Last night the Sebastopol City Council voted unanimously to terminate the contract with Sonic for city wide Wi-Fi! Sebastopol leads the way for other cities to educate themselves and choose the precautionary principle!
Last night the Sebastopol City Council voted unanimously to terminate the contract with Sonic for city wide Wi-Fi! Sebastopol leads the way for other cities to educate themselves and choose the precautionary principle!
I think this is dumb...
but I don't live in Sebastopol.
I have discussed this with a few "experts of electricity".
As it is explained to me by Electronics Engineers in the last few days and minutes.
It basically boils down to this:
The wi-fi signals are less powerful than cell phone signals, and radio and television signals are yet more powerful than cell phone signals...all of which are floating around in the airs....
Are you gonna end those too?
I don't think it's dumb. Radio and television signals received by the human body in most locations are NOT more powerful than the signals received by a body in contact with a cell phone that's transmitting. Besides that, looking just at radiated signal power is insufficient. There are other signal characteristics which can influence the ability of those signals to affect the body, including (at least) carrier frequency, modulation frequency, and duty cycle.
Research is increasingly showing a correlation between adverse health symptoms and emf radiation exposure. Local and national governmental bodies in other western countries are paying attention and are beginning to legislate limits to exposure to wi-fi radiation by prohibiting it in certain locations. The trend towards increasing international concern is clear. Why are we so sanguine in this country?
It's quite easy to parrot the US mainstream consensus and denigrate with relative impugnity the countervailing experience and research of others, since the mainstream opinion in the US supports commercial interests in and widespread public acceptance of cell phones and wi-fi. The attraction of convenience is powerful.
I'll be very happy to find solid, unbiased evidence of the safety of wi-fi . . . evidence that convincingly refutes the research that points to a problem. If I do, I'll put my wireless router back on-line. Until then, it's off. And my hat is off to Sebastopol Vice Mayor and City Council member Linda Kelley, who put the wi-fi question up for discussion, and to Mayor Craig Litwin and Council members Sarah Glade Gurney, and Larry Robinson; all listened to the community sentiment and concern, and voted to terminate the wi-fi contract.
I’m unclear if you are intentionally propagating ignorance or are simply trying to improve the value of your investment in Comcast and AT&T. Propagating ignorance for personal gain is a tactic of folks like George Bush and has no place in honest public debate.
The only reason not to support public wifi is to protect the monopolies corporations that are among the least socially responsible organizations on the planet.
Does free wi-fi really support "equal access for all" ? Does the one access point theory hold up in light of this disclaimer between Sonic and Petaluma?
WELCOME TO THE CITY OF PETALUMA WIFI SERVICE
See also Wifi Instructions
SECURITY WARNING AND DISCLAIMER
WARNING: This service is an open network provided for your convenience, and you use it at your own risk. It is available to the general public, and is NOT INHERENTLY SECURE. The providers cannot and do not guarantee the privacy of your data and communication while using the service.
There are potentially serious security issues with any computer connected to the Internet without the appropriate protection, ranging from viruses, worms and other programs that can damage the user's computer, to attacks on the computer by unauthorized or unwanted third parties. By using the service, you acknowledge and knowingly accept the potentially serious risks of accessing the Internet over an unsecured network. It is recommended that users take steps to protect their own computer system, such as installing current anti-virus software and maintaining appropriate firewall protection. For further information on how to protect yourself on this open network, consult a security professional.
By using this service, you acknowledge and agree that YOUR USE OF THIS SERVICE IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. By using the Service, you also agree to all terms set forth in the following Disclaimer.....
Whether or not one supports wifi, everyone would be well advised to consider this security warning.
Your internet connection, wifi or not, is not secure.
This warning equally applies to your internet connection _no matter how you get your connectivity_.
WiFi is not substantially less safe (from a data security perspective) than wired access.
Learn and use end to end encryption if you require that level of protection. Install firewall and anti-virus software on your computer.
As far as security is concerned, WiFi and public WiFi are not the problem.
(if someone is interested in having a technical discussion about actual security risks of WiFi I would be happy to engage, but those risks are truly minimal).
For a hundred years now, we have been bathed in the radio waves coming from every single radio station and TV station in our area. They permeate our buildings and bodies continuously, 24 hours a day. Yet we are somehow still alive. The powers are rated in the tens of thousands of watts. The WiFi connection was one watt or a half watt. But what difference do numbers make when you can shout danger with no basis.
God save us from the fear mongers.
You are unclear, yet you make public pronouncements about the motivations of those with whom you disagree, while offering no evidence of your own to the contrary.
Please look at the data; I think you'll appreciate why there is real and growing evidence-based concern about EMR-related health effects at powers well below the level of apparent thermal or ionizing effect.
I have no interest in either fear-mongering or being unwilling to look at the reasons wi-fi and other electromagnetic signals may have an effect on my body.
[As an aside, signal power can't be the sole criterion for determining likelihood of having a biological effect. The effects of concern happen below the level of the macroscopic thermal and/or ionizing effects which have traditionally been the standards. Resonance must be a major key to the coupling of EM signal power into biological systems, so the frequencies of the carrier, of the modulation, and of the duty cycle would be relevant, in addition to the power.]
I resist losing a convenience. When I was a kid, I remember looking at the bones in my feet through a flouroscope in the shoe store. Very Cool! And Very Bad. Who knew?
I'm predisposed to turn away from news I don't want to hear, and to question whether it's true. I'd rather ignore it than devote the time it woulf take to really understand the issue. And I'd rather not be sitting here in the middle of the night, trying to let you know that there are people of good heart and sound mind who are taking a serious look at the EM radiation questions, and finding cause for concern.
I welcome the continued research into the rich intersection of biology and electromagnetic science, and expect much of profound therapeutic value will come of it. And, though I don't know the mechanism by which EM radiation influences the human body, the mounting evidence of untoward effects led me to pull the plug on my wireless router and to support canceling Sebastopol's public wi-fi plan.
I have a greater concern over this than anything that I have seen discussed.
US jobs are moving over sees at an alarming rate. Unemployment is rising, the dollar is dropping, the stock market is unstable and currently everyone in the US who took advantage of the equity lines of credit and interest based mortgages based on an inflated market are potentially going to be upside down in them.
At time when strengthening our position in the global, national, regional and local markets is critical; a project that would have increased visitor traffic and thus sales is rallied against. A key component to business success is determined by a minority to be unsafe for them.
So my questions are
Those opposed to this plan who created pressure and the argument of unsafe environment:
How are you personally bringing business into Sebastopol and adding income into the economy so Sebastopol thrives within the markets mentioned above?
What income do you generate for the city and its businesses on a wider scale? Where do you shop and how much of your net income directly is spent within the city limits? Is that disposable income enough to keep a business alive during a 2 year down turn?
Can you afford to fund the city in an economic drop to ensure that it remains alive and vibrant?
All this to point out that its nice to shop local but its even better for non locals to shop local!
Tustin, California, a small city, has a great sign "Live and Work where you must; Shop Tustin".
I would offer in general it really is truth the "shop" is what keeps a town alive.
Last edited by shellebelle; 03-21-2008 at 10:16 AM.
Sebastopol's choice of the precautionary principle wlll draw more people to this town out of respect for their green choice. Already this event has been mentioned on NBC by Cindy Sage co author of the Bioinitiative Report. The City Council is to be congratulated and thanked for educating themselves on something 500 people were concerned about. 233 signatures are online. read the comments. http://www.petitiononline.com/mufifree/petition.html
Scientists Sending Warning “Signal” About the Dangers of Going Wireless
Public News Service - CA
March 20, 2008
San Francisco, CA – Wireless technologies may offer convenience, but some experts believe our cellular phones, PDAs and wireless computer networks might be making us sick. Scientists meeting in San Francisco are discussing recent findings that suggest a link between serious health problems and the everyday use of wireless technologies.
Cindy Sage, an environmental consultant from Santa Barbara, is coauthor of the "Bio-Initiative Report," a review of more than 2,000 research studies on electromagnetic radiation. She says, despite their common use, the U.S. standards for the safety of wireless technology are inadequate.
"We don't want this to become another smoking and lung cancer or secondhand smoke issue. We think that people will make very good decisions that are protective of their families and themselves, if they have the information."
Magda Havas, an associate professor at Trent University in Canada, has done extensive research on the biological effects of environmental contaminants. She says many Californians are unaware of the risks they're taking.
"The problem is people don't realize that there are health concerns. So we have to get the word out that this form of energy is biologically active, that it can potentially harm your body and that we need stricter regulations."
Many European countries already have taken action, limiting the amount of exposure to wireless devices, especially around children. Experts suggest avoiding use of, not only cellular phones, but cordless phones as well, whenever possible. They also recommend using computers that are hard-wired instead of wireless.
More information is available online, at www.BioInitiative.org.
Lori Abbott/Kevin Clay, Public News Service - CA
It's odd to me that this posting just happens to be proclaiming the talking points for the Telecom Lobbyists. There are no hearth risks to WiFi and the argument that the poor are too poor to use computers is simply ignorant and offensive.
Public WiFi is a good for our community, economic development and education. The ONLY organizations who don’t support public WiFi are ISPs and TeleCom companies who benefit form pay-for-use internet access.
Okay - again I asked
PERSONALLY what are you doing?
Don't tell me what others are doing. I want to know about you personally. See personally you are responsible - your town's success and failure is yours.
I know this sounds harsh in some term but you are loud, pushy even and driving a project that could lead to this town not being here in as short as two years.
You are driving business and thus jobs out of the area.
I am wondering how you plan to replace these incomes. See these incomes are a big deal.
An income locally means less gas used to get to work, more money and resources staying locally, more local economic growth, just to name a few. Though as we all know a closed economic cycle doesn't work a successful economy requires fresh income from non local sources.
So now that the natural income the WiFi would have produced is gone how will you work to replace it?
So tell me
Do you work in Sebastopol?
Do you own a business with any employees? If so how many employees and how long have you had the business and how does it improve the local community?
Is your income such that you sustain others?
If yes then tell us how you sustain this community.
Explain to me how you invest in Sebastopol?
If no then explain why I or anyone else including the city leaders are having a conversation with you when you are only taking from the community and not investing in it?
I think your message says a lot about your fears. You admit that that you have no idea of how EMF radiation would affect your body yet you are still scared enough to want to nullify a real and demonstrable good, a radical and revolutionary technical advance, communication with the whole world, calling it merely "convenience".
You do not write in 1980 when the fears were brand new. There has been extensive writing and research on the subject. Yet you still can't even suggest a mechanism.
You suggest that radio frequency radiation is scientifically known to be harmful yet you do not suggest one single scientific study that you derived that information from.
You take refuge in some handwaving about power not being important, merely because you find it convenient to dismiss cogent countervailing arguments. Of course the power of radiation is central to any discussion of effects. You want to control the power - you want to make it zero (an impossibility as I pointed out earlier since we are bathed in radio frequencies and 60 cycle radiation constantly).
You talk about carrier frequencies and duty cycle as though to impress your readers with technical tems relating to frequency. Actually, the duty cycle has nothing to do with frequency (though it affects the length of time someone is exposed to this radiation).
All in all, I will still say that you are fear mongering - and you are all the more dug in because you have no information to solidly support your position. On the other hand, there is abundant information that could be brought forward to support the real and substantial benefits of a free wireless connection.
I love the progressivism of Sebastopol but with this fraidy cat decision, they have made themselves a greenwashing laughingstock.
Fears about possible health risks related to WiFi are simply irrelevant. The question being considered is not, how do we keep WiFi out of the community? but should it be public? WiFi is here and here to stay. Would we rather have a patchwork of thousands of individual and overlapping WiFi installations in businesses and residences or one public system? A single public system could be maintained and updated consistently responding to new technologies and developing scientific evidence about quality and potential health risks. If one truly believe that there is a health risk to WiFi the only logical position is that there should be one well maintained public system.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that WiFi has health risks then the position apposed to public wifi is like debating the merits over thousands of individual out-houses verses a public sewage system. Clearly there are health risks in black-water but that’s exactly why we need a well maintained public system.
Beyond the question of health is the economic question. Having a patchwork of thousands of individual and overlapping WiFi installations means that a lager portion of the communities overall aggregate revenue will be spent on internet access while access is limited based on economic class. Economically disadvantages people should be encouraged to have access so that they can continue their educations and have broader employment opportunities. Public WiFi strengthens the economic stability of the community.
Personally I have not seen any compelling evidence that there are health risks. However, just as there are folks who claim global warming and evolution are yet to be settled issues I’m sure there will be cranks spreading fear about WiFi.
Sonic wired Santa Rosa with wifi. I have a friend who lives in the Rosenberg building at 4th and Mendocino and the signal he gets from the Sonic network is very weak even though he is right in the thick of the Sonic network. He picks up a much stronger signal from the library which is two blocks away. Private wifi hot spots may provide a stronger signal than anything that Sonic could have provided so the concept of a wifi free Sebastopol may be moot.
Look at how the nation views us now:
Was this the original intent?
Increased Subtle Energy Damage from WIFI
Electromagnetic Field (EMF) product solutions for subtle energy protection
Suggestions for Living Safely in a High-Tech World
(If you don't have a REJUVENIZER)
Human Consequences of Urban Technology
Last edited by Barry; 03-24-2008 at 01:42 PM.
Do you have any information from a site that's not trying to sell me something based on the information on the site? I've seen way too many web sites out trying to sell products like the 'Rejuvenizer', justifying them by some quasi-scientific means. Most of these fizzle out quickly, but some seem to stick around. I'd love to see some information on a less biased site, especially if it involves any sort of actual measurement data (and no, I'm not talking about E-meter measurements either).
The links you posted were fun though :). I like this one:
Google street view and cameras at insersections are still stealing our souls after all this time...
I'm sorry I am confused.
Now I know I am not an expert but I certainly would not go to a PSYCHOLOGIST to ask or receive answers for questions that should be asked of an Electrical Engineer!
Why Are You?
This is who you are quoting from what I can see
Phyllis Light is a nationally-known intuitive healer and personal growth counselor. She has a Ph.D. in psychology and has extensive specialized training as a healer. At work in the healing field since the 1970s, Phyllis helps clients make positive, lasting life changes and improve their relationships.
Phyllis does one-on-one private healing sessions, working long distance by phone, tuning into the person energetically and then providing telepathic healing that is life-changing. Phyllis' clientele spans the entire U.S., from coast to coast, and even includes people from other countries as well.
Phyllis applies her specialized knowledge about the mind-body connection to help clients discover their subconscious blocks to happiness and success. Permanent changes take place, greatly accelerating personal transformation.
An expert in relationship issues, Phyllis is the author of Prince Charming Lives! (Princess Charming Does, Too) Finding the Love of Your Life. . This book helps people heal themselves in the love arena and develop a greater appreciation of themselves, life, and all of their relationships. Her new book, Love Now, Here's How, empowers people to resolve their relationship difficulties. This book contains valuable research into relationship patterns, as well as powerful techniques and exercises to improve relationships.
A dynamic public speaker, Phyllis makes presentations throughout the world and appears on numerous American radio and television shows. Phyllis has also been featured in a number of print media, including Time magazine. A native of Baltimore, Maryland, Phyllis resides in Austin, Texas, USA.
Last edited by Barry; 03-24-2008 at 01:43 PM.
voxregalis just posted several links from http://www.lighthealing.com.
This is a site run by Phyllis Light, who describes herself as an intuitive healer and personal growth counselor.
She sells her services, and something which looks like a crystal called a 'rejuvenizer.'
Here is a page on them:
I suspect that one's response upon reading that page would provide a reasonably good west county personality test.
Thank you for posting those links. I think I now understand wifi opponents better. If someone can read the following paragraph and think it means something than I can see why that person would have problems with wifi.
Phyllis is constantly upgrading the Personal Rejuvenizer® to include any newly-occurring viruses and bacteria. Once you purchase your Personal Rejuvenizer®, any enhancements are AUTOMATICALLY ADDED ENERGETICALLY by Phyllis as a gift to you!
I agree that the statement was ignorant and offensive. See my Wacco post http://www.waccobb.net/forums/showth...2982#post52982.
I can see it now, bands of people on horseback with hotspot detectors, laying siege to buildings with non-public wi-fi and setting them ablaze. Watch out for the toxic fumes!
I do not have to answer YOU or anyone in order to have an opinion and offer information.
Wifi?"Sebastopol's choice of the precautionary principle wlll draw more people to this town out of respect for their green choice." Sasu***************************************************
"Sebastopol's choice of the precautionary principle wlll draw more people to this town out of respect for their green choice." SASU************************************************************
why don't you read the profile? If you do not live in Sebastopol, you can't have an opinion? voxirrelevant voxirrelevant vox*********************You make no sense. Your arguments are shallow and reactionary.This SASU is making good points....taking nothing away from Sebastopol.Sebastopol voted!!!!!!!!!Sebastopol City Council voted unanimously to terminate the contract with Sonic for city wide Wi-Fi!so.....YOU talk to the city council.can you......
Last edited by Barry; 03-24-2008 at 03:34 PM.
What people seem to keep touching on, but never going in-depth into, is that a properly constructed WiFi mesh network will expose users in and around the network coverage area to less radiation than the hundreds of private networks around. The devices that I've seen Sonic use so far are low-power, nothing compared to the .5w high-power WiFi cards and APs that people are beginning to use. I've found at least two 1w amplified APs in my area, which even as a proponent of wireless communications, seems too high powered for home users. As far as I can tell, the Meraki Minis that Sonic uses for the Santa Rosa WiFi transmit at less than 75mw.
I can help but notice that you, along with many other of our more strident posters, do not supply you real names on your profile. Are you not willing to be accountable for your posts?
Also it has come to my attention that you have written disrespectful private replies in response to a public post. You must be respectful if you wish to continue to be a member of our community.
I think this is a good point. Independent of the details of the impact of EMFs on biological systems, we would be better off if the present chaos were replaced by a system where our elected government took it upon to provide wireless in Sebastopol, as it does with water. It could apply the latest precautions to such a system, and adapt it as we learn more.
But that was not the proposal. These points were going to be over and above what is already present.
I also think that the government is to be held to other norms to "impose" something then individuals are who expose themselves voluntary (apart from the leakage problem).
For some city council members this was an issue of providing wireless to low income people. I thought that was spurious. If that's the goal the precautionary approach says to ask what's the best means to reach that goal, not just to vote up or down a specific solution offered by a company.
Hope that the council follows up on the idea to bring education and information to empower low income people.
This is sadly true. In an ideal WiFi mesh, users would either be part of the mesh (Hosting repeaters), or clients of the mesh, but not operating rogue access points. I believe that if a mesh were deployed that people would want to use (IE: easy to use, fast, secure), they could be convinced to turn off their APs. But alas, I'm just dreaming at this point.
Read the Bioinitiative report. www.Bioinitiative.org Section 1 and 17 to start.
Read Robert Becker's book, "Cross Currents"
I hope those reading wil take the time to educate themselves, otherwise this discussion is just about proliferating rhetoric. I have personal experience that showed me how much EMFs affect health. Which I then followed up with study and research.
I challenge any of you naysayers to turn off everything (at the breaker box) but your fridge for a month and avoid as many electric gadgets as possible, including your car. Be careful though because pulling the plug abruptly can have side effects. WHO WILL TRY THIS? Who will reduce their exposures by half?
The World Health Organization classifies EMF's as a possible carcinogen.
If the science is split 50/50 how can you say that it is 100% safe?
A more accurate conclusion would be that its uncertain whether it is safe or not. So then you have the reason they continue with the studies, the hundreds of thousands of people personally discovering their health has been affected by EMF's. There are multiple lawsuits filed against the wireless industries who admit they cannot prove its safe.
Electricity has become ubiquitous and people deem it as necessary, but we need to start looking deeper into this issue. We need to start reducing our consumption. This is the era of global warming. Our entire lifestyle needs to be re-evaluated. Wireless technology adds heat to the environment. One cell tower uses the equivalent of 4-8 houses worth of electricity. And these high frequency charges are emitted into the air that is a habitat for all of life. Is that sustainable?
This from Cindy Sage, co author of the Bioinitiative:
"Clearly, the evidence we already have strongly implicates both ELF and
RF exposures (chronic, low-intensity exposures) with bioeffects that can
reasonably be presumed to result in adverse health effects. In the case of
cell and cordless phones, a 10-year latency with ipsilateral use is already
showing elevated risks for brain tumors and acoustic neuromas.
Wi-Fi level exposures are widely reported in many countries of the world
to be associated with ill-health and symptoms that are consistent with
neurological problems. Loss of sleep is a commonly reported symptom, and
as we all know, sleep loss can itself result in a variety of other health problems. "
It turns out that chaos is usually the best option in economic, ecological, and cultural systems.
We have now had a rather perfect example demonstrating the challenges of communicating even slightly technical information to the Sebastopol City Council.
I don't want to harsh on your idea too much, but a Sebastopol in which the question of how to upgrade our wireless routers were to be subject to the political process would not in any way shape or form make us all 'better off.'
This statement does not seem to be current. This appears to be the current view of the WHO:
Electromagnetic fields and cancerSasu asserts that WHO classifies EMF's as a possible carcinogen. I do not think that WHO makes this claim.
Despite many studies, the evidence for any effect remains highly controversial. However, it is clear that if electromagnetic fields do have an effect on cancer, then any increase in risk will be extremely small. The results to date contain many inconsistencies, but no large increases in risk have been found for any cancer in children or adults.
(The Bioinitiatives report has a different and more negative view of the WHO view and it is referenced in Section 17 of the Bioinitiatives report.)
But the Bioinitiatives report is not the World Health Organization.
I assume that Sasu is referring to the 2002 IARC study referred to in this article: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/facts.../en/index.html
In 2002, IARC published a monograph classifying ELF magnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans". This classification is used to denote an agent for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in experimental animals (other examples include coffee and welding fumes).
Thus, on balance, the evidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal.This confuses me a bit. I don't know many people asserting that anything is 100% anything. But with that said, the science is not split 50/50. Again, referring to the WHO:
Conclusions from scientific researchThis is certainly not a claim that EMF is 100% safe, but it is certainly a judgment that low level electromagnetic fields are not a health concern.
In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research.
I agree with your analysis of the technology issues but sincerely hope it not just dreaming. WiFi will come up again and again.
The need for a comprehensive wifi network is not optional, it is inevitable. This silliness is just a delay. The ability to be connected is increasingly vital for economic development, employment security, tax bases and property values. It is not a coincidence that Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Apple and Adobe all have business strategies built around a mobile connected workforce. Opting out of a public wifi system is as shortsighted as community leaders refusing rail road access to their small towns in the nineteenth century.
The issue of comprehensive wifi access is not about checking email at starbucks, surfing craigslist.org want ads or spending your days on Google looking up silly health risks theories related to technology. It is a fundamental necessity. By delaying the inevitable we are requiring ourselves to pay more for a patchwork of personal internet connection and data delivered via cell towers. Limiting access by technology, economic class or any other reason is simply self destructive. As Indian technology companies are outsourcing coding to the
Peoples Republicof Chinabecause it’s cheaper than Indian labor, Sebastopolis asleep. It seems that some of our friends here on WaccoBB feel they are immunized from globalization. The idea that we can simply look the other way and deny access to vital infrastructure is silly.
We will have a comprehensive wifi network. The funding model will be public, either through direct taxes or government financing, tax breaks, bonds and grants like those to PG&E and AT&T. The medical conspiracy theorists will simply move on the next hot technology.
The sky is always falling but never seems to land. I’m old enough to remember how we should all refuse to buy color TVs. Apparently all Americans would get cancer by the year 2000 from color TV radiation. Let’s not forget how all men would become infertile if they use computers and anyone with a mobile phone would get brain cancer. Everything has some kind of health risks. The trick is to logically identify and mediate these risks.
There is always a reluctance to embrace new technologies and some of the fearful will grasp at health excuses lurking unseen in the shadows. It is incumbent on the all of us to resist the unfounded fears and short-sighted greed of the few. We need to focus on the positive, constructive and safe solutions that are in everyone’s best interest.
Last edited by Barry; 03-24-2008 at 10:26 PM.
I hope that with the recent developments in WiFi, especially with the advent of cheap, open-source based mesh hardware, people will start to build publicly-funded meshes. It's finally getting to the point where you don't need to know a lot about WiFi in order to be part of a larger network instead of opting to run yet another private network.
I love the internet, and I don't need it to be wireless.
To think the economic vitality needs to be wireless is very sad. Who's economy? Microsoft? Wi-fi is a fundamental necessity?
A fundamental necessity is clean air, water food and nature. A fundamental necessity is loving others and feeling loved and belonging and a sense of purpose. What happened to common sense values?
'scuse me while adjust my tin foil hat....
Last edited by Barry; 03-24-2008 at 10:10 PM.
I appreciate that you like the internet; however, it’s unfortunate that you have missed the point completely. It is understood that we all need and value loving others and feeling loved and belonging and a sense of purpose, however, this is completely irrelevant to this issue.
Those of use who understand the vital importance of being part of a mobile connected workforce are not somehow morally corrupt.
Your argument of fear and insults is hardly excusable in an elementary school yard and is simple inappropriate in an adult forum about important issues. Possibly you are not paying close attention to actual facts but this is not about accessing entertainment on the internet.
Hiding your head in the sand to avoid the reality of our economy is an expensive and totally irresponsible luxury.
I also love the internet, and I do need for it to be wireless.
Mobile internet applications are a growing and important part of total Internet usage. Location Based Services (LBS) which are able to use your current location to provide context specific information are a major area of research and development.
Augmented reality systems are another area which requires wireless internet access.
The interactive system is no longer a precise location, but the whole environment; interaction is no longer simply a face-to-screen exchange, but dissolves itself in the surrounding space and objects. Using an information system is no longer exclusively a conscious and intentional act.from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality
Wireless reality makes me very very happy. That it makes you sad reflects a lack of knowledge and imagination on your part. It also belays an enormous sense of hubris, in that you have decided what is appropriate for everyone based on your sense of what you need.
I see you as the person telling Leopold Mozard, in say 1750, that there is no need to buy a claviar, thus depriving the 3 year old Wolfgang Amadeus of the experience of learning 'his' instrument.
Given your focus on EMF I imagine you would have been aghast at Jimi Hendrix and his use of amplifier feedback.
Or maybe you would have told Robert Rodriquez' father, in 1975, not to buy that VCR with the video camera, so the 7 year old Robert didn't teach himself a new visual vocabulary.
Without a doubt I see you on that Athenian jury deciding the question of Socrates corrupting the youth of Athens.
"I don't need it" says Sasu, or "I don't understand it" or "I fear it" and so "you can't have it."
Fortunately you are here, now, and not then and there and so we have Purple Haze, El Mariachi, and the Magic Flute.
I do not know what the Purple Haze of mobile internet services will be. I do have ideas about what an El Mariachi of location based services might look like.
I do not know how my children will manifest their inherent creative genius, or if their piano forte will have been created by the time they need it. I do know that the fact that you have no need to be connected to the rest of the world when you are away from your computer does not convince me of anything other than your own pride in your personal stasis.
Biologists have a special word for stable systems. That word is 'dead.'
I believe that not only our knowledge, but our aims and our standards, our goals and hopes, grow through an unending process of trial and error. (Right Zeno?)
Your form of interacting with technology has a real cost in limiting what is possible. I chose not to be bounded by your desires to limit my, and my children's, future.
My wireless connectivity can tell me, via growing sensor networks, about the air and water quality around me. It can report to me where the food I am considering buying came from. It can tell me where to find local farmers with local produce. My connectivity can tell me when I am near to parks and wild spaces. It cannot love me or love others, but it can allow me to talk with my loves nearly wherever I am. It can keep me in contact with my community and with my purpose.
My wireless connectivity has an enormous amount to do with my personal common sense values. When you attack wifi you are attacking my values at a deeply personal level.
I like my values. A lot. I abhor the values which you have manifested in this conversation.
Presumably you mean that as a joke. The combination of paranoia, ignorance, and attack on my own core values which your posts contain leaves me with little room to laugh at your jest.
That you spend most of your life with your electricity shut off at the breakers seems sufficient evidence to me of a fragile mental state. The tin foil hat would be redundant.
I would suggest that the folks who fear radio signals should take personal responsibility for avoiding them, rather than limiting the activities of others.
This is also the only real and practical solution.
It's unrealistic to expect that any solution other than personal responsibility would work - there are hundreds of Wi-Fi access points in Sebastopol, and thousands of other radio signals in every frequency range. Cellular/PCS mobile phones, AM, FM, FAA Radar, Police Radar (that cute little "Your speed is" sign that the Sebastopol PD put out on roads), etc. (And now, for a real high definition experience, over 100 channels of HDTV from DirecTV's satellites landing on your head every time you step out doors!)
There are many many products which you can use in an effort to eliminate radio from your own personal environment, without imposing upon others. They might work, for you - whereas attempting to limit Wi-Fi or satellite TV or mobile phones really won't. Radio is everywhere, and has been for decades - that's not going to change.
Folks have published lots of testimonials (Read examples at http://www.lighthealing.com/rejuveni...timonials.aspx), and they say these products work for them.
- Clothing, including a laundry rinse shield product: http://www.blockemf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=762
- Jewelry, two choices: http://www.blockemf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=749 and http://www.lighthealing.com/rejuvenizers.aspx
- Home, paint and paint additives, etc: http://www.blockemf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=756
I say: Take personal responsibility. Only you can solve your problems.
Can you prove your wireless networks are safe?
"More research is needed" is not proof.
What you are saying is that I cannot prove it's not unsafe, but that does not make it safe.
Are you aware that other wireless companies have lawsuits filed against them and that they write (US securities and exchange Commission Form 10K (Sprint) "Further research and studies are ongoing, and we cannot be sure that additional studies will not demonstrate a link between radio frequency emissions and health concerns.” and (Verizon) "concerns about alleged health risks relating to RF emissions may reduce our demand for service and cause us to pay significant damages or settlements"
How can you feel so strongly about your choice when these companies are declaring they cannot be sure?
I invite you to meet with me personally to have a conversation about this further. I am a ten year Sonic customer. I hope you will.
Sandi, I have yet to hear you tell me what and how you
propose to have Sebastopol's economy grow. A real plan.
Your opposition to WiFi is not as big of a concern to me as the fact that you are using unsubstantiated, unscientifically proven facts and that you have no plan in place to promote and move the city of Sebastopol's economy forward.
I don't mind a difference of opinion but opponents please come forward with a plan to create the same or greater benefit to the community. Please be able to show your investment in the city in economic values.
WiFi is a critical component to business success, to remote workers success, to the virtual business community and their employees.
The article links I posted yes date to 2006 stating this and why.
Publication: Nation's Cities Weekly
Publication Date: 07-AUG-06
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Shapiro, Marc
/coms2/gi_0199-5708813/More -cities-enhance-public-sector .html
"We did a study where we asked consumers what they'd choose if they had to give up their iPod or their WiFi," she recalled. "Eighty percent said they'd sooner give up their iPod than their WiFi."
/2003/07/21/sprint_announces _plans_to_offer_public_wifi _access_service
Bowman added: "Our business customers have told us that convenient and seamless access to information is critical to increasing productivity of remote employees. While in these strategic Sprint Wi-Fi ZONES, customers will be able to perform all the functions that they would normally do at their desktop PC, and at speeds that can truly replicate the desktop experience. When customers leave a Wi-Fi ZONE and become mobile, they can then access data, check email and browse the Internet via the enhanced Sprint Nationwide PCS Network."
Thank you DaneJasper and PeriodThree...and like.
What you have so eloquently stated is what I meant when I said, "This is dumb."
Thank you for being clearer than I. And...I apologize to the readers!
...And front page news for at least the second day on BBR.
Statement of support from the European Environmental Agency:
Radiation risk from everyday devices assessed
17 Sep 2007 http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/...vices-assessed
A new report raising concerns about the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on human health calls for tougher safety standards to regulate radiation from mobile phones, power lines and many other sources of exposure in daily life. The "BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) was compiled by the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals. The EEA has contributed to this new report with a chapter drawn from the EEA study, "Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000"
The EEA study reviews the histories of a selection of public and environmental hazards, such as asbestos, benzene and PCBs, from the first scientifically based early warnings about potential harm, to subsequent precautionary and preventive measures. Cases on tobacco smoking and lead in petrol are forthcoming.
Although the EEA does not have specific expertise in EMF, the case studies of public hazards analyzed in the publication show that harmful exposures can be widespread before there is evidence of harm from long-term exposures, and biological understanding of how that harm is caused.
"There are many examples of the failure to use the precautionary principle in the past, which have resulted in serious and often irreversible damage to health and environments. Appropriate, precautionary and proportionate actions taken now to avoid plausible and potentially serious threats to health from EMF are likely to be seen as prudent and wise from future perspectives. We must remember that precaution is one of the principles of EU environmental policy," says Professor Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the EEA.
Current evidence, although limited, is strong enough to question the scientific basis for the present EMR exposure limits, according to the BioInitiative Working Group.
For more information:
Mobile Telecommunications Research Programme, United Kingdom, September 2007
a. MTHR: Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research
b. Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research report 2007
Interphone (World Health Organisation — International Agency for Research on Cancer) on-going project on mobile phones.
BioInitiative Report, August 2007
b. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF): http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf
German advice on WIFI exposures July 2007
World Health Organisation review on Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic fields and Health, June 2007:
a. Electromagnetic fields and public health. Fact sheet N322, June 2007.
b. Extremely Low Frequency Fields
Environmental Health Criteria Monograph No. 238
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.) microwave magazine, Editorial, Volume 8, Issue 3, June 2007. Cellular Mobile Radiation and Intercranial Tumours. Lin J.C.
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), Opinion on Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health, March, 2007
Related web sites:
REFLEX research study, DG Research, 2000–2004
See also ‘EU Research on Environment and Health — Results from projects funded by the 5th Work frame programme, pages 176–177 on REFLEX and EMF projects, pages 166–181
Friedman et al., ‘Mechanisms of short term ERK activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequencies’, Biochem Journal, 405, 559–568, 2007
Mobile Phones and Health: Reports by Stewart/National Radiological Protection Board, United Kingdom, 2002, 2004
a. Mobile Phones and Health 2004. NRPB. Volume 15, No. 5.
b. A summary of recent reports on Mobile Phones and Health (2000– 2004). NRPB. W65.
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 2002.
World Health Organization ‘Principles for evaluating health risks in children associated with exposure to chemicals’, Environmental Health Criteria, 237, Geneva, 2007.
International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300GHz), International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, Health Physics, Vol 74, No 4, p 494–522, 1998.
EEA, ‘Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000’, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 2001.
Head of Communications and Corporate Affairs
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Telephone: DK +4533367160 Call
Mobile: DK +4551332243
Email: marion.hannerup at eea.europa.eu
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Telephone: DK +4533367269
Mobile: DK +4523683671 Call
Email: brendan.killeen at eea.europa.eu
This quote alone makes this post irrelevant and frankly, idiotic.
It is unacceptable to use as 'evidence' statements from people who specifically don't know what they are talking about.
Last edited by shellebelle; 03-25-2008 at 10:53 AM. Reason: Removed deragatory statement!
To elaborate on this point, I strongly believe that knowingly using flawed evidence to make a point, as Sasu has done in her debates, is a tactic which is deeply destructive of community.
(I am not saying all of her evidence is flawed. I personally think most of it probably is flawed, but I have been working to be very careful to only address those points where she has made glaringly false factual assertions).
I believe that not correcting your errors, when they have been pointed out to you, reflects a willfulness. We all make mistakes in our discussions. To not acknowledge our factual errors is the same is to tell a deliberate lie.
To repeat those false statements is of course a deliberate, and I believe malicious, lie.
I consider using lies to further your own ends to be a deeply immoral action which is also destructive of community and humanity.
I think that deliberately mixing the sources of factual information, as the BioInitiative Report does, in order to sow confusion, is deeply troubling, but that gets into complicated questions like 'how much is too much?' And so in spite of being deeply bothered by the language of the BioInitiative Report I am unprepared to go there yet.
I didn't want to make it a lifetime study but I did want to take a quick look at this Bioinitiative Report to see what the hoopla was about.
I went to the European Environmental website and discovered that they did not see scientific conclusions coming from that Report but only were applying the Precautionary Principle, meaning that they don't know if the Report is right or wrong but why not act as though it were right for now. This is quite different from according scientific substance to the Report.
The Bioinitiative Report is replete with dire consequences of EMF exposure. For one of the more egregious examples, look at what they have to say about brain tumors and wireless phones:
"The risk of brain tumor (high-grade malignant glioma) from cordless phone use is 220% higher (both sides of the head). The risk from use of a cordless phone is 470% higher when used mostly on only one side of the head.
For acoustic neuromas, there is a 30% increased risk with cell phone use at ten years and longer; and a 240% increased risk of acoustic neuroma when the cell phone is used mainly on one side of the head. These risks are based on the combined results of several studies (a meta-analysis of
For use of cordless phones, the increased risk of acoustic neuroma is three-fold higher (310%) when the phone is mainly used on one side of the head."
Did you miss that? Numbers like 3.1 times as many neuromas and 4.7 times as many malignant gliomas from cell phones! These are incredible numbers.
And a cautionary warning box:
"People who have used a cordless phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cordless phone has been used primarily on one side of the head."
Considering the huge increase in recent decades in exposure of users to cell phones and cordless phones, it is obvious that this kind of huge increase in tumor risk would have caused a significant spike in brain tumors, with no argument possible. So I went to the National Cancer Institute to check that out and found this:
National Cancer Institute Brain Tumor Study in Adults: Fact Sheet
How can this be reconciled with the danger of cell phone use?
- Each year about 19,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with primary brain cancers.
- From 1990 to 2002, the overall the age-adjusted incidence rates for brain cancer decreased slightly; from 7.0 cases to 6.4 cases for every 100,000 persons in the United States. The mortality rate from 1990 to 2002 also decreased slightly; from 4.9 deaths to 4.5 for every 100,000 persons in the United States.
The Bioinitiative Report is similarly full of grim statistics on the causation of breast cancer (men and women) childhood leukemia, tumors on acoustic nerves, Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, motor neuron disease, epilepsy, insomnia, headaches, dizziness, grogginess, lack of concentration, allergies, immune system defects and genetic alterations.
On the other hand:
"Although scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship; these complaints are widespread and the cause of significant public concern in some countries where wireless
technologies are fairly mature and widely distributed" (page 15)
The Report treats us to a long ramble thru every possibility that medical science recognizes - vulnerability of children and pregnant mothers, the possible effect on cells, their nuclei, their proteins and all of the body's systems. It isn't that any of these effects are actually known, just that we need to be scared of every effect that a fertile imagination could conceive.
Though my view will surely not be shared by those who are afraid of everything new or different, it was my impression that the Bioinitiative Report is a confabulation of invented and imaginary possibilities designed to scare the pants off of anyone who is used to accepting such fairy tales as real.
There were a number of other studies quoted by Sasu but I don't have the time to search thru all of them. The Bioinitiative Report is apparently one of the strongest collections of anecdotes, hopeful cautions and sidewise inferences being used to justify fear of EMF so I just stopped with that one.
Last edited by Barry; 03-25-2008 at 01:45 PM.
Somewhere I saw the statistic that sitting in a Wi-Fi hotspot for a full year was an equivalent RF exposure to 20 minutes on a cell phone.
But now I can't find the study or article this was in. Anyone run into that and have a citation?
(Reminds me of last week's city council meeting. Linda Kelly asked about prescription drugs affect on the water system, and the staff member said yes, there are measurable amounts of Tylenol, but you'd have to drink some crazy amount of water for many, many years in order to get one tablet/dose worth of Tylenol.)