Are Wi-fi and cell phones safe?

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.

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."

"Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity with Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis."

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.

Although I do support many of the ideas in the Wingspread Statement 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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!

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
also see attachment

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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
also see attachment

---

Maybe you want to organize a study group of local physicians, engineers and people from https://nocat.net/ to look deeper into this issue and create better understanding!

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:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

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.

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

>>> 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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

(...) 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

>>> 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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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 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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:

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....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

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/...?dopt=Abstract

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

...
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:

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."

Hey EM

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

Cheers
don

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Elise Mattu:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sasu:

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.