it ok.)

Yeah yeah... I hear ya, go take ANOTHER break. I'll wait. Geez.

Ok, This next one is easier to describe... FREQUENCY!
You musical types call it pitch or notes. Just like in music we techies have notes. Arbitrarily defined markers to say this or that frequency is a note we just call them Channels.
So what is this frequency thingy in regards to the Electro-Magnetic traveling wave that changes from a polarized electrical field to a polarized magnetic field and back in a regular cyclic pattern?

WOW!! Are you sure you shouldn't be writing this paper that was pretty deep!?!

Ok, yes E field becomes H field back to E but with reversed polarity to an H field with reversed polarity back to the first 'E' Electrical Voltage polarity field. Well that entire evolution is one full cycle and frequency is the number of times that occurs per second.
Interesting things happen as frequency changes, low frequencies pass through things like ghosts but the higher the frequency, the more the wave tends to bounce back like a billiard ball.

PG&E AC power runs at about 60 Cycles Per Second (CPS or Hertz - Hz) Seems fast... but, that's slow. The average car engine idles at around 11 Hz and cruises between 20 to 40 Hz. The interesting thing is you can hear the hum of power
lines just like the idling of a car. And as you rev and engine, the audible pitch goes up. That means more of the cycles are being packed into a second of time. Picture it like a spring viewed from the side, higher frequency means it is more tightly wound. The loose spring flexes easier side to side.

Back to behaviors now.

Lower frequencies bend easier and slide through matter easier than higher ones. While PG&E runs at 60 Hz, wi-fi runs at 2,400,000,000 Hz or 5,800,000,000 Hz generally. (As a little history, the old cold war Missile detection radar systems ran around 900,000,000 Hz because that was about as low as they could go and get a bounce off these relatively small chunks of metal miles and miles away.

Wi-Fi runs over 24 times higher with a minuscule fraction of the power.) What we get from this is that it doesn't take much to make these low power energies at high frequency to bounce or be absorbed thus loosing all of their tiny amounts of traveling power. And that is actually a Desirable consequence!

There are only a few channels we can use (3 of them in the 2.4 GHz range: 1, 6, and 11) and having those signals fade out quickly over distance means other people can SHARE the channels by being closer to their transmitter and letting the others be very low power background noise.
But how does that define the interaction with animals, like say humans? Well like light much of the EMF RF (Radio Frequencies) actually bounces off of our skin and clothing. The behavior is much akin to light as we are familiar, travels at the same speed...straight lines... affected by gravity... etc. So once again, to get the signal to penetrate with any depth you would have to use special "directional" antennas to fold the back side of the energy coming from
the antenna over to the front like the reflectors in your car
headlight bulbs. And get close (like less than a foot) for it to pass through you easily.

Believe me, after doing wi-fi installations as long as I have, the leaves of a small tree can scatter the signal to
unusable levels at 20 yards. Clear line of sight to the antenna is critical unless you either up the power (still less that 1 Watt) or focus the sender and the receivers with special antennas. Then point it at something that is designed to pick the tiny signals out of the air not an untuned blob composed mostly of water (hey that's not a
very pretty way to describe a human! Even if it is true!)
So recap again: Wi-Fi equals low power, high frequency that bounces easier than it penetrates.

On we go...
Here's another quick sideline note on our body electric... since I know some are wondering and others smug. The Electrical design of our body electric really tops out in the low kiloHertz thats thousands of cycles per second. We may be able to "sense" energy in the low MegaHertz (millions of cycles per second) but that is mostly due to "harmonic" frequencies on lower side. But Wi-Fi runs in the GigaHerz
thats thousands of millions of cycles per second. The harmonics taper off to less than stellar background energy in the high Megahertz range.


So do you need another break? No? Great lets push on to the last bit and be done...

IONIZING RADIATION!

Wow! Sounds scary! Get real...it is something that happens all around us naturally everyday. But what is it really? To make something ionize you basically are taking a component chemical and adding or subtracting electrons. This changes the chemical behavior. An example is how the air ionizers work. They make a Big cloud of electrons by
using a high voltage device to throw them off the end of a needle point of a wire.

And since natural law says these electrons have to come from somewhere, there is usually a mesh that is capturing free electrons from particles with a charge floating around in the air. Slap a sticky filter on that side and soon air will start to circulate. A byproduct of this process is when a couple of oxygen atoms passing nearby (atom distances) encounter this massive electron field/cloud. The get all excited and hookup forming Ozone! Very unstable and corrosive but one heck an air cleaning compound, reacts
with almost anything in the air crud-wise.


Ok, Soooo the longer that atoms are exposed to relatively large electric standing fields, the higher the odds that an atom will Ionize. Wow! Now remember I said frequency changed behavior as the rate of cycle per second gets higher? Well here's an example.

At lower frequencies the standing electrical polarity of the wave (meaning it appears not to physically move) has a longer reach from the source but, the higher the frequency, getting the wave to create that standing echo becomes harder to achieve, the darn waves just want to jump into the air and act similar to photons bouncing all over the
place. Than means the way they lose their energy is going to be more uh, "physical" in nature. They slam into atoms and molecules transferring more mechanical type energy, we call this heat and the process thermalization.


So lets get a real reference for comparison here. If we take a 20 Watt halogen desklamp with a bare bulb, we have a device using about 12 Volts and 1.6 Amps.

How far way from it can you feel it's heat?

Up close it can burn the part of your body that is really close and personal to it. But after a few feet you can barely feel it at all! And after a few yards, all you can sense is the light on the delicately tuned photo sensors we call eyes.
Consider then if you will; The maximum power of one of the "high power" wi-fi units radiates LESS THAN ONE FORTIETH of one 20 Watt desklamps and has similar (granted not completely identical) behavioral characteristics.

(DAVE!!! Why didn't you just say that at the beginning and save all this reading you made me do?)

Because you asked a very serious question that only half and scattered answers are strewn in obscure locations. Electricity while seeming to be black magic really isn't. I know saying that takes the fun and drama out of it, but actual understanding lets you respect rather than fear. Treat it like fire, a little can illuminate the dark but a lot can destroy a forest. Wi-Fi engineers understand this and use only small "birthday cake candles" of power and magnify on the receiver's end the signal enough to be able to traverse over 22 miles with a clear unobstructed line of
sight between the sender and the receiver. The magic comes not from a bonfire of burning power, rather special antennas, precision and sensitivity to pick a delicate pattern out of background sun and star hiss.
House power and transmission lines are different. At 60 Hz the harmonics are right in our dominant body electric ranges. The power levels being carried by the lines is in the kilo to Mega Watt ranges.

Is there slop off of those lines?
You better believe it.

Is it enough for it to hurt us?
Well that depends on distance, shielding, and duration of exposure. The Radiation off of these systems is Ionizing and does cause chemical changes. But the changes are chaotic and in many cases unpredictable in magnitude, and ability of the environment (an animal is a relatively self contained environment) to cope with. There are too many variables to make a blanket statement about the exact effects.

Keep in mind that when you see the St. Elmo's fire sparks and glow on the high Voltage lines, chemicals in the air are being changed, does your proximity to them change what you breathe? Or are you a sufficient distance where the harmful one are diluted by the moving outdoor air to negligible levels.

So have I helped clear this up a bit or should I never ever post again ;-) Comments?

Hi, Its me Lorrie... I posted this with permission and you can contact this fellow if you have any further questions.
I just thought this was soooo fantastic and
understandable... I hope you found it so too!~
He originally posted this on Yahoo's Waccobb.

Dave Sherry
Midnight Engineers
Owner/Network Architect
https://www.midnightengineers.com
707.235.9365 (cell)

[Braggi]

Thanks so much for posting that Lorrie.

Understanding complex subjects usually calms fears.

David is an excellent teacher.

Think he'll be willing to attend a City Council meeting and present?

-Jeff

[shellebelle]

I appreciate the info but want to read it like 12 more times to process it all. LOL - Some things I am just slow at getting.

Thank you for posting it!

Hi all!
So have I helped clear this up a bit or should I never ever post again ;-) Comments?

Hi, Its me Lorrie... I posted this with permission and you can contact this fellow if you have any further questions.
I just thought this was soooo fantastic and
understandable... I hope you found it so too!~
He originally posted this on Yahoo's Waccobb.

Dave Sherry
Midnight Engineers
Owner/Network Architect
https://www.midnightengineers.com
707.235.9365 (cell)

[Braggi]

Jeff,

Have you read studies which were capable of detecting effects which might not be obvious until exposure had been maintained for several years?

Karl

Yes, Karl, I've considered that. That's why I'm confident wi-fi is harmless. Here, this is my comment you quoted:

Quote:
Braggi wrote:
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. [end quote]

A lot of studies have been done that show even much more intense EMF than wi-fi safe, as I've stated over and over. We are living longer as EMF levels increase. No, those two facts are not connected, but neither are some people's symptoms related to cell phones regardless of their beliefs.

I do believe studies are worth doing, just to calm the fears of those who don't have enough to worry about. But those studies are unlikely to find wi-fi causes harm, just as the cell phone studies have shown they cause no harm--unless those phones are used by drivers. The Danish cell phone study covered hundreds of thousands of people who have had their phones over 10 years.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

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

I still find it hard to understand why you are so positive in stating that there are no adverse health effects from cell phone and wi-fi radiation. I remember you once said you were from a medical family and that may give you an advantage in digesting this complex medical literature.

But even if you were an "expert" in this area you would be one of many, and my possibly more cursory reading of the literature showed me that the experts disagree. My sense from this study by Igor Belyaev is that the study of biological effects of non-thermal microwaves is still a highly unsettled field.

Igor Belyaev, Non-thermal Biological Effects of Microwaves. Microwave Review, November, 2005

https://www.mwr.medianis.net/pdf/Vol...3-IBelyaev.pdf

Abstract - The aim of this paper is to overview the diverse biological effects of non-thermal microwaves (NT MWs) and complex dependence of these effects on various physical and biological parameters. Besides dependencies on frequency and modulation, the available data suggest dependencies of the NT MW effects on intermittence and coherence time of exposure, polarization, static magnetic filed, electromagnetic stray field, genotype, gender, physiological and individual factors, cell density during of exposure and indicate that duration of exposure may be not less important than power density (PD) for the NT MW effects. Further evaluation of these dependencies are needed for understanding the mechanisms by which NT MWs affect biological systems, planning in vivo and epidemiological studies, developing medical treatments, setting safety standards, and minimizing the adverse effects of MWs from mobile communication.

See also the study "Does Short-Term Exposure to Mobile Phone Base Station Signals Increase Symptoms in Individuals Who Report Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields? A Double-Blind Randomized Provocation Study" (25 January 2008 )

https://www.ehponline.org/docs/2007/10286/abstract.html

and the discussion that ensued

https://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10733/letter.html
https://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10771/letter.html
https://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10870/letter.html

I am referring to this literature just to show that experts publishing in Environmental Health Perspectives disagree.

Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news on the impact of the environment on human health. EHP is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and its content is free online.

A Dutch study: "Effects of global communication system radio-frequency fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints"

https://www.ez.nl/dsc?c=getobject&s=...idir=/gvisapi/

gives evidence of causal impacts on certain parameters.

This field of research is still open.

I think there is enough evidence accumulating of expert disagreement to warrant caution on installing community sponsored public wi-fi in Sebastopol and first 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 may be other ways in which the city can promote this goal. Or it may be that community sponsored wi-fi is the way to reduce overall exposure in comparison with the free-for-all situation in SF, where the company Meraki is trying to build a system. Since the venture will use private property, it does not require city approval and may lead to increased radiation.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...9701#post49701

[Zeno Swijtink]

Hi all!
On this topic I can write as a bona-fide expert.

(...)

Is it enough for it to hurt us?
Well that depends on distance, shielding, and duration of exposure. The Radiation off of these systems is Ionizing and does cause chemical changes. But the changes are chaotic and in many cases unpredictable in magnitude, and ability of the environment (an animal is a relatively self contained environment) to cope with. There are too many variables to make a blanket statement about the exact effects.


Dave Sherry
Midnight Engineers
Owner/Network Architect
https://www.midnightengineers.com
707.235.9365 (cell)

I see that as an expert on the physics of radiation you have stayed away fro making any definite pronouncement of the effects on biological systems.

[Braggi]

I still find it hard to understand why you are so positive in stating that there are no adverse health effects from cell phone and wi-fi radiation. [snip]

I am referring to this literature just to show that experts publishing in Environmental Health Perspectives disagree.
[snip]

This field of research is still open.
...

I don't disagree with you Zeno. Please look for the bottom line in my posts. I realize that good research will need to follow. However, remember that wi-fi is an order of magnitude lower than cell phone power and several orders of magnitude below other EMF fields we are exposed to every day all day long. Do you not understand this?

We tolerate EMF fields quite well. We always have because they exist in nature. They come from the Earth and the Sun and the stars. We are hard wired to tolerate this stuff. It's not dangerous unless it hits us with very powerful fields over long periods of time, and even that is probably not very bad.

If you don't like EMF, by all means stay away from an MRI machine. But then, I bet nobody reading this would stay away if their heath concerns called for it.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

I see that as an expert on the physics of radiation you have stayed away fro making any definite pronouncement of the effects on biological systems.

Zeno, you are smarter than this. Go back and read the rest of the post.

Think about it.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

Zeno, you are smarter than this. Go back and read the rest of the post.

Think about it.

-Jeff

Have you heard of the trope called Irony?

["Mad" Miles]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0214144349.htm

Heavy Cell Phone Use Linked To Cancer, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (Feb. 15, 2008) — An Israeli scientist, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, has found a link between cell phone usage and the development of tumors.
Dr. Sadetzki, a physician, epidemiologist and lecturer at Tel Aviv University, published the results of a study recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology, in which she and her colleagues found that heavy cell phone users were subject to a higher risk of benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland.
Those who used a cell phone heavily on the side of the head where the tumor developed were found to have an increased risk of about 50% for developing a tumor of the main salivary gland (parotid), compared to those who did not use cell phones.
The fact that the study was done on an Israeli population is significant. Says Sadetzki, "Unlike people in other countries, Israelis were quick to adopt cell phone technology and have continued to be exceptionally heavy users. Therefore, the amount of exposure to radiofrequency radiation found in this study has been higher than in previous cell phone studies.
"This unique population has given us an indication that cell phone use is associated with cancer," adds Sadetzki, whose study investigated nearly 500 people who had been diagnosed with benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland.
Controlled Study Reveals Link
The study's subjects were asked to detail their cell phone use patterns in terms of how frequently they used one, and the average length of calls. They were compared to a sample of about 1,300 healthy control subjects.
The study also found an increased risk of cancer for heavy users who lived in rural areas. Due to fewer antennas, cell phones in rural areas need to emit more radiation to communicate effectively.
Sadetzki predicts that, over time, the greatest effects will be found in heavy users and children.
While anecdotal evidence has been substantial, the consistency of the results of this study support an association between cell phone use and these tumors. The risks have been hard to prove, mainly due to the long latency period involved in cancer development, explains Sadetzki.
Keep Calling but Call Smarter
Today it is estimated that more than 90% percent of the Western world uses cell phones. As the technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, its usage by a greater number of people, including children, is bound to increase.
"While I think this technology is here to stay," Sadetzki says, "I believe precautions should be taken in order to diminish the exposure and lower the risk for health hazards." She recommends that people use hands-free devices at all times, and when talking, hold the phone away from one's body. Less frequent calls, shorter in duration, should also have some preventative effect.
While she appreciates the ease of communication that cell phones allow between parents and their children, Sadetzki says that parents need to consider at what age their children start using them. Parents should be vigilant about their children's using speakers or hands-free devices, and about limiting the number of calls and amount of time their children spend on the phone.
"Some technology that we use today carries a risk. The question is not if we use it, but how we use it," concludes Sadetzki.
Sadetzki's main research on this new study was carried out at the Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research at the Sheba Medical Center. Her research is part of the international Interphone Study, which attempts to determine an association between cell phones and several types of brain and parotid gland tumors.
Adapted from materials provided by Tel Aviv University.
Copyright © 1995-2008 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved

[alanora]

This from kleiners corner I think....C. LONDON'S "TOWER OF DOOM" TO BE REMOVED
"A mobile phone company is to remove a mast from a block of flats after seven residents were struck down by cancer...
The cancer rate on the top floor - where residents of five of the eight flats have been affected and the three who died all lived - is 20 per cent, ten times the national average," quoting This Is London: link here

[JackChristensen]

Balderdash!
First of all, the reports were ONLY about cell phones. Wi-Fi operates on an entirely different frequency and at lower power than cell phone transmitters. Secondly, I know of no-one who holds a laptop up against their ear when using it wirelessly which were the conditions cited in CELL PHONE problems in the first report.

This is fear mongering and an attempt to sweep 802.11 wireless (Wi-Fi) into possible cell phone dangers with NO evidence!
Jack

[Sasu]

CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION -- DRAFT -- 10 October 2006
We, the undersigned, are members of the CHE-EMF Working Group within the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), together with like-minded colleagues from science, medicine and environmental health.

We believe there are legitimate health concerns regarding exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which has rapidly become one of the most pervasive environmental exposures in modern life. These concerns are based on the weight of evidence spanning decades of scientific research on radiofrequency (RF) radiation from countries around the world. The radiofrequency radiation sources addressed in this Consensus Statement are those from newer wireless technologies such as cell phones and cordless phones, cell towers/antennas, WI-FI networks, WI-MAX, as well as Broadband Radiofrequency Internet over electrical power lines (BPL).

We recognize that there are significant uncertainties about the long-term health effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. However, prudent policy requires acting on the best available scientific evidence. Then, based on the Precautionary Principle, which is an overarching guide for decision making when dealing with credible threats of harm and scientific uncertainty, policies to protect public health can be adopted.

As a way of implementing the Precautionary Principle, there should be an ongoing investment in research, as well as funding for a transparent, participatory policy analysis of alternatives, when there is reason to believe that there may be a significant risk from current or proposed technologies. The principle states that “when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” These precautionary measures may include but are not necessarily limited to making investments in research and policy analysis. We are deeply concerned that there is insufficient non-industry funding support for critical research, given the potential public health consequences of involuntary and chronic exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

The following four examples show how the Precautionary Principle has been implemented.
Scientists in the United Kingdom recommend that no child under the age of 8 years old use a cell phone. Research evidence shows that children are more vulnerable than adults to harm from other environmental exposures (such as chemicals), and the same may be true of radiofrequency radiation exposures.
The International Association of Fire Fighters passed a resolution in 2004, calling for a moratorium on new cell phone antennas on fire stations and a study of the health effects of these installations.
The Chairman of the Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP), Yuri Grigoriev, advised that cellular communication is strongly contraindicated for children and teenagers.
The Canadian Public Health Officer, David Butler-Jones, advised Canadians to limit their and their children’s use of cell phones until science resolves uncertainties about long-term health effects.
More research is needed on the health/biological effects, the level of current and future exposure, and the feasibility, cost and exposure implications of these technologies, as well as alternatives and modifications to current technology.

While research continues, we believe there is sufficient evidence to recommend precautionary measures that people can take to protect their health, and the health of their families, co-workers and communities. We recommend the following measures:
Use a corded phone/land line if possible, which does not involve RF exposure. Emergency use of cell phones is not discouraged but land lines should be used for normal day-to-day communication needs.

If you use a cell phone, use an earpiece/headset or the “speaker phone” setting, which greatly reduces the RF exposure because the phone is not held next to your head and brain. Using text messaging is also a good way to reduce RF exposure.

Be aware that the cell phone radiates to some degree even when in “standby” mode. You can avoid this radiation by either keeping the phone off (using it as an answering machine), or away from your body.

Using a cordless phone outdoors to alert you to an incoming call is handy, but returning inside to use a corded phone/land line to conduct the conversation is advisable.

Before adopting WI-FI wireless networks in workplaces, schools and cities, the extent of exposure and possible health effects should be publicly discussed. Although convenient, WI-FI wireless networks create pervasive, continuous, involuntary exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Preferable alternatives to wireless technology for voice and data transmission, including cable and fiber-optic technologies (that produce no radiofrequency radiation), should be considered, given the uncertainties about health, cost, liability, and inequity of impact.

There needs to be substantial community involvement in decisions about the placement and operation of cell towers (also called antennas or masts). Where possible, siting of these facilities should avoid residential areas and schools, day-care centers, hospitals and other buildings that house populations more vulnerable to the effects of radiation exposure. Periodic information on levels of exposure should be provided to the public. Cell towers produce radiofrequency radiation exposure in communities that is constant and involuntary. While acknowledging that this technology enables voice and data transmission via a cell phone that is important to many people in every community, those who live, work or go to school in the vicinity of wireless facilities will be disproportionately exposed. Not enough research has been done to determine the safety or risk of chronic exposure to low-intensity RF radiation from cell towers and some studies suggest there may be harm.

Broadband Radiofrequency Internet transmitted over electrical power lines (BPL) needs to be thoroughly researched and the findings publicly disclosed and discussed before full deployment of this new technology. Discussion should include comparison of exposures and potential health effects of BPL technology versus cable and fiber optics. BPL technology uses electrical wiring as the vehicle for carrying RF radiation into and throughout all electrified buildings in a community, including every home. Therefore, BPL has the potential to expose entire communities to a new, continuous, involuntary source of RF radiation. The RF signal will be carried on everyone’s home wiring, even in the homes of those who do not wish to subscribe to this new Internet service. People will have no chance to “opt out” or turn off the signal.
In summary, we recommend caution in the further deployment of wireless technologies, and deployment of safer, wired alternatives until further study allows better definition of the risks of wireless.

Signed by:

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Corte Madera, CA
James B. Beal, EMF Interface Consulting, Wimberley, TX
Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY
Roger Coghill, Coghill Research Labs, UK
Andy Davidson, HESE-UK, Worthing, UK
Cynthia Drasler, MBA, President, Organic Excellence Chemical Free Products; Host, Chemical Free Living Radio Show, Phoenix, AZ
Nancy Evans, Health Science Consultant, San Francisco, CA
David Fancy, Canadian SWEEP Initiative (Safe Wireless Electric and Electromagnetic Policy), St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada
Marne Glaser, Chicago, IL
Reba Goodman, PhD, Columbia University, New York, NY
Leonore Gordon, Coordinator, New York State Coalition to Regulate Antenna Siting, Brooklyn, NY
Elizabeth A. (“Libby”) Kelley, Executive Director, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, Novato, CA
Michael Kundi, PhD, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Henry Lai, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Lerner, PhD, Commonweal, Bolinas, CA
Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, Indio, CA
Lloyd Morgan, Berkeley, CA
Lisa Nagy, MD, Member, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and Environmental Health Research Foundation, Vineyard Haven, MA
Elihu Richter, MD, MPH, Hebrew University, Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel
Joan M. Ripple, Treasurer, Council on Wireless Technology Impacts and health and disability researcher, Novato, CA
Jeanne Rizzo, RN, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Fund, San Francisco, CA
Jacqueline Rose, Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, Jerusalem, Israel
Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network, Ann Arbor, MI
Cindy Sage, Sage Associates, Santa Barbara, CA
Lavinia Gene Weissman, Managing Director, WorkEcology, Jamaica Plain, MA
Patricia Wood, Executive Director, Grassroots Environmental Education, Port Washington, NY

[Zeno Swijtink]

The CHE (Collaborative on Health and the Environment) Working Group on Electromagnetic Fields has a elist at

https://lists.healthandenvironment.o...ts/info/cheemf

See also the

BioInitiative Report:
A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)

https://www.bioinitiative.org/

[Lorrie]

(more from Dave)


WOW!
I'm actually speechless from all the feedback you sent me. Wow!

I haven't had time to be a pundit lately and follow the threads in the various groups. Although I do enjoy dropping little doses of reality into various places every now and then. (Heh, who doesn't?) One of the reasons I don't dig into the threads is I prefer to do my own research on issues pertaining to technology. And I love watching others do actual experiments to test theories (ala Myth Busters.) Regarding cell phones... Now that one is a curiosity that again the verdict is still out. The reason is again power, proximity of exposure, and frequency. The towers aren't the issue, it the holding a lower frequency device up to your head radiating Up To a full Watt of power or more (but usually less than.) At that point you do have RF energy passing through you. Let me drop you an interesting note...
Do you know the real reason why full coverage of West County wi-fi from central towers is hard? The answer is surprising, it's the redwood trees. While we know a healthy redwood drinks hundreds of gallons of water a day making it a very tall standing column of water, (And high frequency bounces off water surfaces like a trampoline) it's the spiky leaves that are the problem. As a bizarre coincidence the leaves lengths are nearly exact fractions of the wavelength of the 2.4 Ghz radio wave. Quarter, Half, and Full wavelength... Millions of little conducting antennas bristling off of a single tree... Sucking the signal right out of the air. Actually pretty amazing huh? But if you drop the frequency to the 900Mhz range, like old cordless phones, the waves pass through the mass like it wasn't even there. And this is at those low powers levels under a single watt. So how does that apply here? Hmmm... well considering that the Sprint PCS system runs in the 700-800Mhz range it's even lower and can penetrate deeper and further. Will it pass right through a human body unaffected? Nope, we are attenuating some of the power of the signal. Will the side harmonics reach down into our bodies operating range? OOOooo now there's a really good question that we don't have a really good answer for. The radiant energy is not enough to appreciably raise the body temperature even locally because our blood and fluids are constantly in motion and cooling us. There is really only one way to tell the effect.
We would have to wire someone up to an EEG unit with the probe leads on the opposite side of the head. (Same side, inductance of the RF energy into the probe lead wires would really skew the results. Opposite side mitigates it, but only to a degree.) Then watching the traces and patterns for change when a phone is brought close to the head both powered on and off would give some rough data points to look at. But it's still rough without really really shielded EEG probes. That is an experiment I want to do for obvious reasons ;-)

So food for thought, hmm? By the Way... The reason I mentioned myth busters is because of the project they did about cell phones causing gas station fires. That myth was experimentally destroyed on national TV with um... explosive results. It turned out the real culprit was Static Electricity. The statistic research showed that women were more likely than men to have the (heh) burning problem. And the reason was that 80% of women returned to the drivers seat and did not ground themselves before touching the handle of the pump... And there they found the spark source. Not the cell phone, rather Nylon generated static.

Interesting eh?
Just thought I'd share some common wisdom here on the topic, again the jury is out and a few generations have to go by before anything empirical census data can be collected.

Thanks again;
Dave Sherry
Midnight Engineers

[Diane]

Interesting thread of discussion these last few days... I am interested in getting a longrange Duraphon - 900Mhz. Anyone have any information about the safety/dangers of that phone? Or if it would interfere with wifi? It is not a cell phone, but it is a powerful cordless phone.

Thanks!
Diane

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/artic...14/1033/NEWS01


Cell phone tower proposed near Ukiah rejected
Mendocino planners urge U.S. Cellular to look around for alternate sites

By GLENDA ANDERSON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Mendocino County officials said no to a proposal to build a U.S. Cellular tower near the City of 10,000 Buddhas in Talmage, a decision greeted with whoops, whistles and applause by opponents of the project.

County Planning Commissioner Jim Little told U.S. Cellular representatives that if their company was looking for a building site that would draw opposition, "this is it."

The company sought permits to build a 100-foot tower on Mill Creek Road to improve cell phone service. But planning commissioners unanimously denied the project.

They said the project does not comply with county guidelines and the cell phone company did not adequately study other sites.

"I want U.S. Cellular to look for alternative sites," said Planning Commissioner Richard Moser.

More than 150 opponents packed the board chambers Thursday and more than 300 people had signed a petition opposing the tower.

"I am thrilled and delighted," said Victoria Schmidt, who lives on Mill Creek Road.

Allen Potter, a U.S. Cellular consultant, said he does not know whether the company will appeal the decision by taking it to the county Board of Supervisors.

He said the site -- on land owned by the Mendocino Vineyard Co. -- is the most suitable the company could find for a new tower, which is intended to improve cell phone service in south Ukiah.

Opponents objected to the location for numerous reasons, citing health concerns, property values and a negative impact on the scenic landscape.

They said the tower is too close to several nearby schools and could cause damage to the health and psyches of 160 students at the closest schools at the City of 10,000 Buddhas, a Buddhist community and monastery.

"It is recognized that young children are especially vulnerable to the very weak, pulsed microwave radiation emitted from cell towers twenty-four-seven, which have been shown to interfere with the electrical and electrochemical rhythms in their brains and bodies," claimed Heng Yin, principal of the girls' schools at the City of 10,000 Buddhas.

Health risks associated with cell towers are hotly debated and there is no consensus on their effect. Opponents of the towers also acknowledged that Federal Communications Commission regulations prohibit denying a cell tower based on potential impacts of radio frequency emissions when they're below the FCC standard.

Whether real or perceived, the health risks feared by residents could lower property values, school enrollment and pilgrimages to the monastery, opponents said.

You can reach Staff Writer Glenda Anderson at 462-6473 or [email protected].

[Braggi]

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/artic...14/1033/NEWS01


Cell phone tower proposed near Ukiah rejected
Mendocino planners urge U.S. Cellular to look around for alternate sites

Largest study ever declares cell phones safe!

https://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=388


Cell Phones Probably Safe, British Study Concludes

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/rf_exposure.html

[Karl Frederick]

Largest study ever declares cell phones safe!

https://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=388

If you look at the numbers in that Danish cell phone users study, you will see that the number of people who were diagnosed with cancer was 5% less than the expectation ("14,249 cancers diagnosed - fewer than the 15,001 predicted from national cancer rates.").

Would you conclude that cell phone usage protects one from cancer? The numbers suggest to me that there are other significant variables influencing the results. Such variables might be financial affluence, physical activity level, diet, and so forth. Here's a link to another view, and assertions which call the validity of that study into question (some of the reasons for doubt include: the report was funded by the telecommunications industry and used very unusual criteria, such as: "A cell phone user was defined as someone who made only one call per week over a period of six months or more.").
https://commonground.ca/iss/0701186/cg186_cell.shtml

[Sasu]

Sonic writes " There is no credible scientific indication that Wi-Fi poses any hazard to human or other health"

Carl Blackman Ph.D co-author of the Bioinitiative Report is one of the independent experts who endorsed the London Resolution which calls on governments to implement no wi-fi in homes, schools and public places.

Carl Blackman is a biologist in the Biochemistry and Pathobiology Branch of the Environmental Effects Research Laboratory at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He received his masters degree and Ph.D in Biophysics from Pennsylvania State University, and postdoctoral training at Brookhaven National laboratory. in 1970 Dr. Blackman joined the Public Health Services Bureau of Radiological Health. His position was transferred to the EPA.

For many years he studied the complexities of EMF field interactions with biological systems. More recent work focused on cancer promotion processes.

Dr. Blackman has received numerous awards and is a member of 11 scientific societies. He is a founding member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. He has sat on committees for the Office of Naval Research, The National Council on Radiation Protection, The American National Standards Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation, The National Institute of Health, among many others. He has been an invited speaker at the National Academy of Sciences. He has been on numerous international committees including the World health organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer on non-ionizing radiation.

As of the year 2000 He had published 77 professional papers, given 47 invited presentations and 121 meeting reports.

(taken from: "Cell Towers Wireless Convenience or Environmental Health Hazard" by Blake Levitt 2000)

What credentials does Sonic have that qualifies them to judge what is credible science?

[Sasu]

Removed

[Braggi]

https://omega.twoday.net/stories/4745870/

AMAZING TECHNOLOGY FROM JAPAN "MAY MAKE YOU SICK"

Posted by: Paul Doyon...

Now that's what I call science!

You know, over this same time frame, McDonalds fast food has taken Japan by storm. Perhaps that's actually the cause!

Write your congressman!

-Jeff