An educated City Council voted unanimously

[Zeno Swijtink]

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 Sonic uses 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 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.

[Tristan]

These points were going to be over and above what is already present.

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.

[Sasu]

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. "

[PeriodThree]

Zeno,


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.'

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.

[PeriodThree]

The World Health Organization classifies EMF's as a possible carcinogen.

This statement does not seem to be current. This appears to be the current view of the WHO:
https://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/Wh...en/index1.html

Electromagnetic fields and cancer
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.

Sasu asserts that WHO classifies EMF's as a possible carcinogen. I do not think that WHO makes this claim.

(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: https://www.who.int/mediacentre/fact.../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.

If the science is split 50/50 how can you say that it is 100% safe?

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 research
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.

This 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.

[TMartin]

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 Republic of China because it’s cheaper than Indian labor, Sebastopol is 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.

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.

[Tristan]

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.

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.

[Sasu]

Read www.microwavenews.com

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....

[TMartin]

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.

Read www.microwavenews.com

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....

[PeriodThree]

Read www.microwavenews.com
I love the internet, and I don't need it to be wireless.

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality

To think the economic vitality needs to be wireless is very sad. Who's economy? Microsoft? Wi-fi is a fundamental necessity?

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.

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?

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.

'scuse me while adjust my tim foil hat....

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.

[danejasper]

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.

• Clothing, including a laundry rinse shield product: https://www.blockemf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=762
• Jewelry, two choices: https://www.blockemf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=749 and https://www.lighthealing.com/rejuvenizers.aspx
• Home, paint and paint additives, etc: https://www.blockemf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=756

Folks have published lots of testimonials (Read examples at https://www.lighthealing.com/rejuven...timonials.aspx), and they say these products work for them.

I say: Take personal responsibility. Only you can solve your problems.

-Dane

[Sasu]

Dane,

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

[shellebelle]

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
https://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5708813/More-cities-enhance-public-sector.html

---------------------------------
https://www.technewsworld.com/story/53308.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."

---------------------------------
https://blog.case.edu/its-news/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."

Dane,

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

[Lorrie]

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!

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.

• Clothing, including a laundry rinse shield product: https://www.blockemf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=762
• Jewelry, two choices: https://www.blockemf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=749 and https://www.lighthealing.com/rejuvenizers.aspx
• Home, paint and paint additives, etc: https://www.blockemf.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=756

Folks have published lots of testimonials (Read examples at https://www.lighthealing.com/rejuven...timonials.aspx), and they say these products work for them.

I say: Take personal responsibility. Only you can solve your problems.

-Dane

[Tristan]

...And front page news for at least the second day on BBR.

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...-My-Baby-92938

[Sasu]

Statement of support from the European Environmental Agency:
Radiation risk from everyday devices assessed
17 Sep 2007 https://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.

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings...ne_iac2005.pdf https://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/...en/index1.html

BioInitiative Report, August 2007
a. https://www.bioinitiative.org/
b. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF): https://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf

German advice on WIFI exposures July 2007

https://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/061/1606117.pdf
https://www.icems.eu/docs/deutscher_bundestag.pdf

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.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/fact.../en/index.html
b. Extremely Low Frequency Fields
Environmental Health Criteria Monograph No. 238
https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publicat.../en/index.html

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.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/Rece...?punumber=6668

Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), Opinion on Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) on Human Health, March, 2007
https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/...nihr_o_007.pdf

Related web sites:
https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_deter...ydo_emf_en.htm
https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_deter...EMF/emf_en.htm

REFLEX research study, DG Research, 2000–2004
https://www.verum-foundation.de/reflex/
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.
https://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/pub...s/absd15-5.htm
b. A summary of recent reports on Mobile Phones and Health (2000– 2004). NRPB. W65.
https://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/pub...5/nrpb_w65.pdf

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.
https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monog...0/volume80.pdf

World Health Organization ‘Principles for evaluating health risks in children associated with exposure to chemicals’, Environmental Health Criteria, 237, Geneva, 2007.
https://whqlibdoc.who.int/publicatio...57237X_eng.pdf

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.
https://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf

EEA, ‘Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000’, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 2001.
https://reports.eea.europa.eu/enviro...ort_2001_22/en

Contact information:

Marion Hannerup
Head of Communications and Corporate Affairs
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark

Telephone: DK +4533367160 Call
Mobile: DK +4551332243
Email: marion.hannerup at eea.europa.eu


Brendan Killeen
Press Officer
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark

Telephone: DK +4533367269
Mobile: DK +4523683671 Call
Email: brendan.killeen at eea.europa.eu

[PeriodThree]

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.

Statement of support from the European Environmental Agency:

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.

[PeriodThree]

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.

It is unacceptable to use as 'evidence' statements from people who specifically don't know what they are talking about.

[Sciguy]

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
studies).
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

• 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.

How can this be reconciled with the danger of cell phone use?

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.

Sciguy

Statement of support from the European Environmental Agency:
Radiation risk from everyday devices assessed
17 Sep 2007 https://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.

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings...ne_iac2005.pdf https://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/...en/index1.html

BioInitiative Report, August 2007
a. https://www.bioinitiative.org/
b. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic fields (ELF and RF): https://www.bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf

...

[danejasper]

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.)

-Dane

[Zeno Swijtink]

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?

Dear Barry,

When will you end anonymity on WaccoBB, not just in profile, but also in screen name? As you grant here, it's the source and sign of unaccountability.

We discussed this today at SSU with Andrew Keen, author of "The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture."

https://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/05/...e_amateur.html

Anonymity, whether on Wacco or Wikipedia, we agreed, has led to a dumbing down of our culture, an atmosphere where people - unconcerned about their reputation - just spin a tale and try to get away with it.

Anonymity, I would argue, stands in the way of WaccoBB becoming a real community.

Hope you are well,

Zeno Swijtink

[marv3lls]

So there I was, on my laptop, connected to the internet via a 2.437 GHz signal (802.11g channel 6), browsing my various news feeds. And look what has happened: https://hardware.slashdot.org/articl.../03/26/0118237
We got slashdotted! Currently I am on spring break in Arizona, where I have been online every night until maybe 1 AM, talking to friends back at home (in Sebastopol) over Wi-Fi. No pain in my membrane, thank you. I just noticed what was going on in my precious town... why did I have to be gone?
Anyway, I think this is pretty much foolish. And the internet seems to agree, read some of the compliments (heh) on the slashdot page. I am a student at the Junior College at the moment, but when I was a student at Analy High, I would have been very happy to be able to go downtown and get online without feeling like I was stealing someone else's service that they were paying for.
I can't barely afford the low-tier DSL AT&T provides, let alone a T3 line... I am going for a Computer Science major. If there was high speed internet provided for free in town, I could drop my DSL and not have to stay at the JC to do work. I could downtown (patronizing local shops!) and do my homework, with my friends.
More people will not be coming to Sebastopol because there is no free internet, no Wi-Fi APs. Sebastopol would be better supported were it to provide that service.

Wishing I was there,
Shelby Munsch

[PeriodThree]

This is an hilarious post...Zeno posts about Keen, with evident sincerity, and refers us to Lawrence Lessig's review.

But only by going to the review do we release that Lessig's praise of Keen is for what a great self satarist he is...Keen's book is so incredibly awful, so riddled with error, that it can only be that bad if Keen had made an effort at self satire in order to demonstrate his point that amateurs are ruining our discourse.

Zeno's construction then brings us face to face with both aspects of the work: earnest criticism of the amateur by keen, over the top snark from one of the more significant cultural figures on the side of the amateur, and Zeno with just enough ambiguity in his message that he could be riding on either or both sides.

Utterly brilliant.

Dear Barry,


We discussed this today at SSU with Andrew Keen, author of "The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture."

https://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/05/...e_amateur.html

[smithers]

The irony of this whole thing is that, if I were one of the many residents/businesses with a private/secure hotspot and there was a reliable free hotspot available, I'd gladly give up paying for my private one and shut it down. I'm sure many others would follow suit, the net result being fewer EMF sources from hotspots. The only reason I have secured a hotspot myself is not concern over people hacking into my computer. I have a firewall and vpn, which is satisfactory for most usage. My main reason for locking up access to my hotspot was to prevent people using my router to access kiddie porn, having the feds track it to my router, and focusing their wrath on me. If the router isn't mine, ala the free Sonic hotspot, it isn't my worry. Unfortunately, I can't say it would be reliable.

I have been a very satisfied Sonic customer for about 10 years. The downtown Santa Rosa hotspot is horrid. Something happened in the last 6 months and it has gone downhill. I can unfailingly use my laptop at all the open hotspots I know about, but suddenly the downtown one seems to have degraded. I know how to use my computer. It is not a problem with my laptop, firewall, etc. I've talked to others and they agree. I've stood 15 feet away from one of the repeaters/routers/whatever and not been able to get a reliable signal.

John S

P.S., Everyone, please see my job wanted and housing wanted posts and email me with leads.

[thewholetruth]

Using European opinions about aNyThInG these days is, IMO, openly useless. Europe is nothing more but a snapshot of where America is headed if we stay on the path some Americans would like. Europe has been taken over already by the same folks who established the World Bank, who would love to take away all borders in North America and unify the world under one government. Why are they trying to do this? So THEY can rule the world. It's not about peace. It's not about unity of Mankind. It's about POWER and GREED. Europeans have been faithfully won over by a) removing God and creating a Godless society (does anyone remember the Soviet Union, for goodness sake?), encouraging people to be self-focused, self-centered and disconnected from one another, and now they are part of "The European Union". Next? North America, Africa and eventually Asia, if they can get the Communists baffled by their b.s., like they did to Europeans.

European research is jaded and biased and useless. They've bought into the "Global Warming" Chicken Little b.s., as well. The Earth has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time. Yes, we're poluting the air and the water, but we're not responsible for global warming, anymore than Cavemen were responsible for the Ice Age. It's easy to sell b.s. to people who are afraid, and no one is more afraid than Godless folks.

Statement of support from the European Environmental Agency:
Radiation risk from everyday devices assessed
17 Sep 2007 https://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"
...

[Sciguy]

To Donc1955:

How refreshing to know that the twelfth century is still with us. Those were the days when pesky scientists didn't poke their noses into our affairs because the church would burn anyone who knew anything at the stake. I had always suspected time machines were real and now I know it, since we have a living example.

You're right, the earth has always warmed and cooled. So what if it's warming now. I can't wait to be able to saddle up a Diplodoccus again. And watch those gladiator Tyrannosauruses battle it out in the ampitheater. Hi ho Silver, away!

Sciguy

Using European opinions about aNyThInG these days is, IMO, openly useless. Europe is nothing more but a snapshot of where America is headed if we stay on the path some Americans would like. Europe has been taken over already by the same folks who established the World Bank, who would love to take away all borders in North America and unify the world under one government. Why are they trying to do this? So THEY can rule the world. It's not about peace. It's not about unity of Mankind. It's about POWER and GREED. Europeans have been faithfully won over by a) removing God and creating a Godless society (does anyone remember the Soviet Union, for goodness sake?), encouraging people to be self-focused, self-centered and disconnected from one another, and now they are part of "The European Union". Next? North America, Africa and eventually Asia, if they can get the Communists baffled by their b.s., like they did to Europeans.

European research is jaded and biased and useless. They've bought into the "Global Warming" Chicken Little b.s., as well. The Earth has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time. Yes, we're poluting the air and the water, but we're not responsible for global warming, anymore than Cavemen were responsible for the Ice Age. It's easy to sell b.s. to people who are afraid, and no one is more afraid than Godless folks.

[thewholetruth]

Gosh, Paul, I'm surprised at how openly sarcastic and harsh you're being to me in response to my thoughts. I seem to recall Barry saying something about being respectful here. Perhaps Barry wasn't serious? You've been here longer than I, so I trust that you're familiar with what is acceptable and what is not here. I just thought rudeness wasn't allowed...but maybe it's just that anyone in the Conservative camp can't be rude, but you can? I'm just looking for clarification, brother. I'm sure it'll all become clear to me soon.

To Donc1955:

How refreshing to know that the twelfth century is still with us. Those were the days when pesky scientists didn't poke their noses into our affairs because the church would burn anyone who knew anything at the stake. I had always suspected time machines were real and now I know it, since we have a living example.

You're right, the earth has always warmed and cooled. So what if it's warming now. I can't wait to be able to saddle up a Diplodoccus again. And watch those gladiator Tyrannosauruses battle it out in the ampitheater. Hi ho Silver, away!

Sciguy

[Barry]

Gosh, Paul, I'm surprised at how openly sarcastic and harsh you're being to me in response to my thoughts. I seem to recall Barry saying something about being respectful here. Perhaps Barry wasn't serious? You've been here longer than I, so I trust that you're familiar with what is acceptable and what is not here. I just thought rudeness wasn't allowed...but maybe it's just that anyone in the Conservative camp can't be rude, but you can? I'm just looking for clarification, brother. I'm sure it'll all become clear to me soon.

Sarcastic, yes, but I didn't find it harsh or rude. You're way out on a limb, Don. Besides that every American scientific study validates the notion of global warming being caused by humans, even the Bush administration accepts it! I thought Paul's playful response was just fine.

[thewholetruth]

Thanks for the clarification, Barry. I'm just learning about what find acceptable and what you don't. I've been surprised at some of the acid comments back and forth (I'm not calling Paul's comments acid), but have been pleased that you allow an open exchange of opinions here. I'm sure I'll get a feels for what's acceptable and what's not over time.

Sarcastic, yes, but I didn't find it harsh or rude. You're way out on a limb, Don. Besides that every American scientific study validates the notion of global warming being caused by humans, even the Bush administration accepts it! I thought Paul's playful response was just fine.

[Sasu]

Dane,

According to the Nov 20 minutes of the Sebastopol council meeting you said that wi-fi RF was three times less than a cell phone. (One hour on wi-fi= 20 minutes on a cell)

When I asked you what the RF emissions from the wi-fi would be you said they would be 80uW/cm2 beneath a repeater to 10uW/cm2 at 100 meters away. The current RF on my street is .03uW/cm2 and in my home .006uW/cm2. Your figures would indicate a tremendous increase in Rf to our neighborhood. Were your figures inaccurate?

As to the mentinon of pharmaceuticals in the water the presenter said that the amounts were small for people but perhaps not so small for aquatic life. Is it possible the same is true for radiation in the environment?

I hope you will visit the O'Reilly blog where there is more discussion.

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.)

-Dane