Are Wi-fi and cell phones safe? [Archive]

Braggi

12-18-2007, 10:01 PM

Sasu provided earlier this link:

https://bioinitiative.org/report/docs/report.pdf

Odd, I didn't see that link in her posts. I did download the section on brain tumors. It's all about cell phones and the bottom line numerous times is that "no association" could be made. Then in the conclusions they suggest there is a "moderate" increase in risk. I'm not educated enough in the way of statistics to figure how they came up with their summary but a cursory skim of the report didn't scare me much. I don't have a cell phone so I'm not real worried about them anyway. I didn't see anything on wireless networking

I don't think that collection of documents is being taken very seriously by the industry, which, of course, is no reason to discount it, but surely, "more studies are necessary to draw firm conclusions."

Sadly, a person can't really opt out of exposure without landing on a small desert island. Even there, satellite transmissions would get to you. And then there's that big yellow thing up there. Lots of radiation coming from that. And the stars too. It's hard to avoid radiation.

I agree it's a challenging issue, but so far there doesn't appear to be much to worry about. I hope it stays that way. I do have my internet connection beamed to me via wireless, so I'll watch for negative effects and I'll let you know.

Meanwhile, browsing the Web I found this:
https://compnetworking.about.com/cs/wireless/f/healthhazards.htm
Q. Are wireless signals a health hazard?

From Bradley Mitchell (https://compnetworking.about.com/mbiopage.htm),
Your Guide to Wireless / Networking (https://compnetworking.about.com/).
A. Some have speculated that prolonged exposure to wireless network devices could cause memory loss or other brain damage. However, potential health hazards from the microwave signals of WLANs (https://compnetworking.about.com/cs/wirelessproducts/g/bldef_wlan.htm) have not been validated scientifically. In fact, using a WLAN is most likely much safer than using a cell phone. Why? A typical home wireless network transmits radio signals in the same general frequency range as microwave ovens. Yet compared to ovens and even cell phones, wireless network cards and access points (https://compnetworking.about.com/cs/wireless/g/bldef_ap.htm) transmit at very low power, anywhere from 100 to 1000 times less. In addition, WLANs send radio signals only intermittently, during data transmisssion, whereas cell phones transmit continously while powered on. Overall, the cumulative exposure to microwave radiation from a WLAN remains much, much less than exposure from other radio frequency devices.

-Jeff

Sasu

12-19-2007, 06:20 PM

If Barry would grant permission [Granted! -Barry] to upload a 51 page report from Magda Havas on the health effects of radio frequencies I will do that. THis report was prepared for the SF Tech connect project. Earthlink backed out of that deal stating financial problems.

The fact is if you dont beleive EMFs will effect you you can find proof on the web that that's true. And if you beleive thay can effect you you will find proof of that too. It would be interesting to see which side has more proof.

So you can have your own health experience and find out . That 's how we found out about it. Ironically I had two houses previously tested for EMFs and there was nothing plugged in around our beds, but the fields were from the wiring.
Or you can visit other websites like microwave news or SNAFU's site or buy meters and protective fabrics from lessemf.com or the yahoo group esense or energyfields.org... the list goes on.

Sasu

12-19-2007, 08:21 PM

Thank you Barry!
Attached is the report from Magda Havas which was prepared for the SF Tech connect project. Her report is in oppostion to wi-fi. Earthlink backed out of that deal stating financial problems.

BTW people are listening to the Bioinitiative report. The London Resolution was issued Nov 27, 2007 calling for no wi-fi in homes, schools and public places. The EU (European enviornmental union) and the German Government advise NO wi-fi.

The FCC set a standard for RF which they decided would not heat tissue so they declared that as safe. The Technology industry creates products based on that standard. The FCC limit was based on short term exposure, not long term exposure. Wi-fi is both a constant exposure and a long term exposure. With a cell phone you can use it then turn it off. You cannot turn off city wide wi-fi.

Also you cannot appeal it legally because the FCC Communication Act says you cannot appeal for reasons of health. The US Government and industry has been hearing about the health effects of EMF's since the 80's. It doesn't surprise me they'd create a law like this, as un-american as it is. (read: Paul Broeder, Currents of Death and Cross Currents by Robert Becker)

Big Bob

12-20-2007, 09:23 AM

I believe that you are exposed to significantly more EMF from other sources around you Sandi. Have you twisted all your wires both inside and outside the walls of your home, eliminated televisions, microwaves, and computers, electric blankets, flourescent lighting, and all other sources of EMF from your home and work environments?
Until you have done all that, and then clad your home in metal to keep out all the other radiated signals, then the WIFI emissions are likely indiscernable.
In my work I have spent a lot of time twisting wires to prevent radiation of EMF which causes "cross-talk" and false signals, but have only known of 1 home in the Sebastopol area which had all it's wires twisted on installation to reduce the EMF, and the folks living n that home are unprotected once they leave their home.
IMHO you are overstating the significance of WIFI EMF.
I do welcome more scientific proof, specifically showing data on WIFI (not speculation) supporting your claim of danger.
I suspect you are getting more radiation from other sources while you are sitting at a computer reading this post, and that you should investigate the protective necklace mentioned previously, or some other kind of personal protection so that you can venture out in the world feeling safe.
Bob

Sasu

12-20-2007, 09:24 PM

I agree with you that the most exposure people have is what is closest to them. I have spent a year reducing my exposure to EMFS. I live with most of the power off at the breaker. I have removed the florescent lights, microwave, dimmers, etc. I have stetzer filters plugged in below the breaker box. I know the computer is my worst exposure.
The ambient RF in my house is low. (.006uW/cm2) Put pulsed wi-fi on a lamp pole and the RF coud be 100x higher 24 hours a day.

I hope you can read the Magda Havas report I posted.

Braggi

12-21-2007, 08:26 AM

I agree with you that the most exposure people have is what is closest to them. I have spent a year reducing my exposure to EMFS. ...

Sasu, I appreciate your concern about radiation exposure. However, how do you explain the fact that as modern appliances proliferate in homes around the world life expectancy continues to rise? People are living longer, healthier, happier lives than ever before. There is less disease now, not more, with the exception of obesity related illnesses. Even considering the obesity issue, we are still living longer. Surely if exposure to electro magnetic fields was harmful to health, life expectancy would be getting proportionately shorter as more and more electronic items enter our homes and lives.

I'm curious about these "Stetzer filters." I looked at their website and it looks like they will be every bit as effective as the previously mentioned necklaces at improving health. How did you hear about them? Have you spoken to a PG&E representative to see if they are recommended? Anyone who's asking me for six or seven hundred dollars to "clean up" the electricity in my homes by plugging in dubious devices I would question very closely. None of the "papers" listed on their site appear valid nor did I see any explanation of how their devices work. Looks like a scam to me.

I do hope you are feeling well. I know one of the best things you can do to increase life expectancy is to reduce chronic stress. Perhaps the best thing you can do is quit worrying about these things. I doubt you are being harmed by the electrical fields in your home. Life is pretty good with electricity.

-Jeff

Sasu

12-21-2007, 09:23 AM

Jeff,

First of all I want to thank you for your interest in dialoging with me on this matter. Do you live in Sebastopol? Did you receive the recent PGE Bill? They have a paper on EMF's. First they tell you that they are harmless. Then they tell you what you can do to protect yourself. This is the mixed message industry line.

>>>However, how do you explain the fact that as modern appliances proliferate in homes around the world life expectancy continues to rise? People are living longer, healthier, happier lives than ever before.

Do you really believe people are healthier? I'd like to see the statisitics on that. The cancer rate is 50%! Modern medicine may be prolonging lives, but people are not healthier! Leukemia,Alzheimers. Depression ALS, Lou Gehrigs are all linked to EMF's. The WHO classifies electricity as a class 2 (possible) carcinogen.

>>>I'm curious about these "Stetzer filters." How did you hear about them?
I belong to a yahoo group of people who have ES, the filters are a help for dirty electricity.

>>>Have you spoken to a PG&E representative to see if they are recommended?
PGE is INDUSTRY and they make money selling electricity. They want you to beleive its safe. Michael Neuert, a local emf guy I work with, tested these filters and his conclusion is if you are going to have electricity the filters are a good idea. They cost about $600, not $6000.

>>>>>I know one of the best things you can do to increase life expectancy is to reduce chronic stress.

Ironically reducing our exposure to electricity dramatically reduced our stress. That said maybe our home had higher levels than what you are living with. We had magnetic fields of 3 mg in our bedrooms and body electric fields near 5 volts per meter.

You know we still use electricty, we just use it judiciously. We are using 50% less and saving money on our PGE bill. I figure it helps a bit with global warming too. Its a win win situation for us, except PGE loses a bit of money.

Zeno Swijtink

12-21-2007, 09:40 AM

Sasu, I appreciate your concern about radiation exposure. However, how do you explain the fact that as modern appliances proliferate in homes around the world life expectancy continues to rise? People are living longer, healthier, happier lives than ever before. There is less disease now, not more, with the exception of obesity related illnesses. Even considering the obesity issue, we are still living longer. Surely if exposure to electro magnetic fields was harmful to health, life expectancy would be getting proportionately shorter as more and more electronic items enter our homes and lives.

This seems to me a fallacious argument. An malicious agent that increases its impact over time does not necessarily show up in a simple health statistics as longevity. Think of car crashes, smoking or environmental pollutants.

I'm curious about these "Stetzer filters." I looked at their website and it looks like they will be every bit as effective as the previously mentioned necklaces at improving health. How did you hear about them? Have you spoken to a PG&E representative to see if they are recommended? Anyone who's asking me for six or seven thousand dollars to "clean up" the electricity in my homes by plugging in dubious devices I would question very closely. None of the "papers" listed on their site appear valid nor did I see any explanation of how their devices work. Looks like a scam to me.
-Jeff

If you search Google Scholar there is some research reported in peer reviewed journals. One paper by the Magda Havas mentioned by Sasu is "Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity with Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis"

https://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a768405314~db=all

A review from Public Health, Journal of The Royal Institute of Public Health is at

https://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/public_health_emf.pdf

This area of dirty electricity and radiation is new to me. It stands to reason that some people may be more sensitive to it than others (https://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/envsensitivity_en.pdf). It may also interfere with circulation of dust indoors.

"The fetus and infant are especially vulnerable to toxicants that disrupt developmental processes during relatively narrow time windows." "Environmental hazards: evidence for effects on child health." J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2007 Jan-Mar;10 (1-2):3-39.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=18074303&itool=iconabstr&itool=pubmed_DocSum

As a community, I think it's worthwhile to develop our understanding of it and include standards in an ordinance for green (and healthy) building design.

Braggi

12-21-2007, 10:50 AM

Jeff,

... Do you live in Sebastopol? Did you receive the recent PGE Bill?

I don't have time to respond completely, but no, I live off the grid out in the hills west of Healdsburg. I probably get less exposure than most folks.

Yes, life expectancy continues to improve. The surprise is that more and more people are staying relatively healthy into old age.

The cancer that radiation affects most is leukemia. Leukemia rates are dropping. Perhaps emf prevents cancer. I'll leave it at that.

-Jeff

Ridinrn

12-21-2007, 12:24 PM

Yippee! I'm with you. I think free WIFI is great. Look at all the hotspots across the US already. I can't wait. Does anyone know when it will be up and running?:thumbsup:

I'll risk it! Wooo hoooo WIFI!!!!!!!!

I figure I have far greater risk from other things and I LOVE my internet!

Sasu

12-21-2007, 07:32 PM

Thank you Zeno for your research! great links. :wink:

Braggi

12-21-2007, 08:47 PM

This seems to me a fallacious argument. An malicious agent that increases its impact over time does not necessarily show up in a simple health statistics as longevity. Think of car crashes, smoking or environmental pollutants.

Straw man Zeno. You can do better than this. There's no comparison.

If you search Google Scholar there is some research reported in peer reviewed journals. One paper by the Magda Havas mentioned by Sasu is "Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity with Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis"

Zeno, please. These aren't studies. This is opinion and anecdotes. Magda Havas is arguing for studies, not doing them.

As far as the 51 page document is concerned, there are a lot of inconclusive studies cited. The most damning are of people who have television transmitters on their balconies. Duh. That's more power than a wireless network by several orders of magnitude. I didn't read all the study summaries, but I did read a lot of them. What I learned: don't be a lab mouse or rat. They might put a cell phone with nonsense signals running on them for hours and then cut open your brains. This is so far from human usage it's laughable. What lousy studies. All the others concern cell phone towers, radio and TV transmission towers, and don't appear to control for socioeconomic status. One summary even stated it's contents didn't control and were of dubious merit.

This is histrionics, not science.

I welcome the real studies. I have an open mind.

The sad note in all this is that people who truly wish to "opt out" can't. I personally don't see the danger, but I don't wish to upset those who aren't interested in wi-fi and are frightened. Frankly, I think all you people should toss your cell phones so the cell people take down those towers which broadcast so much more powerful signals than the proposed wi-fi systems.

I don't have cell phones in my family. It's not that I don't like them or that I'm scared of them, I think they're a rip off. I've yet to find a plan that I think is economically justified. When wi-fi is available enough, I can use my computer and then I'll probably never need a cell phone. Cool.

Quackwatch has a very good article featuring links to studies on the topic of high power lines and how safe they are. I won't post it until I hear all the complaints about Quackwatch first, so go ahead and post.

-Jeff

gnc sebastopol

12-23-2007, 03:53 PM

Thank you Zeno for your research! great links. :wink:
Let's see. it seems the arguments in favor so far break down something like this
-I don't care, I want my wi-fi
-we are exposed to radiation anyway, what's a little more?
-there is no definate proof that it is unsafe.
-relax, don't worry, trust the men with the money/power
-we are living longer, healthier, happier lives, so it must be ok.(is that with or without prozac?)

It seems that there is a least enough information that there may be a risk, that it would be wise to stop, or at least slow down and let the community weigh in before this decision is made for us. The problem is that there are still too many things that we don't know. We should require proof that it is safe, 'unlikely to be a health risk' is not enough for me.

K

Braggi

12-23-2007, 04:36 PM

... The problem is that there are still too many things that we don't know. We should require proof that it is safe, 'unlikely to be a health risk' is not enough for me.

K

Let's see, how about we apply the same "burden of proof" of all products sold as "nutritional supplements?" There would be very few on the market.

A level of radiation already an order of magnitude below what we already live with is "unlikely to be a health risk." That's sounds pretty good and pretty accurate.

There is no way to prove something completely safe and you know it.

Now, how 'bout that cell phone I bet you carry? I sure don't like being exposed to its radiation. In fact, how about shutting down the grid power in your store? Might be dangerous electrical spikes in there.

I got no cell phone. I live without grid power. I know you can do it.

-Jeff

Zeno Swijtink

12-23-2007, 09:25 PM

Does this health concern not apply much more to radiation from mobile phones, in the near field — the health effects located close to the source of transmission?

I am still reading up a little on the Wi-Fi research, but this recent study on cell phone use is worrysome:

Siegal Sadetzki, et al. "Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors—A Nationwide Case-Control Study." American Journal of Epidemiology (Published by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health). Advance Access published December 6, 2007

Sadetzki is at the Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Unit, Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. The parotid gland is the largest of the salivary glands.

Received for publication March 1, 2007; accepted for publication October 8, 2007. It's a case-control study, not as reliable as a randomized experiment with control group, but still.

Abstract

The objective of this nationwide study was to assess the association between cellular phone use and development of parotid gland tumors (PGTs). The methods were based on the international INTERPHONE study that aimed to evaluate possible adverse effects of cellular phone use. The study included 402 benign and 58 malignant incident cases of PGTs diagnosed in Israel at age 18 years or more, in 2001–2003, and 1,266 population individually matched controls. For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio = 0.87; p = 0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated. However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g., heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks. For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% conﬁdence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% conﬁdence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively. The risk for contralateral use was not signiﬁcantly different from 1. A positive dose-response trend was found for these measurements. Based on the largest number of benign PGT patients reported to date, our results suggest an association between cellular phone use and PGTs.
case-control studies; cellular phone; head and neck neoplasms; Israel; parotid gland

See attachment for complete paper

Zeno Swijtink

12-23-2007, 09:39 PM

Let's see. it seems the arguments in favor so far break down something like this
-I don't care, I want my wi-fi
-we are exposed to radiation anyway, what's a little more?
-there is no definate proof that it is unsafe.
-relax, don't worry, trust the men with the money/power
-we are living longer, healthier, happier lives, so it must be ok.(is that with or without prozac?)

It seems that there is a least enough information that there may be a risk, that it would be wise to stop, or at least slow down and let the community weigh in before this decision is made for us. The problem is that there are still too many things that we don't know. We should require proof that it is safe, 'unlikely to be a health risk' is not enough for me.

K

I am still thinking this through but one other thing occurred to me.

I do have wi-fi, and so I can "see" that I have five neighbors who have also wi-fi. Their signal is strong enough to be picked up by my laptop inside my house.

So possibly, if the City decides to provide open access wi-fi in town, I and my neighbors can all get rid of our private sender and the total radiation we are all exposed to me actually go down.

Does this make sense? Geeks help us out.

Willie Lumplump

12-23-2007, 10:42 PM

(1) "No increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user." (2) "Analysis restricted to regular users . . . showed consistently elevated risks."--from abstractHow could these two apparently contradictory statements be reconciled?
odds ratio = 0.87I've never heard of this. What is it?
For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% conﬁdence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% conﬁdence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively.So the lower end of the confidence interval for cumulative call time (i.e., the variable most likely to be associated with elevated risk) differed only slightly from 1, that is, no effect.
A positive dose-response trend was found for these measurements.But an r2 value of .000001 would be a positive dose-response trend, so really the foregoing statement means nothing without an accompanying correlation coefficient and, preferably, a p value. Since the authors of the paper must have known this, why did they omit the values from their abstract?

Barry

12-24-2007, 10:15 AM

So possibly, if the City decides to provide open access wi-fi in town, I and my neighbors can all get rid of our private sender and the total radiation we are all exposed to me actually go down.

Does this make sense? Geeks help us out.I don't know if qualify as a geek :nerd: , but I'll try...

I am not familiar with the Sebastopol plan, but in many localities the municipal wi-fi is operates at relatively low speed (but still faster than dial-up). I think this is done to protect the revenues of the local telco/IP provider. Sonic.net is pretty cool, so we'll see. If it's fast, then theoretically you shouldn't need your own internet connection. However home wireless routers also create a home network. That functionality would not be available on the municipal net.

Zeno Swijtink

12-24-2007, 11:38 AM

How could these two apparently contradictory statements be reconciled? I (...)

I included the paper for those who wish to do a deeper study :hmmm:

Odds ratio is a measure of effect size. See Wikipedia.

The apparent contradiction in the abstract:

"For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user": In the entire study population being a regualr user was not statistically associated with increased risk of PGTs.

"However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g., heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks. For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% conﬁdence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% conﬁdence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively. ": Conditional on being a regular user, how heavy a regular user you are was associated with increased risk of PGTs.

This may be because of insufficient sensitivity of the study to measure differences between your average regular user in the Israeli sample and incidental irregular users, because of sample size, eg.

gnc sebastopol

12-24-2007, 03:00 PM

Let's see, how about we apply the same "burden of proof" of all products sold as "nutritional supplements?" There would be very few on the market.

There is a bit of a difference, I am not forcing you to take supplements. If I start putting them in your water supply, I agree, I should show you some proof that they are safe.

I didn't say wi-fi is bad, or we should all turn off our lights. I just think it would be a good idea to do a bit more research before the decision is made.

by the way...what was the bet? I don't have a cell phone.
K

Zeno Swijtink

12-26-2007, 06:21 PM

There are a number of peer reviewed journals that publish research on non-ionizing radiation and living processes. A prominent and specialized one is Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (https://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g788736776~tab=summary).

Besides its role in the regulation of living systems it also discusses extrinsic radiation "with which everyone living in the developed nations is inundated."

Two typical papers + abstract are:

"The Urban Decline of the House Sparrow (Passer domesticus): A Possible Link with Electromagnetic Radiation (https://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a779955571~db=all~order=page)."

"Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity with Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis (https://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a768405314~db=all)."

I think a cursory look at the abstracts in this journal will convince anyone that this is an area we need to know more about so we can improve our safety regulations.

[I do not have electronic access to this journal. From the abstracts these appear to be empirical studies. Braggi seems to have access. He wrote: "Zeno, please. These aren't studies. This is opinion and anecdotes. Magda Havas is arguing for studies, not doing them."]

How does this apply to the wi-fi initiative of the City of Sebastopol? Frankly I don't know. I am most concerned about heavy cellphone use by young people whose body is still developing.

Some people may want to argue using the Precautionary Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle).

Although I do support many of the ideas in the Wingspread Statement (https://www.sehn.org/wing.html) on the Precautionary Principle, for logical reasons I do not subscribe to the customary formulation of the Precautionary Principle: weighing alternatives remains important for me. Few people would advocate doing without electricity. (But someone should look into the health aspects of solar energy ...)

I do not support traditional cost/benefit analysis, though, as this often does not look at proposals in a wider context, does not weigh alternatives, is not enough concerned about who accrues the benefits, who is bearing the costs, and other problems.

Sasu

12-28-2007, 02:15 PM

Zeno Swijtink writes: I do have wi-fi, and so I can "see" that I have five neighbors who have also wi-fi. Their signal is strong enough to be picked up by my laptop inside my house. So possibly, if the City decides to provide open access wi-fi in town, I and my neighbors can all get rid of our private sender and the total radiation we are all exposed to me actually go down."

THis is what the Council and Sonic believe. However according to the Meraki website (wi-fi manufacturer Sonic is dealing with) the wi-fi reception is reduced by rain. And According to Sonic the wi-fi system is insecure.

How likely is it that people will give up there in house wi-fi for an insecure system that will lose reception in the rain?

Also the Meraki outdoor pulsed system is stronger than those in house systems.

Zeno Swijtink

12-29-2007, 01:24 PM

Also the Meraki outdoor pulsed system is stronger than those in house systems.

Could you please explain what is a "pulsed" system and how it differs from a regular wifi? Thanks!

Sasu

12-29-2007, 03:18 PM

I am no expert when it comes to understanding the variety of wi-fi devices. However I think a pulsed system uses a repeater which boosts its capacity and range. Sonic wrote, " The repeaters are about .2 watts and operate in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. The output power is 60mA focused by a 3dBi antennae"
Perhaps since you have wi-fi you might be able to compare the specifications?

Sonic is offering to pay people to create "wi-fi hotspots" in town.

heres another research link:
www.radiationresearch.org (https://www.radiationresearch.org)
also see attachment

Zeno Swijtink

12-29-2007, 03:48 PM

handy

12-30-2007, 10:59 AM

Yes. I'd really like to hear from the nocat people and sonic.net guys, but it otherwise strikes me as more irrational fear of technology.

Given that humanity has always (ALWAYS!) lived in an electromagnetic soup of highly variable strengths, densities and frequencies, starting with solar radiation, cosmic rays,etc., with the last century increasing local density of broadcast radio frequencies and later, broadcast television, it seems to me that worrying about the "side effects" of relatively very low wattage wi-fi signals is an exercise in futility bordering on nonsense. At best. At worst, it's just more thinly veiled misanthropic Luddism. (welcome to wHine country...)

If the emf from wi-fi or cell phones worries you, don't get into that Prius. The field around that beefy electric motor is orders of magnitude stronger than anything you'll encounter around the house.

The time we spend in fearfulness is time lost from curiosity, joy and reverence for mystery.

Get over it.

Carry on. :wink:

Zeno Swijtink

12-30-2007, 11:28 AM

The time we spend in fearfulness is time lost from curiosity, joy and reverence for mystery.

I agree. But this issue can be explored, and is being explored, in a spirit of curiosity.

In hindsight walking up to see the nuclear explosion was a rather silly thing to do.

handy

12-30-2007, 12:05 PM

I agree. But this issue can be explored, and is being explored, in a spirit of curiosity.

In hindsight walking up to see the nuclear explosion was a rather silly thing to do.

It was a silly thing to do for those who did. But it's a strawman statement.

I make a distinction between having a healthy caution when dealing with overwhelming forces, and looking for a sparrow fart in a hurricane in order to complain about the smell.

Elise Mattu

12-30-2007, 12:48 PM

Eventually, if we start to overuse WiFi, it will cancel itself.

So as sure as night ends day, we will be more and more dependent on features of this technology. But since there may well be too many sources of WiFi in the future, the WiFi bombardments could end up cancelling each other out.

EM

Sasu

12-30-2007, 05:08 PM

>>> it otherwise strikes me as more irrational fear of technology.

That's what the industry wants you to believe. Considering your love of curiosity, Have you read any of the reports I've posted or the links Zeno has posted?

>>>>(welcome to wHine country...)

When YOUR kid gets sick from EMF's and YOU learn to protect YOUR kid and they get better, then we'll see if you are still singing the industry line.

Zeno Swijtink

12-30-2007, 07:45 PM

(...) looking for a sparrow fart in a hurricane in order to complain about the smell.

I thought "great innovative language!" But then I saw the same phrase used on some right wing blogs, and I thought back to this college course I took way when about the epidemiology of speech.

Zeno Swijtink

12-30-2007, 07:51 PM

MIT team experimentally demonstrates wireless power transfer, potentially useful for powering laptops, cell phones without cords

https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/wireless-0607.html

They call it WiTricity.

handy

12-31-2007, 01:10 PM

>>> it otherwise strikes me as more irrational fear of technology.

That's what the industry wants you to believe.

That statement comes directly from the 'irrational fear' I'm talking about.
"The Industry" is not remotely interested in what you believe. "The Industry" is made of people. People whose goal is to create products that improve our web communications, using ever less material and energy.
To accuse them of malicious intent is just sick and wrong. Working in the technology from its inception, should they not be the first to feel the bad effects you claim are the natural result of exposure?

"Considering your love of curiosity, Have you read any of the reports I've posted or the links Zeno has posted? "

Yes, I did. I'm a voracious reader. I still see the level of fear displayed to be ALL out of proportion to any real threat.

"When YOUR kid gets sick from EMF's and YOU learn to protect YOUR kid and they get better, then we'll see if you are still singing the industry line.

Dad retired as a power plant supervisor and lived to a ripe old age.
I remember carrying 4' fluorescent tubes around under a transmitting tower (AM, 20,000w) and having them light up in our hands. I'm still healthy.

My kids, daughters, 23 & 26, both live in wi-fi-ed homes. They love it, and they're both healthy happy productive people.

Enjoy life, don't fear it. Have a HAPPY new Year.
Mystery blesses.

Clancy

12-31-2007, 01:15 PM

Dad retired as a power plant supervisor and lived to a ripe old age.
I remember carrying 4' fluorescent tubes around under a transmitting tower (AM, 20,000w) and having them light up in our hands. I'm still healthy.

My kids, daughters, 23 & 26, both live in wi-fi-ed homes. They love it, and they're both healthy happy productive people.

Enjoy life, don't fear it. Have a HAPPY new Year.
Mystery blesses.

Most cigarette smokers don't die of lung cancer either, but that's not proof they're safe.

Sasu

12-31-2007, 02:20 PM

Braggi

01-01-2008, 08:05 PM

Sonic claims there are no health effects from wi-fi. Thats just not true for everyone! If you read my earliest post from last year you'll read a bit of our personal story. Electricity from indoor wiring was causing immune system problems for us.

[snip]

Open YOUR mind to the fact that not everyone is like you.

Sasu, I do respect your experiences, and I do believe they are real, I do believe you were having problems that improved after all the work you did on your wiring. I also doubt there is any connection between the two. The science, and there is a great deal of it, does not support your experience. Perhaps a scientist could find explanations for your symptoms had you been monitored throughout the whole time. Although your experience is real, the cause for what you experienced is not explained by the fact the symptoms improved. You don't have enough information to claim there was any connection between your symptoms and the relief you felt after "doing something." I think most would agree that doing something, in fact, doing almost anything, will reduce symptoms of an illness, even so called "sugar pills."

My saying so isn't likely change your mind or even "open" your mind to another perspective because you have invested heavily in your "cure." Sadly, if you move into a new house without all the trappings you invested in, you'll probably start having symptoms again which will "prove" to you the effectiveness of your work. But that still doesn't prove cause and effect. It could, however, be interpreted as more evidence of a placebo/nocebo effect.

I have an open mind about this situation and I await definitive studies. I'm willing to change my behavior should studies arise showing wi-fi, or for that matter, any EMF radiation, is harmful. For the time being, the studies are showing very little, if anything, to fear. Again, I await definitive studies.

-Jeff

shoshana9

01-01-2008, 08:47 PM

My father died from leukemia. He worked for twenty years in a recycling plant watching dials. He was exhausted a lot of the time.

Sonic claims there are no health effects from wi-fi. Thats just not true for everyone! If you read my earliest post from last year you'll read a bit of our personal story. Electricity from indoor wiring was causing immune system problems for us. If you look on the web there are lots of stories like ours. Real people are getting real health effetcs from technology. Read the story about the Korean government and web addiction. They recognize their youth is at serious risk.

Just because its not YOUR experience doesn't mean our experience is just fear based! So please back off telling me to stop fearing life. I have real experience that could help other people. What good are you doing putting our experience down? Open YOUR mind to the fact that not everyone is like you.

Hi Sasu,

Your story and experiences inspire me to respond and encourage you and our community to seek out state-of-the-art information regarding the devastating effects of electromagnetic pollution on our environmental, physical, mental and spiritual health.

The following excerpt is quoted from an abstract written by Dr. Ibrahim Karim, D.Sc. ETH, Zurich-CH. It is available as full text PDF. Please visit www.biogeometry.com (https://www.biogeometry.com) and click on "Alexandria Conference".

"The validity of any science will be based on the solutions it provides to the major problems facing our modern civilization, otherwise it will only play a secondary role. Humanity is facing the danger of global life extenction. Beside the environmental issues that we are aware of, it is the age of information that brings the greater danger caused by the saturation of the Earth atmosphere with electromagnetic waves that can cause a collapse of the immune system in all life species."

Dr. Karim and others have made major contributions to correct these potentially devastating effects of the high-tech industry. There are solutions and we can have access to these tools.

I hope this new year continutes to empower all of us by a new science which has discovered that no system of belief is required to bring life back into balance and that the power of the heart resides at the core of all healing and integrated health.

Have fun exploring this science and share the information. Thank your for sharing your story, Sasu.

Phyllis Bala

handy

01-02-2008, 05:16 PM

Most cigarette smokers don't die of lung cancer either, but that's not proof they're safe.

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

Fearmongering....

Zeno Swijtink

01-02-2008, 05:31 PM

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

Fearmongering....

Please give a reference for your stat. According to reference at Wikipedia:

"In the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women)"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3264122?dopt=Abstract

handy

01-02-2008, 05:45 PM

Just because its not YOUR experience doesn't mean our experience is just fear based! So please back off telling me to stop fearing life. I have real experience that could help other people. What good are you doing putting our experience down? Open YOUR mind to the fact that not everyone is like you.

Your call at the opening of this thread,

--"NO wi-fi in homes, schools and public places. The radiation levels in the plaza are already many times over the safety standard. The health implications of increasing our exposure are unacceptable.
Call or write City Council members asking them reverse their decision to place wi-fi in Sebastopol, or ask them to reverse the CEQA exemption and re-agendize this issue. --

just doesn't give the impression of being 'love' based.

It sounds like you're saying that because a vanishingly small minority (you) perceives a health threat, the other 8- to 10,000 (?) people in the Sebastopol area should be required to forego a useful innovation. I strongly disagree.

Should the few people with lethal allergies to peanuts be able to force grocery stores to stop carrying them?

Should the people with lethal allergies to bee stings lobby to shut down apiaries?

I am not "putting your experience down" as you accuse. Nature applies myriad filters on the lives of us all. Learning to protect ourselves against the special case filters Nature sets for each of us, really IS the best we can do. (Although, in your case, I can see where wire mesh Faraday cage undies could get uncomfortable.)

"Open YOUR mind to the fact that not everyone is like you."

Yes. Good advice. Please take it.

Best regards,

Clancy

01-02-2008, 05:58 PM

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

Fearmongering....

Fearmongering? Half a million americans a year die from smoking cigarettes. That's over 1,300 a day. If that doesn't qualify as an ongoing national disaster nothing does.

Fearmongering is spending a trillion dollars and lying us to war because 3,000 americans died on 9/11.

Zeno Swijtink

01-02-2008, 06:06 PM

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

Fearmongering....

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

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

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

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

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

Zeno Swijtink

01-02-2008, 06:31 PM

Your call at the opening of this thread,

--"NO wi-fi in homes, schools and public places. The radiation levels in the plaza are already many times over the safety standard. The health implications of increasing our exposure are unacceptable.
Call or write City Council members asking them reverse their decision to place wi-fi in Sebastopol, or ask them to reverse the CEQA exemption and re-agendize this issue. --

just doesn't give the impression of being 'love' based.

It sounds like you're saying that because a vanishingly small minority (you) perceives a health threat, the other 8- to 10,000 (?) people in the Sebastopol area should be required to forego a useful innovation. I strongly disagree.

Should the few people with lethal allergies to peanuts be able to force grocery stores to stop carrying them?

Should the people with lethal allergies to bee stings lobby to shut down apiaries?

I am not "putting your experience down" as you accuse. Nature applies myriad filters on the lives of us all. Learning to protect ourselves against the special case filters Nature sets for each of us, really IS the best we can do. (Although, in your case, I can see where wire mesh Faraday cage undies could get uncomfortable.)

"Open YOUR mind to the fact that not everyone is like you."

Yes. Good advice. Please take it.

Best regards,

You make a good point about # of people affected, but its a "common good" or "plurality good" argument. With my libertarian hat on, I would be concerned if a minority is hurt just because a majority gets a benefit out of it.

Barry

01-02-2008, 06:54 PM

...
It sounds like you're saying that because a vanishingly small minority (you) perceives a health threat, the other 8- to 10,000 (?) people in the Sebastopol area should be required to forego a useful innovation. I strongly disagree.

Should the few people with lethal allergies to peanuts be able to force grocery stores to stop carrying them?

Should the people with lethal allergies to bee stings lobby to shut down apiaries?
There's a difference here. People can choose not to buy products with peanuts or live near an apiary (given proper disclosures). I suppose people can choose not to live or shop downtown too, but that seems a bit onerous.

And... I love wi-fi! I don't know how the health risks stack up to the other risks we accept every day. I remember there was an awful lot of concern about the risks of cell phones, but I haven't heard of any brain tumor epidemics yet. Whatever the risk, I'd be very surprised if it were greater than getting into a car! There's risk in everything we do! And apparently, to my dismay, that includes posting on WaccoBB.net! :hitfan::wink:

don

01-02-2008, 07:14 PM

I think that we are (hopefully) still learing about the effects of EMF, particularily with emerging technologies, and I think it is important that we are careful about establishing viable cause and effect so we further understand what's safe and what's not.

Here you are comparing 60Hz EMF with 2.5GHz Wi-Fi repeater signals and I would suggest that they will act quite differently and can't reasonably be lumped together as the same. We also can't directly compare the 150,000 watt transmitter for KRON TV in SF to the .2 watt sonic units.

I'm in no way trying to invalidate your experience, just encouraging you to not extrapolate it to something different that you have no direct experience with. And I am not qualified to say that they are absolutely safe for everyone, but I'd feel safer with the sonic wi-fi than being wrapped up in an electric blanket generating EMFs all over my body.

Also, in an earlier post you say that "The fact is electricty can kill you at a certain voltage." It's really the current that kills you not the voltage, and since it is also the current that creates the magnetic field (voltage by, have you considered using a DC (12 volt or 24 volt) power system for your house? You could even use LED lighting instead of CFLs (which will happen in the near future (hopefully) anyhow)? I'd like to see more use or residential DC systems.

Cheers
don

"Sonic claims there are no health effects from wi-fi. Thats just not true for everyone! If you read my earliest post from last year you'll read a bit of our personal story. Electricity from indoor wiring was causing immune system problems for us."

don

01-02-2008, 07:22 PM

Hey EM

If if all the Wi-fi cancelled each other out nothing would be working.

Cheers
don

Eventually, if we start to overuse WiFi, it will cancel itself.

So as sure as night ends day, we will be more and more dependent on features of this technology. But since there may well be too many sources of WiFi in the future, the WiFi bombardments could end up cancelling each other out.

EM

Braggi

01-03-2008, 10:15 AM

You make a good point about # of people affected, but its a "common good" or "plurality good" argument. With my libertarian hat on, I would be concerned if a minority is hurt just because a majority gets a benefit out of it.

The question here isn't about a minority being harmed because a benefit is offered to the majority. The question is whether anyone will be harmed at all by the proposed wi-fi and there is no evidence anyone will be harmed.

I think it is the job of government in this country to protect individuals from harms caused by society. This country was founded on the notion of individual rights. But in this case it is the job of local government to look over the best available science and make a good decision based upon that science. So far, there is no reason to be alarmed, but the cost/benefit analysis does need to take into consideration possible health concerns.

-Jeff

Sasu

01-03-2008, 10:47 AM

Handy, I would love to know what fear in you is being triggered by this topic?

Sasu

01-03-2008, 11:04 AM

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

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

handy

01-03-2008, 11:54 AM

Handy, I would love to know what fear in you is being triggered by this topic?

Does an attempt at rational discussion imply the 'triggering of a fear'?

Why do YOU think fear MUST be involved?

I do not understand this way of looking at life. Sorry.

alanora

01-03-2008, 11:57 AM

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

handy

01-03-2008, 12:16 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Braggi

01-03-2008, 01:04 PM

https://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellphones/study-sez-cellphones-dont-increase-cancer-risk-219745.php

Fear not!

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=cp_x120529A.xml&show_article=1
"... Among 420,000 callers tracked through 2002, there were 14,249 cancers diagnosed - fewer than the 15,001 predicted from national cancer rates. Nor did the study find increased risks for any specific tumour type...."

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

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

Sleep well, those who use cell phones and wifi.

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

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

-Jeff

don

01-03-2008, 01:31 PM

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

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

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

shoshana9

01-04-2008, 03:46 AM

Hi All,

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

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

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

You may be surprised!

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

Braggi

01-04-2008, 11:31 AM

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

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

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

The guy is an interior designer, not a physicist.

-Jeff

Sasu

01-04-2008, 02:20 PM

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

https://www.antennafreeunion.org/article_lancet_gjhyland.htm

www.bioinitiative.org (https://www.bioinitiative.org/)

https://www.energyfields.org/pdfs/WiF-SNAFU-Havas-Science.pdf
www.energyfields.org (https://www.energyfields.org/)
https://www.radiationresearch.org/
https://www.antennafreeunion.org/
https://www.starweave.com/freiburger/
<big><big>www.powerwatch.org.uk (https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/)
www.safewireless.org (https://www.safewireless.org/)
</big></big><big><big>https://www.emrpolicy.org/
https://www.emrnetwork.org/
https://www.c-a-r-e.org/
https://www.feb.se/index_int.htm
https://www.ideaireland.org/emr.htm</big></big>
www.LifeEnergies.com (https://www.lifeenergies.com/)
www.mastsanity.org (https://www.mastsanity.org/)
<big><big>https://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/news.php</big></big>
<o:p></o:p> www.mast-victims.org (https://www.mast-victims.org/): <o:p></o:p>
www.rfsafe.com/sars (https://www.rfsafe.com/sars): For truth on SAR’s scam<o:p></o:p>
www.cprnews.com (https://www.cprnews.com/): Cell Phone Radiation Worldwide News Website <o:p></o:p>
www.emr.co.nz (https://www.emr.co.nz/): New Zealand Electromagnetic Radiation Web site<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p> www.emfbioeffects.org (https://www.emfbioeffects.org/)<o:p></o:p>
www.microwavenews.com (https://www.microwavenews.com/) <o:p></o:p>
www.wave-guide.org/ (https://www.wave-guide.org/)<o:p></o:p> www.neilcherry.com/ (https://www.neilcherry.com/)
Electrical Pollution.com (https://www.electricalpollution.com/) (*** Health effects, solutions, news....)
Stetzer Electric (https://www.stetzerelectric.com/)
Stray Voltage (https://www.strayvoltage.org/)
Safe Goeke Net (https://www.safe.goeke.net/) (*** The Save Animals From Electricity website)
Mike Holt (https://www.mikeholt.com/) (*** Articles about "stray voltage")
EMF Guru (https://www.emfguru.org/) (*** Roy Beaver's site. Info., links, great archives)
Microwave News (https://www.microwavenews.com/) (Publishes studies and articles about the health effects of high frequencies)
EMR Network (https://www.emrnetwork.org/) (Electromagnetic radiation information)
EMF BioEffects (https://www.emfbioeffects.org/)
EMF Facts (https://emfacts.com/) (Don Maisch's site. Great information, archives)
RF Safe (https://www.rfsafe.com/) (Cell phone safety information. [commercial])
National Foundation for Alternative Medicine (https://www.nfam.org/) (National Foundation for Alternative Medicine. Search for electrical pollution)
Powerline Facts (https://www.powerlinefacts.com/) (The Power Line Task Force's site on "the state of scientific evidence regarding the impact of magnetic fields on human health")
Buegerwelle (body science) (https://www.buergerwelle.de/body_science.html/) (Primo links to articles)
Wave Guide (https://www.wave-guide.org/) (EMR & RFR Bioeffects, public policy. Archives)
Bio-electromagnetics (resources) (https://www.bioelectromagnetics.org/resources.php/) (Good links)
Power Watch (https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/) (Very educational)
Electro-sensitivity (https://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/)
EMF Carcinogenicity (https://www.geocities.com/Jormabio/archive/emfcarcinogenicity.html)
Bridlewood/ (https://www.feb.se/Bridlewood/) (EMF information service)
ICS Website (emf) (https://www.icswebsite.com/emf/index.htm) (Lots of EMF information)
Electrosensitivity - UK (https://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/) ( Electrosensitivity Issues)
TetraWATCH (https://www.tetrawatch.net/links/links.php?id=sites) ! (in affiliation with MAST SANITY)
Goldsworth's Residents Against Masts (https://www.nomasts.org.uk/) (UK Advocacy Group Against Masts (tall, vertical antennas)
https://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/public_health_emf.pdfhttps://www.stopumts.nl/english.php/<big>https://www.abradecel.org.br/wd/
https://www.next-up.org/intro3.php
https://www.der-mast-muss-weg.de/</big>
https://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Electromagnetic-Fields-EMF1jun04.htm
https://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Microwaving-Planet-Firstenberg1997.htm
https://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3095831
https://www.lifeenergies.com/pollution/hemef/emfip1-13.htm
https://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/resonance1.php
https://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/07/12/05/the_little-known_danger_of_computer_printers__and_of_other_common_office_machines.htm
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/technology/18rehab.html?hp https://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Electromagnetic-Fields-EMF1jun04.htm
https://www.emfpollution.com/
https://bewisepolarize.com/radiation%20harmful.htm
https://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/article_309.html
https://www.next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/Affset2007.php#1
https://www.antennasearch.com/

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

Braggi

01-04-2008, 04:03 PM

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

https://www.antennafreeunion.org/article_lancet_gjhyland.htm
<o:p> </o:p>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Jeff

Sasu

01-04-2008, 07:10 PM

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

Sasu

01-04-2008, 07:27 PM

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff,

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

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

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

shellebelle

01-04-2008, 07:34 PM

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

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff,

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

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

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

Kermit1941

01-04-2008, 10:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

When

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

Fearmongering....

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

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

98 percent of them were smokers.

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

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

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

We need to distinguish several different probabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

p1 + p2 = 30%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

q1/(p1 + q1).

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

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

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

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

Then

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

or p1 = 30% * r1.

also

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

r2 * p1 + r2 * q1 = p1

r2 * q1 = p1 - r2 * p1

r2 * q1 = ( 1 - r2) * p1

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

we can calculate the other two.

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

We can also test unreasonable claims, such as

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

if (1 - r2) were equal to 70%

then

r2 would equal 30%

and

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

30% ( p1 + q1 ) = p1

30% p1 + 30% q1 = p1

30% q1 = p1 - 30% p1

30% q1 = 70% p1

q1 = 2.333 * p1

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

Is this not absurd?

I think the statistic that I remember is more likely.

Suppose it is the way I remember it.

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

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

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

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

98% q1 = 2 % p1

p1 = 49 q1

Now we have the interpretation that

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

This is much more believable.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

Sasu

01-18-2008, 08:45 PM

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

New York Times,
Letter to the Editor;

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

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

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

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

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

Zeno Swijtink

01-25-2008, 08:59 AM

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

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

-- Zeno

****

https://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/23/news/wireless24.php

Cloud of worry gathers over wireless health risks

By Doreen Carvajal

Sunday, September 23, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED

https://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2990155.ece

24 September 2007 07:36

Child safety fears prompt Wi-Fi code for Welsh schools

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Published: 23 September 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

Valley Oak

01-25-2008, 09:13 AM

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

Edward

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

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

-- Zeno

****

https://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/23/news/wireless24.php

Cloud of worry gathers over wireless health risks

By Doreen Carvajal

Sunday, September 23, 2007

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

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

Sasu

01-26-2008, 03:54 PM

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

Hello,

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

Thank you,
Sandi

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

HI Matt,

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

Sandi,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
If you are concerned with the health effects of wireless networks, we’d recommend you conduct outside research on the topic. Meraki uses 2.4 GHz technology. If you decide that you’d like to move forward with plans to network <st1:place w:st="on">Sebastopol</st1:place>, please let us know how we can help you get started.<o:p></o:p> <o:p>

</o:p>Regards,<o:p></o:p> -Matt<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Meraki Sales<o:p></o:p> [email protected]<o:p></o:p>
(650) 810-8500 x 1

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

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

spam1

01-27-2008, 08:18 PM

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

...

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

Zeno Swijtink

01-27-2008, 09:13 PM

Electrical Pollution: Reducing Your Health Risks

Guest Speakers: Sandi Maurer and Michael Nuert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Braggi

01-27-2008, 09:19 PM

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

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

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

-Jeff

don

01-28-2008, 02:36 PM

Hey Sandi

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

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

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

Thanks
don

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

Hello,

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

Thank you,
Sandi

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

HI Matt,

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

Sandi,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
If you are concerned with the health effects of wireless networks, we’d recommend you conduct outside research on the topic. Meraki uses 2.4 GHz technology. If you decide that you’d like to move forward with plans to network <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:place w:st="on">Sebastopol</st1:place>, please let us know how we can help you get started.<o:p></o:p> <o:p>

</o:p>Regards,<o:p></o:p> -Matt<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Meraki Sales<o:p></o:p> [email protected]<o:p></o:p>
(650) 810-8500 x 1

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

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

Zeno Swijtink

01-31-2008, 05:12 AM

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

*****

ISIS Press Release 30/01/08

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

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

Cordless phones at least as dangerous as mobile phones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sasu

02-01-2008, 08:29 PM

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

Heres a portion of that article:

January 30... It's time to end the deadlock. It's time to release the results of the Interphone study (https://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/RCAd.html), the largest and most expensive cell phone epidemiological study ever attempted. Any further delay would be close to scandalous.

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

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

Why? As Elisabeth Cardis, the Interphone study director, explained last October, the interpretation of the data is "not straightforward" (see our October 9 post (https://www.microwavenews.com/nc_oct2007.html)). This allows one faction to hold up the process by arguing that there is no point scaring the public if the elevated risk estimates may be spurious.

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

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

Sasu

02-01-2008, 09:01 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zeno Swijtink

02-07-2008, 07:55 AM

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

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

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

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

alanora

02-07-2008, 08:39 AM

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

Braggi

02-07-2008, 08:42 PM

Sasu, again you are posting links with no information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Jeff

Braggi

02-07-2008, 10:31 PM

...

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

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

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

-Jeff

Sasu

02-08-2008, 09:15 AM

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

Braggi

02-08-2008, 02:08 PM

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

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

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

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

-Jeff

don

02-08-2008, 02:28 PM

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

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

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

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

-Jeff

Sasu

02-08-2008, 03:25 PM

Find out who funded that study.

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

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

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

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

Karl Frederick

02-09-2008, 12:29 AM

Jeff,

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

Karl

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

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

-Jeff

Sasu

02-09-2008, 08:16 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sasu

02-09-2008, 03:17 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK Register and San Francisco Chronicle articles on citywide WiFi Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment of Richard Albanese, MD

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

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

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

October 19, 2007 Heinz Foundation 11th Annual Conference on Women’s Health and the Environment
The attendance was approximately 1,500. See the agenda and list of speakers at: www.heinzfamilyphilanthropies.org/pdfs/WHE%202007%20Boston.pdf

December 4 & 5, 2007 Annual meeting of the Coalition for Healthier Schools hosted by The Healthy Schools Network.
This year’s topic is Building Healthy Schools from the Ground Up. See the agenda at: www.healthyschools.org/documents/CHS_2007_AgendaTravel.pdf

Read The Healthy Schools Network’s position on wireless technology in schools in their Supreme Court amicus brief at: www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/5sep06_amicus_hsn.pdf

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

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

Zeno Swijtink

02-12-2008, 04:07 AM

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

******
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/04/MNCDU8UKU.DTL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free the Net

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

E-mail Ryan Kim at [email protected].

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

Braggi

02-12-2008, 07:52 AM

******
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/04/MNCDU8UKU.DTL

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

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

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

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

-Jeff

Sasu

02-12-2008, 04:47 PM

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

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

Lorrie

02-13-2008, 11:14 AM

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

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

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

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

First one is POWER.

What is Power? Glad you asked!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(yep, waiting...)

Oh Hi! Welcome back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to behaviors now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IONIZING RADIATION!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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