Are Wi-fi and cell phones safe?

[Braggi]

Jeff,

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

Karl

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

Quote:
Braggi wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=49402#post49402)
Good, I like that. I've done a lot of reading on the subject and found no reason for alarm. In fact, radiation of far greater intensities are tolerated quite well by everyone in modern societies.

If you have information to the contrary, please share it. [end quote]

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

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

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

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

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

-Jeff

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

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


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

https://www.mwr.medianis.net/pdf/Vol11No2-03-IBelyaev.pdf

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

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

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

and the discussion that ensued

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

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

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

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

https://www.ez.nl/dsc?c=getobject&s=obj&objectid=47394&!dsname=EZInternet&isapidir=/gvisapi/

gives evidence of causal impacts on certain parameters.

This field of research is still open.

I think there is enough evidence accumulating of expert disagreement to warrant caution on installing community sponsored public wi-fi in Sebastopol and first embark on an environmental and health impact and a cost-benefit analysis to see how best to further the goal of cheap and convenient universal access to information and communication.

There may be other ways in which the city can promote this goal. Or it may be that community sponsored wi-fi is the way to reduce overall exposure in comparison with the free-for-all situation in SF, where the company Meraki is trying to build a system. Since the venture will use private property, it does not require city approval and may lead to increased radiation.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=49701#post49701

[Zeno Swijtink]

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

(...)

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


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

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

[Braggi]

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

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

This field of research is still open.
...

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

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

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

-Jeff

[Braggi]

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


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

Think about it.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

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

Think about it.

-Jeff

Have you heard of the trope called Irony? :):

["Mad" Miles]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144349.htm

Heavy Cell Phone Use Linked To Cancer, Study Suggests

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

[alanora]

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

[JackChristensen]

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

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

[Sasu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed by:

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

[Zeno Swijtink]

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

https://lists.healthandenvironment.org/lists/info/cheemf

See also the

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

https://www.bioinitiative.org/

[Lorrie]

(more from Dave)


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

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

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

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

Thanks again;
Dave Sherry
Midnight Engineers

[Diane]

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

Thanks!
Diane

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080222/NEWS/802220314/1033/NEWS01


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

By GLENDA ANDERSON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Braggi]

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080222/NEWS/802220314/1033/NEWS01


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


Largest study ever declares cell phones safe! (https://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=388)

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

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/images/news_111.gif
<!-- news --> Cell Phones Probably Safe, British Study Concludes

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

[Karl Frederick]

Largest study ever declares cell phones safe! (https://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=388)

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


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

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

[Sasu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sasu]

Removed

[Braggi]

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


AMAZING TECHNOLOGY FROM JAPAN "MAY MAKE YOU SICK"
Posted by: Paul Doyon...

Now that's what I call science! :wink:

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

Write your congressman!

-Jeff