Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
Page 2 - Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?. Discuss Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?, on Wireless Forums.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation?Any definitive proof?
In article C5018AA6.FC77%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com, Nick Naym at
nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com wrote on 9/25/08 6:36 PM:
> In article 4c256694-e358-4eaa-959b-d736898f73cf...oglegroups.com,
> Calorie at caloriehadron@yahoo.com wrote on 9/25/08 1:27 PM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> ... So how can you conclude
>> power lines, microwave is totally safe for human when we
>> only understand less than 10% of the world and universe.
>
> The same way you conclude that they're unsafe: You perform experiments and
> take measurements, to gather evidence.
>
> Ultimately, the "truth" is determined empirically.
>
>> Ponder on it and know that there is logic in my statements.
>>
>> cal
>
> Your logic would appeal to those who would argue in favor of teaching
> "Intelligent Design" in Science class.
>
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.4)
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
On Sep 26, 1:27*am, Calorie <caloriehad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 1:54*pm, Calorie <caloriehad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 12:38*pm, Penang <kalamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hello, all.
>
> > > I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
> > > Penang, Malaysia.
>
> > > However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
> > > wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
> > > extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
> > > expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
> > > Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>
> > > Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me. :)
>
> > > But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>
> > > Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
> > > radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
> > > and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>
> > > Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
> > > I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
> > > effect to the people of this city.
>
> > > Can you help, please?
>
> > > Thank you all !!!
>
> > There is a hidden domain to electromagnetism physicists haven't
> > understood yet. Our body also uses this hidden electromagnetic
> > domain for communication. ELF and other frequencies can mess
> > up the body communication. That is all there is to it. This may
> > be more known in the year 2100 when the body hidden
> > electromagnetic domain is more thoroughly understood. Meanwhile
> > deaths and illnesses would be the order of the day. For example,
> > in the past, ladies put radioactive radium in the teeth for
> > decorations
> > and asbestos are inhaled in normal fashion, etc. Now we know
> > the danger. Such is the double edge sword of progress.
>
> > cal- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> About the hidden domain of electromagnetism, there seems to be a
> dark matter em counterpart of our normal matter em. Now our body
> also uses this dark matter em. This is the mechanism of interaction
> of how manmade electromagnetism can mess up the body especially
> when it falls into the windows or range of frequencies and patterns
> that
> the body dark matter em network uses.
>
> If you don't understand what I'm saying. Come to think of it. In
> current cosmology and physics, more than 90% matter and
> energy of the universe is unknown. So how can you conclude
> power lines, microwave is totally safe for human when we
> only understand less than 10% of the world and universe.
> Ponder on it and know that there is logic in my statements.
>
> cal- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is important is to understand the mechanism of interaction.
There is a symmetry in physics that can explain it.. something
to do with shadow matter and the E8xE8 representation symmetry
group and shadow electromagnetic component. Read the following for
some briefing:
"Is it possible shadow matter (should they exist) doesn't
just interact gravitationally?
Background Brief:
Shadow matter is predicted by some variants of
superstring theories. In the past few years an army
of theoretical physicists led by Ed Whitten of
Princeton's Institute of Advanced Studies has
attached increasing significance to the fact that,
when the mathematical points in space itself are considered
to be extra-dimensional strings, ultra-microscopic loops
that close back on themselves in six or more extra
dimensions, an array of forces and particles is generated
that bear a striking resemblance to those of our
universe.
One of the variants of superstring theory goes by the name
E8 × E8. A consequence of this theory is that it describes
two sets of particles and forces: the normal forces (strong,
electromagnetic, weak) and particles (photons, electrons, neutrinos,
quarks, ...) and a set of shadow-forces and
shadow-particles that share only gravity in common with
the normal world. Thus, our universe could, without our
knowledge, be superimposed on another "shadow" universe
which has its own light and matter and even stars and
planets and animal life which do not interact with ours
except through their common gravitational attraction.
The following is a physicist (Dr. Phillips) hypothesis that
not only gravity can mediate the two worlds but also other
forces and fields.
"The current dogma of E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory that only
gravity acts between superstrings of ordinary matter and shadow
matter rests on the assumption (not yet proven but made merely for
simplicity) that the former are singlet representations of E8' and
that the latter are singlet representations of E8, so that the
non-abelian gauge fields acting on one type do not act on the
other type. This would imply that none of the 496 gauge fields
of E8xE8' can cross the gap between the two 10-dimensional branes
predicted by this type of heterotic superstring theory. However,
heterotic superstring theory is not M-theory but only but one of
its approximations. According to my work, superstrings are
themselves the product of compactification of 11-branes embedded
in 26-dimensional space-time. There are certain other fields existing
in the 15 higher dimensions outside these branes that play no part
in the interactions between superstrings, which are therefore
supersymmetric strings confined to a 10-dimensional space-time
as projections of a higher-dimensional object. These other fields
can couple superstrings of shadow and ordinary matter, both of
which extend in this higher-dimensional space beyond 11-dimensional
supergravity space-time. They maintain global cohesion between
the shadow bodies and physical bodies."
------------------------------
You see, there is shadow electromagnetic wave too and this is
coupled to normal em wave and since our body has a shadow
matter component in some of the signalling and maintainance
of global coherence, then some windows of em wave (elf or
high frequency) can disturb the physical body. Get it?
This is something clear yet denied by Copenhagen based
physicists.. those shut up and calculate type who only
follow certain old dogma and comprise most of the physicists
and followers replying to your message here.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
In article <vbKdnUR6p9ZgYUbVnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@speakeasy.net> , russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> In article <uce-7E82A8.15191825092008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com >,
> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
>
> >*might* be a problem in 40 years. That's reasonable. It's safe for you
> >because you're not expecting to hang around long enough for it to have
> >an impact regardless. But do you risk your 8-year-old child/grandchild?
>
> The precautionary principle leads to paralysis. Particularly if pushed
> this far, where you'd need multi-generational studies to "prove"
> anything was safe.
Asbestos. 40 years.
--
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
Calorie <caloriehadron@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7f9f116a-f38f-4776-a219-55917040afcb@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 26, 1:27*am, Calorie <caloriehad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 1:54*pm, Calorie <caloriehad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 25, 12:38*pm, Penang <kalamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Hello, all.
>>
>> > > I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage
>> > > in Penang, Malaysia.
>>
>> > > However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the
>> > > cit
> y-
>> > > wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi
>> > > is extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an
>> > > internationally known expert" (a German) who wrote a book with
>> > > the title of "Stress durch Strom und Strahlung" to state their
>> > > point.
>>
>> > > Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
>> > > :)
>>
>> > > But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>>
>> > > Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
>> > > radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and
>> > > 802.11g) and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>>
>> > > Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi
>> > > coverage, I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause
>> > > any harmful effect to the people of this city.
>>
>> > > Can you help, please?
>>
>> > > Thank you all !!!
>>
>> > There is a hidden domain to electromagnetism physicists haven't
>> > understood yet. Our body also uses this hidden electromagnetic
>> > domain for communication. ELF and other frequencies can mess
>> > up the body communication. That is all there is to it. This may
>> > be more known in the year 2100 when the body hidden
>> > electromagnetic domain is more thoroughly understood. Meanwhile
>> > deaths and illnesses would be the order of the day. For example,
>> > in the past, ladies put radioactive radium in the teeth for
>> > decorations
>> > and asbestos are inhaled in normal fashion, etc. Now we know
>> > the danger. Such is the double edge sword of progress.
>>
>> > cal- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> About the hidden domain of electromagnetism, there seems to be a
>> dark matter em counterpart of our normal matter em. Now our body
>> also uses this dark matter em. This is the mechanism of interaction
>> of how manmade electromagnetism can mess up the body especially
>> when it falls into the windows or range of frequencies and patterns
>> that
>> the body dark matter em network uses.
>>
>> If you don't understand what I'm saying. Come to think of it. In
>> current cosmology and physics, more than 90% matter and
>> energy of the universe is unknown. So how can you conclude
>> power lines, microwave is totally safe for human when we
>> only understand less than 10% of the world and universe.
>> Ponder on it and know that there is logic in my statements.
>>
>> cal- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What is important is to understand the mechanism of interaction.
> There is a symmetry in physics that can explain it.. something
> to do with shadow matter and the E8xE8 representation symmetry
> group and shadow electromagnetic component. Read the following for
> some briefing:
>
> "Is it possible shadow matter (should they exist) doesn't
> just interact gravitationally?
>
> Background Brief:
>
> Shadow matter is predicted by some variants of
> superstring theories. In the past few years an army
> of theoretical physicists led by Ed Whitten of
> Princeton's Institute of Advanced Studies has
> attached increasing significance to the fact that,
> when the mathematical points in space itself are considered
> to be extra-dimensional strings, ultra-microscopic loops
> that close back on themselves in six or more extra
> dimensions, an array of forces and particles is generated
> that bear a striking resemblance to those of our
> universe.
>
> One of the variants of superstring theory goes by the name
> E8 × E8. A consequence of this theory is that it describes
> two sets of particles and forces: the normal forces (strong,
> electromagnetic, weak) and particles (photons, electrons, neutrinos,
> quarks, ...) and a set of shadow-forces and
> shadow-particles that share only gravity in common with
> the normal world. Thus, our universe could, without our
> knowledge, be superimposed on another "shadow" universe
> which has its own light and matter and even stars and
> planets and animal life which do not interact with ours
> except through their common gravitational attraction.
>
> more info:
> http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/susy.htm
>
> The following is a physicist (Dr. Phillips) hypothesis that
> not only gravity can mediate the two worlds but also other
> forces and fields.
>
> "The current dogma of E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory that only
> gravity acts between superstrings of ordinary matter and shadow
> matter rests on the assumption (not yet proven but made merely for
> simplicity) that the former are singlet representations of E8' and
> that the latter are singlet representations of E8, so that the
> non-abelian gauge fields acting on one type do not act on the
> other type. This would imply that none of the 496 gauge fields
> of E8xE8' can cross the gap between the two 10-dimensional branes
> predicted by this type of heterotic superstring theory. However,
> heterotic superstring theory is not M-theory but only but one of
> its approximations. According to my work, superstrings are
> themselves the product of compactification of 11-branes embedded
> in 26-dimensional space-time. There are certain other fields existing
> in the 15 higher dimensions outside these branes that play no part
> in the interactions between superstrings, which are therefore
> supersymmetric strings confined to a 10-dimensional space-time
> as projections of a higher-dimensional object. These other fields
> can couple superstrings of shadow and ordinary matter, both of
> which extend in this higher-dimensional space beyond 11-dimensional
> supergravity space-time. They maintain global cohesion between
> the shadow bodies and physical bodies."
>
> ------------------------------
>
> You see, there is shadow electromagnetic wave too and this is
> coupled to normal em wave and since our body has a shadow
> matter component in some of the signalling and maintainance
> of global coherence, then some windows of em wave (elf or
> high frequency) can disturb the physical body. Get it?
> This is something clear yet denied by Copenhagen based
> physicists.. those shut up and calculate type who only
> follow certain old dogma and comprise most of the physicists
> and followers replying to your message here.
>
> cal
Unfortunately, no matter how you state it, these are, afterall, just
theories........
And maybe a past or future plot for a made for SCI-FI TV movie.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote in news:uce-4CC5C0.20041025092008
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:
> In article <vbKdnUR6p9ZgYUbVnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <uce-7E82A8.15191825092008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com >,
>> Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:
>>
>> >*might* be a problem in 40 years. That's reasonable. It's safe for
you
>> >because you're not expecting to hang around long enough for it to
have
>> >an impact regardless. But do you risk your 8-year-old
child/grandchild?
>>
>> The precautionary principle leads to paralysis. Particularly if pushed
>> this far, where you'd need multi-generational studies to "prove"
>> anything was safe.
>
> Asbestos. 40 years.
Actually, and interestingly enough, this Wiki about asbestos, if
accurate, notes that illness from asbestos was first observed by the
Greeks and Romans in the first century AD.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:58:30 -0700, "D. C. Sessions"
<dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>How can we be sure that it won't affect the children yet unborn to
>the current generation of mobile-phone users?
We can't. Such risk management decisions are not based on
certainties. They're based on probabilities. In a past life, I
worked for an insurance actuary grinding statistics and probabilities
on such things as "what's leg worth" and "what are the chances that
someone will get clobbered in this or that industry". These questions
are difficult to convert into numbers and dollars, but must be done in
order to do business. It's the same way with any technology. We have
to blunder along, take reasonable risks, and be prepared to mitigate
the results if something unexpected and disgusting appears later. If
you base your product deployment plan on pure paranoia, political
correctness, popular fashionable lifestyles, or pontifications,
absolutely nothing will ever make it out of the lab and into the
marketplace.
In this case, pre-natal issues are certainly a potential problem. So
is getting run over by a hybrid automobile with a berserk computah.
With todays available numbers, the chances are about equal and not
worth considering.
It's kinda like the disaster movies I see on TV. Lots of potentially
scary things can happen. The earth can get hit by a meteor. Global
warming can trash the ecology. Pandemics are certainly a risk.
Yellowstone Park can erupt and turn the US into a giant ash bin. A
quake and tsunami can easily trash the US left coast. Lots of other
ways to end civilization. Do we stop dead because there's a small
chance these things can happen? No, we blunder along normally,
worried a bit, maybe look over our shoulder more than usual, but with
very low odds of anything happening, we don't worry about.
It's the same with pre-natal exposure issues. It can happen, it is a
risk, and can be a problem. Realistically, mutations are more likely
to be caused by exposure to cosmic rays than to cell phone radiation.
There's way more energy available to do far more damage with cosmic
rays. Yet, because we can't do anything about cosmic rays, we don't
worry about it.
>I wish I were being totally sarcastic, but this is posted to MHA
>where that very argument has been advanced against the use of
>vaccines.
I haven't seen those discussions but I understand the issues. I
suggest you approach such lifestyle decisions with a simple cost
benefit calculation. Are the benefits of using a cell phone greater
or less than the costs of birth defects times the probability? It
will be tricky to objectively assign the numbers, but it can be done.
I used to do this for the insurance actuaries. If you find the cost
times the probability to be too expensive, you have successfully
justified your apprehensions and justifications. If not, your
concerns about pre-natal issues are emotional and paranoid.
Bottom line: Run the numbers. If you don't have any numbers, take
your best guess.
>The number is how long it takes brain cancer to manifest from the onset
>of cell mutation. Typically, as I noted below, you're looking at
>decades. Plural. And susceptibility seems to be dependent on age. So
>let's look at the incidence today of brain cancer in people who were
>routinely using cell phones at age 10, 20-25 years ago.
Finally, someone that knows how it works. I agree. Cancer takes a
long time to manifest itself after exposure. In the late 1960's, I
worked in a PCB shop. We washed our hands with various solvents such
as carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethane and trichloroethylene which
now have an R45 (may cause cancer) risk. Two of my former co-workers
now have liver problems (not cancer) directly traceable to this
exposure. I've been lucky and missed liver damage, although I've had
other problems that may be due to toxic exposure. That was 40 years
ago. Had I known, I would have avoided contact, but since the victims
took 40 years to appear, we considered chlorinated hydrocarbon
solvents to be safe.
So, what should we have done different? My answer is nothing
different. We take our chances and live with the results. Had we
eliminated chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents from the list of available
chemicals, at the time, there was no acceptable substitute. The PCB
business would have stopped dead in its tracks. Same with the hybrid
circuit business, brake cleaner, and even fire extinguishers. I think
it was 20 years after mass introduction of these solvents before
anyone correlated liver damage and cancer risk to their use. What
little research I've done on liver damage shows that the risk is
moderate (1 part in 1,000 for those exposed). As a result of surveys,
some minimal controls have been applied to their use, but they're
still with us today. You can buy them at the hardware store by the
pint, quart, or gallon.
I suspect cell phone exposure works the same way. There's a fairly
low probability of seeing any physical effects within perhaps 20
years. Unlike chemical exposure, it will be difficult to both measure
and estimate the actual exposure amounts or areas of exposure. I have
no doubt there will be litigation based upon such cancer incidence.
However, what I do NOT expect to see is a rise in new cancer cases
that can be traced back to cell phone exposure. Some childhood cancer
numbers. Summaries:
<http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/childhood/>
Graphs:
<http://seer.cancer.gov/cgi-bin/csr/1975_2003/search.pl>
The Javascript infested site won't let me bookmark a specific URL. If
you drill down to statistics for new incidents based on age and cancer
site, you'll find that some cancers are on the increase, while others
(such as brain and CNS cancers) are on the decline. There are also
numbers of various age groups. It's really difficult to write a sane
conclusion from the data, but basically, new incidents are rising
slightly with no obvious pattern that can be associated with cell
phone use.
>How many data points are you going to find? Not enough to make any kind
>of judgement.
Agreed. Yet, we have to make technology and exposure decisions based
on limited data. It's always been that way, and will continue
forever. There's NEVER really enough data to draw anything better
than a probabilistic conclusion.
>By asserting that we've had "commodity cell phones for 20 years" you're
>suggesting we've got meaningful data. We don't. The data would just be
>starting to come in now, and they'd be fairly sparse and relevant to a
>completely different demographic and usage pattern than we're looking at
>today. A 40-year-old making a couple of short, urgent calls per day is
>not a 12-year-old with the phone up to their head for an hour at a
>stretch.
I bed to differ slightly. We do have statistics for the total
population usage of cell phone minutes. If there were a delayed
correlation with new cancer incidence, it would be the stats for total
minutes, not total handsets that would be the indicator.
Incidentally, the prevalence of older users that have dumped their
POTS phone lines and gone with cellular only service, will probably
balance any increase in usage by 12 year olds.
The CTIA has numbers on usage and handsets:
<http://www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/AID/10323>
I'll see if I can find some pretty graphs that are easier to digest.
>True. So doesn't it seem irresponsible to declare today, when meaningful
>data should just start to be becoming available, to just wave away the
>concerns without a second thought?
Good point. It really depends on how tolerant I am of technological
mistakes. I'm very much more tolerant than most and prepared to deal
with some long term side effects. However, someone that has a family
member with toxic exposure symptoms or other delayed effects might
think differently. I don't have an answer for this question that will
apply to everyone. Also, I certainly don't dismiss such concerns, but
I also don't let them run my life.
>In all seriousness, given the topics at hand, probably another
>generation before we *really* see whether there's likely to be an
>impact.
If there is an effect, that's true. However, if there's no obvious
correlation, there will be another generation of paranoids that
suggest that the effect skips a generation and that we should wait for
another generation. This could easily continue forever.
This kinda reminds me of AGW (global warming) where the same people
that can't successfully predict tomorrows weather are asking us to
believe their prediction for 100 years from now.
>Let's look 20-25 years from now at the people who are 30-40
>then. That's when we'll have meaningful data about heavy, long-term cell
>phone usage.
Yeah, that might work. The problem is that we're living longer and
therefore experiencing more geriatric diseases. We will see
incidences of cancers in older cell phone users that are present
simply because they didn't drop dead earlier from some previously
untreatable condition.
>Again, I'm not saying cell phones *are* dangerous. I'm just saying it's
>premature to claim they aren't. Realistically we don't have significant
>data arguing either point today.
Maybe. Are cell phone and other "dangerous" products considered safe
until proven dangerous, or are they dangerous until proven safe? It
really depends on your point of view and personal agenda. My opinion
is that absolutely nothing can be proven absolutely safe. Therefore,
cell phones will always be suspected of causing unspecific diseases.
Methinks we will do better by assuming that cell phones are safe,
until proven otherwise. So far, I've seen lots of interesting
research projects, some not so interesting speculation, but no
statistically significant proof.
>And some won't even think about it. Especially when there are people
>going around claiming that it's safe because they haven't seen an impact
>yet, ignoring the fact that you wouldn't be likely to see the impact yet.
Touche. I can't argue against a circular argument. I'm not prepared
to think for the GUM (great unwashed masses). That's what education,
signed disclaimers, and warning labels are all about. How about
labeling the box:
"Warning: Opening this box indicates that the user recognizes that
cell phones have not been proven 100.0% safe and may cause delayed
health problems. See URL for additional details".
>People used to think asbestos was safe, too. Tricky thing when the
>problems can take 40 years or more to manifest. And sure, if you're 60,
>or 45 or maybe even 30, perhaps you don't care about something that
>*might* be a problem in 40 years. That's reasonable. It's safe for you
>because you're not expecting to hang around long enough for it to have
>an impact regardless. But do you risk your 8-year-old child/grandchild?
Yeah, I guess that makes me a selfish self-serving non-caring
individual. Of course I care about future generations. However,
which legacy would you prefer to pass on to your grand-brats? A
cellular based communications infrastructure that enhances lifestyles
and may well become a necessity for modern living? Or, a wholesale
ban on RF emitting devices based upon speculation and conjecture?
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
Although I am for the installation of wifi for my community, those who
objected also have caused me some pause ... for I am not sure if they
come out in the open with real scientifically sound proof or not, or
they're just some modern day luddites.
My real concern is if the deployment of wifi does hurt people, then,
all I am doing is to hurt the people of my own community. Damn if I'd
do that.
On Sep 25, 9:35 pm, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>
wrote:
> In article 6k0n05F5bid...@mid.individual.net, RF at R...@NoDen.con wrote on
> 9/25/08 1:47 AM:
>
> > Penang wrote:
> >> Hello, all.
>
> >> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
> >> Penang, Malaysia.
>
> >> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
> >> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
> >> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
> >> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
> >> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>
> >> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me. :)
>
> >> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>
> >> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
> >> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
> >> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>
> >> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
> >> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
> >> effect to the people of this city.
>
> >> Can you help, please?
>
> >> Thank you all !!!
>
> > I hope this helps for a start. As you see, Europe
> > is much more health concious than the US. Good
> > luck with your battle :-)
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++
>
> >http://environment.independent.co.uk...cle2944417.ece
>
> > Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi
>
> > Environment Ministry's verdict on the health risks
> > from wireless technology puts the British
> > government to shame.
> > By Geoffrey Lean
>
> > Published: 09 September 2007
>
> > People should avoid using Wi-Fi wherever possible
> > because of the risks it may pose to health, the
> > German government has said.
>
> > Its surprise ruling * the most damning made by any
> > government on the fast-growing technology * will
> > shake the industry and British ministers, and
> > vindicates the questions that The Independent on
> > Sunday has been raising over the past four months.
>
> > And Germany's official radiation protection body
> > also advises its citizens to use landlines instead
> > of mobile phones, and warns of "electrosmog" from
> > a wide range of other everyday products, from baby
> > monitors to electric blankets.
>
> > The German government's ruling * which contrasts
> > sharply with the unquestioning promotion of the
> > technology by British officials * was made in
> > response to a series of questions by Green members
> > of the Bundestag, Germany's parliament.
>
> > The Environment Ministry recommended that people
> > should keep their exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi
> > "as low as possible" by choosing "conventional
> > wired connections". It added that it is "actively
> > informing people about possibilities for reducing
> > personal exposure".
>
> > Its actions will provide vital support for Sir
> > William Stewart, Britain's official health
> > protection watchdog, who has produced two reports
> > calling for caution in using mobile phones and who
> > has also called for a review of the use of Wi-Fi
> > in schools. His warnings have so far been ignored
> > by ministers and even played down by the Health
> > Protection Agency, which he chairs.
>
> > By contrast the agency's German equivalent * the
> > Federal Office for Radiation Protection * is
> > leading the calls for caution.
>
> > Florian Emrich, for the office, says Wi-Fi should
> > be avoided "because people receive exposures from
> > many sources and because it is a new technology
> > and all the research into its health effects has
> > not yet been carried out".
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
> > Health concerns over mobile phone masts prompt
> > review
> > 'IoS' report on the dangers of electronic smog
> > from wireless technology examined by ministers
> > By Marie Woolf and Geoffrey Lean
> > Published: 13 May 2007
>
> > Ministers are to investigate arrangements for
> > erecting mobile phone masts in the light of
> > growing fears that they may cause cancer and other
> > diseases because of "electronic smog".
>
> > They will review the exceptionally favourable
> > rules that allow mobile phone companies to escape
> > normal planning regulations and stop councils from
> > considering the effects of the masts on health,
> > even when they are sited near homes and schools.
>
> > Originally promised three years ago, and then
> > shelved, the review follows articles in The
> > Independent on Sunday about possible effects of
> > the radiation on children and bees. The Government
> > will take account of new scientific and medical
> > evidence, and consult experts and campaigners, as
> > part of a wider review of planning guidelines
> > which ministers send to local authorities.
>
> > More than 47,000 "base stations", like masts, have
> > already been erected in Britain to service its 50
> > million mobile phones, often in defiance of
> > intense local public opposition. Successive
> > governments have made extraordinary concessions to
> > the companies to ensure that coverage was rolled
> > out across the country as quickly as possible.
>
> > Masts up to 45ft high do not need planning
> > permission in the normal way. Instead, companies
> > merely have to notify councils of their intentions
> > and can go ahead unless they are formally stopped
> > within 56 days.
>
> > Overworked planning authorities struggle to cope
> > with these applications on time, and companies
> > have frequently put up the masts against councils'
> > opposition because news of a refusal has reached
> > them shortly after the deadline.
>
> > Seven years ago, an official inquiry - headed by
> > Sir William Stewart, a former government chief
> > scientist - concluded that "the siting of all new
> > base stations should be subject to the normal
> > planning process".
>
> > Ministers said that they were "minded" to
> > implement this recommendation, and then failed to
> > do so, even though full planning permission has
> > long been required in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
>
> > The inquiry also urged that masts should not be
> > built near schools unless parents agreed, but
> > ministers refused to agree.
>
> > The planning rules also make it clear that
> > councils cannot object to masts on health grounds
> > because "the planning system is not the place for
> > determining health safeguards". Yet studies are
> > revealing worrying levels of symptoms such as
> > headaches, fatigue, nausea, dizziness,
> > difficulties in sleeping and concentrating, and
> > learning and memory problems in people living near
> > the masts - and there is also some suggestion that
> > there may be an increase in cancers and heart disease.
>
> > Nevertheless, councils are instructed by the rules
> > to "respond positively" to the phone companies'
> > plans and, in practice, can reject a mast only on
> > aesthetic grounds. The Deputy Prime Minister, John
> > Prescott, promised a review by the end of 2004. It
> > never took place, but last week the Department for
> > Communities and
> >http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2536863.ece
>
> > Local Government confirmed that the advice to
> > local authorities is to be re-examined.
>
> > A spokesman for the department said: "We are
> > examining developments in research on this issue.
> > It is something that is going to be looked at."
>
> > Parents fight Wi-Fi at primary school
>
> > Parents have been battling plans to install a
> > Wi-Fi only system in their children's school in
> > north London for the past two years. They are
> > worried that the health implications of Wi-Fi have
> > not been fully researched and radioactivity
> > created by the technology could harm the children
> > at Tetherdown Primary School. They argue it is
> > better and cheaper to install cables with local
> > Wi-Fi connectors.
>
> > Rani Jowett, 35, who has three children at the
> > school, said: "It's taking a risk with our
> > children because it's still under study. People in
> > the 1950s took a risk with smoking, but we have
> > the power to stop this. In my own home I have a
> > choice over Wi-Fi, but I don't have the choice in
> > school."
>
> > Governors, however, claim that a wired
> > infrastructure would be too expensive. A spokesman
> > for Haringey council said: "Safety standards for
> > this sort of equipment are set nationally and we
> > follow government guidelines."
>
> > Andrew Johnson
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++
>
> >http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2790973.ece
>
> > Wi-Fi fears to be investigated
> > By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
> > Published: 22 July 2007
>
> > Britain's top environmental investigative body is
> > considering looking into radiation from mobile
> > phones and their masts, Wi-Fi networks and
> > electric power lines following articles in The
> > Independent on Sunday.
>
> > The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution *
> > an independent group of experts * has shortlisted
> > the issue for its next study.
>
> > In April this newspaper exclusively reported that
> > Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the Health
> > Protection Agency, wanted an inquiry into the use
> > of Wi-Fi in schools, voicing concerns that were
> > followed up by BBC's Panorama.
>
> > "The electromagnetic environment" is one of seven
> > topics listed * which also includes "noise
> > pollution", "water management" and "plastics and
> > the environment". Sir John Lawton, who chairs the
> > royal commission, says that "any one of these
> > topics could make a worthwhile study" and is
> > asking for the public's views to help make a decision.
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++
>
> > Tips to Limit Your Damage from Information
> > Carrying Radio Waves
>
> > There quite simply is no safe biological threshold
> > for exposure to information-carrying radio waves,
> > and there is, quite honestly, little you can do to
> > avoid them 100 percent. But you can reduce your,
> > and your family¹s, exposure by taking the
> > following commonsense precautions:
>
> > * Limit the amount of time you spend on a
> > cell phone or cordless phone.
> > * Use a wired headset to limit your exposure
> > to the cell phone-ideally, an air tube headset
> > that conducts sound but prevents any radiation
> > from traveling up the wire to your brain. Also
> > make sure the wire is SHIELDED, which prevents the
> > wire from acting as an antenna that could attract
> > more information-carrying radio waves directly to
> > your brain. Wireless BlueTooth® headsets should be
> > avoided.
> > * Limit your exposure to WiFi routers. Find
> > out where they are located in your work
> > environment and stay away from them.
> > * If you have any land-based (non-cellular)
> > portable phones, do NOT use anything other than
> > the 900 MHz phones as the Gigahertz phones stay on
> > continuously, blasting you with
> > information-carrying radio waves 24/7.
> > * Use the speakerphone instead of putting the
> > phone to your ear; this is probably one of the
> > single most important steps you can take other
> > than not using your cell phone.
> > * Limit calls inside buildings.
> > * Use the phone in open spaces as often as
> > possible.
> > * Limit use by children and preadolescents,
> > or don¹t let them use cell phones at all.
> > Children¹s developing nervous systems and thinner
> > skulls are simply too vulnerable to cell phone damage.
>
> > Use the following link to locate transmitters
> > (towers, antennas) in your area.
>
> >http://www.antennasearch.com/
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++
> > Apologies for not keeping the source of the
> > article above
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++.
>
> > Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'
>
> >http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...being/health-n...
> > e-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-802602.html
> > Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and
> > calls on industry to take immediate steps to
>
> > By Geoffrey Lean
> > Sunday, 30 March 2008
>
> > Mobile phones could kill far more people than
> > smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning
> > cancer expert has concluded. He says people should
> > avoid using them wherever possible and that
> > governments and the mobile phone industry must
> > take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their
> > radiation.
>
> > The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most
> > devastating indictment yet published of the health
> > risks.
>
> > It draws on growing evidence * exclusively
> > reported in the IoS in October * that using
> > handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk
> > of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to
> > develop, invalidating official safety assurances
> > based on earlier studies which included few, if
> > any, people who had used the phones for that long.
>
> > Earlier this year, the French government warned
> > against the use of mobile phones, especially by
> > children. Germany also advises its people to
> > minimise handset use, and the European Environment
> > Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.
>
> > Professor Khurana * a top neurosurgeon who has
> > received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has
> > published more than three dozen scientific papers
> > * reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of
> > mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain
> > surgery website, and a paper based on the research
> > is currently being peer-reviewed for publication
> > in a scientific journal.
>
> > He admits that mobiles can save lives in
> > emergencies, but concludes that "there is a
> > significant and increasing body of evidence for a
> > link between mobile phone usage and certain brain
> > tumours". He believes this will be "definitively
> > proven" in the next decade.
>
> > Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a
> > life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently
> > experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous
> > situation." He fears that "unless the industry and
> > governments take immediate and decisive steps",
> > the incidence of malignant brain tumours and
> > associated death rate will be observed to rise
> > globally within a decade from now, by which time
> > it may be far too late to intervene medically.
>
> > "It is anticipated that this danger has far
> > broader public health ramifications than asbestos
> > and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the
> > IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact
> > that three billion people now use the phones
> > worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking
> > kills some five million worldwide each year, and
> > exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many
> > deaths in Britain as road accidents.
>
> > Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association
> > dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective
> > discussion of scientific literature by one
> > individual". It believes he "does not present a
> > balanced analysis" of the published science, and
> > "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more
> > than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".
>
> Electromagnetic energy can damage biological tissue by one of two
> mechanisms: heating or ionization. AFAIK, virtually every _scientific_
> inquiry into the health effects of electromagnetic radiation has
> demonstrated that only ionizing EMR is linked to the development of cancer.
>
> We are constantly bathed in non-ionizing EMR. Perhaps our greatest exposure
> in the home is due to televisions and microwave ovens. Personally, I makeit
> a habit not to stand too close to either (when they are operating) for long
> periods of time -- especially microwave ovens, as their levels of energy
> output, being designed to cook foods (by agitating the water molecules
> within food, causing the water to "boil"), could literally "cook" the
> interior of your eyeballs if enough of the microwave energy were to leak out
> of the oven (because of poor design or a shielding defect). However, I don't
> obsess over it!
>
> Ionizing EMR goes well beyond creating a "heating effect"; it literally can
> alter tissue at the genetic level. This is why it's generally considered a
> carcinogen.
>
> Of course, until the precise mechanisms that lead to cancer are fully
> understood, no one can rule out non-ionizing radiation -- or virtually any
> other kind of environmental exposure -- as a serious health risk. However,
> until these mechanisms are better understood, and in the absence of
> scientifically accepted clinical data that suggest otherwise (and, AFAIK,
> none exist), I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about "anecdotal evidence"
> condemning Wi-Fi or cell-phone EMR exposure, any more than I'd lose sleep
> worrying about the ill effects of fluoridated drinking water (fluoridation
> created quite a stir in a small segment of the general population when
> municipalities began (I believe it was back in the 1940s-1950s) to
> incorporate it in their water-treatment facilities).
>
> --
> iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.4)
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
On Sep 25, 9:45 pm, Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote:
> Penang wrote:
> > Hello, all.
>
> > I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
> > Penang, Malaysia.
>
> > However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
> > wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
> > extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
> > expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
> > Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>
> > Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me. :)
>
> > But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>
> > Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
> > radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
> > and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>
> > Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
> > I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
> > effect to the people of this city.
>
> > Can you help, please?
>
> > Thank you all !!!
>
> This is the wrong place to ask such a question. You need the results of
> scientific studies, not laymens' opinions--especially on USENET--you'll
> end up with the entire population either wearing tinfoil hats or
> sticking their heads into microwave ovens to prove it's safe. You
> should contact UTM or another school. If they don't have the
> information they can point you to research on the subject. Google may
> also help.
>
> As always, it is best to avoid studies done by, or on behalf of,
> entities that have a financial interest in the outcome of the studies.
>
> Penang--I used to vacation there from time to time. Fabulous!
>
> Davoud
Thanks for the good words for my hometown ! :)
Back to the question at hand ... it's not that I'm biased, but I just
do not trust the local U. I've had a chance to talk with a "PROFESSOR"
of a local U (in fact, the best U in this country) and that guy, the
dean of the school of Engineering, can't even construct one English
sentence without error.
Bad, bad experience !
>
> P.S. Now the answer: "No one knows. There may be a risk from exposure
> to microwave radiation at the extremely low levels that would be
> typical of city-wide WiFi coverage, but if there is, it is almost
> certainly a very small risk. Since wireless devices that operate in
> higher frequency ranges only came into public use in the 1990's there
> is not sufficient data from which to form a judgement. It is believed
> that most brain cancers result from radiation treatment for previous
> cancers, and they take from 10 to 15 years to appear. It is also true
> that in the 1990's children weren't likely to be exposed to RF
> radiation from cell phones or WiFi, so it will be years before the
> effects of exposure from a young age can be assessed." (Extrapolated
> from American Cancer Society reporting on cell phones.)
>
> --
> Don't re-elect the past. Vote for the future: Obama in 2008!
>
> usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
John Varela wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:28:10 -0400, J.J. O'Shea wrote
> (in article <gbgooa111sm@news3.newsguy.com>):
>
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:27:00 -0400, Tom Stiller wrote
>
>>> 22
>>>
>>>
>> 42
>
>
> Hike!
>
'ey! You were supposed to wait for the 36 call.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:07:57 -0400, Penang wrote
(in article
<c6b5210a-e1e6-4b6b-b7b1-d2fe4a51fcab@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
> Although I am for the installation of wifi for my community, those who
> objected also have caused me some pause ... for I am not sure if they
> come out in the open with real scientifically sound proof or not, or
> they're just some modern day luddites.
So far they seem to be distinctly lacking in actual evidence (science deals
in evidence, not proof; proof is for alcohol, mathematics, and court cases)
and distinctly heavy on idiocy. Unless and until they present some actual,
verifiable, evidence, I call 'em luddites.
>
> My real concern is if the deployment of wifi does hurt people, then,
> all I am doing is to hurt the people of my own community. Damn if I'd
> do that.
At present there is simply no data to support any contention that EMR from
wireless networks could cause any damage whatsoever to the public at large.
I've seen similar arguments to the ones trotted out by the anti-EMR crowd
from creationist cretins, anti-vaccination madmen, and assorted other
tin-foil-hat-wearing nutbars. I see nothing indicating that the anti-EMR
crowd is any less of a bunch of batshit insane loons than the others.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:07:57 -0400, Penang wrote
> (in article
> <c6b5210a-e1e6-4b6b-b7b1-d2fe4a51fcab@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Although I am for the installation of wifi for my community, those who
>> objected also have caused me some pause ... for I am not sure if they
>> come out in the open with real scientifically sound proof or not, or
>> they're just some modern day luddites.
>
> So far they seem to be distinctly lacking in actual evidence (science deals
> in evidence, not proof; proof is for alcohol, mathematics, and court cases)
> and distinctly heavy on idiocy. Unless and until they present some actual,
> verifiable, evidence, I call 'em luddites.
>
>> My real concern is if the deployment of wifi does hurt people, then,
>> all I am doing is to hurt the people of my own community. Damn if I'd
>> do that.
>
> At present there is simply no data to support any contention that EMR from
> wireless networks could cause any damage whatsoever to the public at large.
>
> I've seen similar arguments to the ones trotted out by the anti-EMR crowd
> from creationist cretins, anti-vaccination madmen, and assorted other
> tin-foil-hat-wearing nutbars. I see nothing indicating that the anti-EMR
> crowd is any less of a bunch of batshit insane loons than the others.
>
>
I suppose there could be a certain life-style associated with people
who also happen to use cell phones and stuff. But that kind of
extrapolation doesn't seem to included in medical disease studies.
> Although I am for the installation of wifi for my community, those who
> objected also have caused me some pause ... for I am not sure if they
> come out in the open with real scientifically sound proof or not, or
> they're just some modern day luddites.
>
> My real concern is if the deployment of wifi does hurt people, then,
> all I am doing is to hurt the people of my own community. Damn if I'd
> do that.
>
>
>
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling...."
I suspect that the day a real threat is discovered, we'll hear about it via
email alerts from the major news organizations on our wi-fi enabled laptops
and handheld devices. Until then, running for cover every time someone
claims to have "evidence" that there's something falling from the sky that's
destroying our genetic code seems folly.
>>
>> Electromagnetic energy can damage biological tissue by one of two
>> mechanisms: heating or ionization. AFAIK, virtually every _scientific_
>> inquiry into the health effects of electromagnetic radiation has
>> demonstrated that only ionizing EMR is linked to the development of cancer.
>>
>> We are constantly bathed in non-ionizing EMR. Perhaps our greatest exposure
>> in the home is due to televisions and microwave ovens. Personally, I make it
>> a habit not to stand too close to either (when they are operating) for long
>> periods of time -- especially microwave ovens, as their levels of energy
>> output, being designed to cook foods (by agitating the water molecules
>> within food, causing the water to "boil"), could literally "cook" the
>> interior of your eyeballs if enough of the microwave energy were to leak out
>> of the oven (because of poor design or a shielding defect). However, I don't
>> obsess over it!
>>
>> Ionizing EMR goes well beyond creating a "heating effect"; it literally can
>> alter tissue at the genetic level. This is why it's generally considered a
>> carcinogen.
>>
>> Of course, until the precise mechanisms that lead to cancer are fully
>> understood, no one can rule out non-ionizing radiation -- or virtually any
>> other kind of environmental exposure -- as a serious health risk. However,
>> until these mechanisms are better understood, and in the absence of
>> scientifically accepted clinical data that suggest otherwise (and, AFAIK,
>> none exist), I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about "anecdotal evidence"
>> condemning Wi-Fi or cell-phone EMR exposure, any more than I'd lose sleep
>> worrying about the ill effects of fluoridated drinking water (fluoridation
>> created quite a stir in a small segment of the general population when
>> municipalities began (I believe it was back in the 1940s-1950s) to
>> incorporate it in their water-treatment facilities).
>>
>> --
>> iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) € OS X (10.5.4)
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) • OS X (10.5.4)
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
In article <gvcod4lfrlhjtlsgqf2gc6uatmb6moj2bd@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> I suspect cell phone exposure works the same way. There's a fairly
> low probability of seeing any physical effects within perhaps 20
> years. Unlike chemical exposure, it will be difficult to both measure
> and estimate the actual exposure amounts or areas of exposure. I have
> no doubt there will be litigation based upon such cancer incidence.
Also chemical exposures (as well as asbestos for that matter) are
job-related exposures. This means that the group you are looking at is
much smaller than the general population, so you need a much smaller n
to begin to see differences. Thus, they pop out of the background noise
quicker (if at all).
>
> >By asserting that we've had "commodity cell phones for 20 years" you're
> >suggesting we've got meaningful data. We don't. The data would just be
> >starting to come in now, and they'd be fairly sparse and relevant to a
> >completely different demographic and usage pattern than we're looking at
> >today. A 40-year-old making a couple of short, urgent calls per day is
> >not a 12-year-old with the phone up to their head for an hour at a
> >stretch.
>
> I bed to differ slightly. We do have statistics for the total
> population usage of cell phone minutes. If there were a delayed
> correlation with new cancer incidence, it would be the stats for total
> minutes, not total handsets that would be the indicator.
But with the ramp up, it would take additional time for a big enough "n"
of large enough exposure to be seen.
>
> >In all seriousness, given the topics at hand, probably another
> >generation before we *really* see whether there's likely to be an
> >impact.
>
> If there is an effect, that's true. However, if there's no obvious
> correlation, there will be another generation of paranoids that
> suggest that the effect skips a generation and that we should wait for
> another generation. This could easily continue forever.
>
The other thing that many are ignoring is the most important (short
term) piece. There isn't a really good proposed mechanism of action for
the cancers. *IF* there was some explanation as to why the cancers
should occur, then I might suggest further caution. It is the wrong type
of radiation, and nobody has been able to measure additional heating in
the brain or how that might cause problems. The brain is probably about
the last place that would heat since the skull should act like a rather
large heat sink before it even gets to the fluid surrounding the brain.
> Yeah, that might work. The problem is that we're living longer and
> therefore experiencing more geriatric diseases. We will see
> incidences of cancers in older cell phone users that are present
> simply because they didn't drop dead earlier from some previously
> untreatable condition.
Yeah but those should also follow a pattern if they are induced
solely by old age.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
In article <gvcod4lfrlhjtlsgqf2gc6uatmb6moj2bd@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:19:18 -0400, Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In all seriousness, given the topics at hand, probably another
> >generation before we *really* see whether there's likely to be an
> >impact.
>
> If there is an effect, that's true. However, if there's no obvious
> correlation, there will be another generation of paranoids that
> suggest that the effect skips a generation and that we should wait for
> another generation. This could easily continue forever.
True. There will *always* be a handful of people that are never
satisfied, and trying to satisfy them is a waste of any resource you
might care to name. Unfortunately, that reality gets abused to turn into
"We don't have to check anything at all. Anyone who dissents is de facto
a crank." We've become a very polarized people, with relatively few
admitting any possibility of a middle ground. Combine that with
impatience and you've got a dangerous, potentially self-destructive mix.
> This kinda reminds me of AGW (global warming) where the same people
> that can't successfully predict tomorrows weather are asking us to
> believe their prediction for 100 years from now.
Just as nits: it's not the same people and there's no real correlation
between small blips and large-scale trends.
> >Let's look 20-25 years from now at the people who are 30-40
> >then. That's when we'll have meaningful data about heavy, long-term cell
> >phone usage.
>
> Yeah, that might work. The problem is that we're living longer and
> therefore experiencing more geriatric diseases. We will see
> incidences of cancers in older cell phone users that are present
> simply because they didn't drop dead earlier from some previously
> untreatable condition.
I think if we start seeing a marked increase in brain tumors in
35-year-olds it'll be worthy of concern. You can't really wave that off
as a predictable consequence of greater lifespans.
> >Again, I'm not saying cell phones *are* dangerous. I'm just saying it's
> >premature to claim they aren't. Realistically we don't have significant
> >data arguing either point today.
>
> Maybe. Are cell phone and other "dangerous" products considered safe
> until proven dangerous, or are they dangerous until proven safe?
Why can't people (this is rhetorical, not intended to pigeon-hole and
attack you) acknowledge that "I don't know" is at least a valid an
answer as "yes" and "no?" We used to understand that if something hadn't
been tested that there was a risk. Not so much now, it seems. Or we
don't realize that things haven't been tested. For example, to bring up
something that was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'm distinctly
*not* paranoid about vaccinations and autism and whatnot. But I wasn't
pleased at all about Merck trying to astroturf an initiative to make
Gardasil mandatory for school-aged girls less than a year after a single
small-scale trial that didn't even look at the youngest ages to which
they wanted their law to apply.
> >People used to think asbestos was safe, too. Tricky thing when the
> >problems can take 40 years or more to manifest. And sure, if you're 60,
> >or 45 or maybe even 30, perhaps you don't care about something that
> >*might* be a problem in 40 years. That's reasonable. It's safe for you
> >because you're not expecting to hang around long enough for it to have
> >an impact regardless. But do you risk your 8-year-old child/grandchild?
>
> Yeah, I guess that makes me a selfish self-serving non-caring
> individual.
Of course not. Not if you're making an informed decision for yourself.
Now, if you're essentially using large numbers of people as guinea pigs
without their consent or knowledge, or even with outright misinformation
..... Well, all I have to say is "Tuskegee."
> Of course I care about future generations. However,
> which legacy would you prefer to pass on to your grand-brats? A
> cellular based communications infrastructure that enhances lifestyles
Changes, anyway. I'd take exception with "enhances."
> and may well become a necessity for modern living? Or, a wholesale
> ban on RF emitting devices based upon speculation and conjecture?
Why does it have to be either? Why can't it be careful, managed growth
with reasonable deliberation?
What I'd really like to leave for future generations is the tools
(including both information and attitude) that allow for and encourage
informed choice. That's where I see this falling down. We're telling
people "it's safe" because we've forgotten that it's okay to say "we
don't know yet."
--
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
On Sep 25, 12:54*am, Calorie <caloriehad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is a hidden domain to electromagnetism physicists haven't
> understood yet. Our body also uses this hidden electromagnetic
> domain for communication.
I assume nobody has addressed your comments so far because they are
loopy enough to resemble trolling. But I'll bite, just for fun !
First, it is known that our nervous system does use electical impulses
to communicate and that there is much research and application in
electrical (magnetic as well?) stimulation of the brain and body.
But you declare that our body uses electromagnetic domain for
communication at the same time you state that it is not understood by
physicist (much less medical researchers, presumably). How did you
conclude this? Can you cite studies published in peer reviewed
journals? Or is it more the Edgar Cayce kind of knowledge?
>ELF and other frequencies can mess
> up the body communication. That is all there is to it.
Wow. You are so certain, you must be right. Still, I take it as an
opinion or hypothesis until I see some serious supporting evidence.
Again, how did you acquire this certain knowledge and is there any way
to confirm your hypothesis?
Certainly there is so much that we don't know and always will be, but
I'm always intrigued when people make the leap to deciding that
unknown = bad. I assume it's a basic mistrust of the universe - a
world view of - all new (to me) things are toxic until proven
otherwise - Perhaps a good survival tactic unless you starve to death
waiting until all food is proven conclusively safe.
>This may
> be more known in the year 2100 when the body hidden
> electromagnetic domain is more thoroughly understood.
2100. OK. Would that be related to the Mayan calender? Or
Nostradamus?
At least we have an exact date for the length of the EMF ban. So
should we just stay away from all known and unknown energies until
then? Are you sure it's just EMF? What about all the other unknown
things?
Since you seem to have an inside track on the unknown, I trust that
you will tell us what they are and then human society can follow your
advice on what to avoid.
>Meanwhile
> deaths and illnesses would be the order of the day.
Unlike the historic past where death and illness were rare.
>For example,
> in the past, ladies put radioactive radium in the teeth for
> decorations
> and asbestos are inhaled in normal fashion, etc. Now we know
> the danger. Such is the double edge sword of progress.
Of course. That argument clinches it. If some new things once
considered safe later turned out to be dangerous, then obviously all
new things now considered safe WILL (as opposed to MAY) later be found
dangerous. Makes sense to me.
This begs the larger question about the time frame to discover harmful
effects. How do we know that there are not MUCH older things that
will someday be discovered to be dangerous? For example, um, let's go
way back.....what about our use of the first new energy harnessed,
fire, for heating food? There is no doubt that it affects the
structure of the food we take into our bodies. What if it turns out
that our biggest health issue all along has been cooking? (joking
aside, you never know!) But we won't isolate and prove the dangerous
effects of cooking until the year, um, 2113 (In late March).
Until then, everybody stop cooking food for your own safety, please.
Think of the children. Laws should be forthcoming. Write your
congressman.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
On Sep 26, 7:57*am, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> Why can't it be careful, managed growth
> with reasonable deliberation?
>
> What I'd really like to leave for future generations is the tools
> (including both information and attitude) that allow for and encourage
> informed choice. That's where I see this falling down. We're telling
> people "it's safe" because we've forgotten that it's okay to say "we
> don't know yet."
> ix
I would adjust *we don't know yet* (again, do we ever know for
sure ?) to - *looks safe enough so far, but we'll know more when it's
been in use longer*
Please don't take my attempt at fun with Calorie as a dismissal of
intelligent comments. I appreciate the clear informed discussion
between Gregory and Jeff that's surfaced here.
I won't be surprised to find out in 20 years that something we are
doing now is harmful to some degree. The odds favor it as we are
changing so much, so fast.
But, like experimenting with... things...in my youth, I'm into living
life boldly (not foolishly) and willing to take my chances with the
stuff that's not shown itself to be obviously toxic right away.
Especially if it's fun or useful.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
DanS wrote:
> Calorie <caloriehadron@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:7f9f116a-f38f-4776-a219-55917040afcb@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>> You see, there is shadow electromagnetic wave too and this is
>> coupled to normal em wave and since our body has a shadow
>> matter component in some of the signalling and maintainance
>> of global coherence, then some windows of em wave (elf or
>> high frequency) can disturb the physical body. Get it?
>> This is something clear yet denied by Copenhagen based
>> physicists.. those shut up and calculate type who only
>> follow certain old dogma and comprise most of the physicists
>> and followers replying to your message here.
>
> Unfortunately, no matter how you state it, these are, afterall, just
> theories........
You're giving them FAR too much credit. A "theory" is a hypothesis
that has survived a fair bit of testing. Like, for instance, Newton's
Theory of Gravity.
Since Carole's material doesn't even meet the requirements for a
testable hypothesis, it's down in the "wild-assed guess" or
"scribbles on a napkin after the chemically-fueled party" ballpark.
--
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
| chance that someone will see the light. |
+- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
doug wrote:
> One of the major problems in trying to blame RF for health problems
> is that no one can propose any mechaism for the effects that would
> be needed. The RF is not ionizing and there is not enough power
> density for heating. What is left?
Hmm. There was no known mechanism for Wegener's theory of continental
drift when he proposed it, but he was still right.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com> wrote in news:jaovq5-odm.ln1
@news.lumbercartel.com:
> DanS wrote:
>
>> Calorie <caloriehadron@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:7f9f116a-f38f-4776-a219-55917040afcb@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> You see, there is shadow electromagnetic wave too and this is
>>> coupled to normal em wave and since our body has a shadow
>>> matter component in some of the signalling and maintainance
>>> of global coherence, then some windows of em wave (elf or
>>> high frequency) can disturb the physical body. Get it?
>>> This is something clear yet denied by Copenhagen based
>>> physicists.. those shut up and calculate type who only
>>> follow certain old dogma and comprise most of the physicists
>>> and followers replying to your message here.
>>
>> Unfortunately, no matter how you state it, these are, afterall, just
>> theories........
>
> You're giving them FAR too much credit. A "theory" is a hypothesis
> that has survived a fair bit of testing. Like, for instance, Newton's
> Theory of Gravity.
>
> Since Carole's material doesn't even meet the requirements for a
> testable hypothesis, it's down in the "wild-assed guess" or
> "scribbles on a napkin after the chemically-fueled party" ballpark.
I realize it is some of the most far-out BS I've ever read. Come on...26-
dimensions and a parallel universe.....I was just trying to be P.C.
The thing is, people get paid to come up with this stuff....can you
believe it ?
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
In article <qpqdnY9jidw3rkDVnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> wrote:
> doug wrote:
>
> > One of the major problems in trying to blame RF for health problems
> > is that no one can propose any mechaism for the effects that would
> > be needed. The RF is not ionizing and there is not enough power
> > density for heating. What is left?
>
> Hmm. There was no known mechanism for Wegener's theory of continental
> drift when he proposed it, but he was still right.
>
> Paul Magnussen
Which is so spectacularly off the charts having nothing to do with
the discussion that I am truly in awe.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:50:52 -0700, AES <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
>And, as was pointed out some years ago when "radiation damage" due to
>sitting too close to TV sets was the scare topic du jour, at that time
>there had been zillions of radio and TV technicians, public safety
>dispatchers, casino security personnel, broadcast studio technicians,
>traffic monitors, power-plant personnel, workers in the financial
>industry, etc, etc, sitting in close proximity to huge computer monitors
>and displays -- often multiple such displays -- for 8+ hrs/day, every
>working day, for several decades, with zero evidence for any increase in
>any kind of damage to these people.
Not exactly. The shadow mask protects the TV viewer from any xrays
generated when the electron beam slams into the back of the shadow
mask. The photsphor dots absorb the rest, producing photons instead
of xrays. However, the bulk of the xrays come out the BACK of the
CRT, which means that TV service personnel get the largest exposure.
The rapid disappearance of qualified TV repair shops and owners may
not have been caused by xray exposure, but might be contributory.
>[Well, maybe some significant brain damage evident in stock brokers and
>other financial types -- but that's likely inherent to, and maybe even a
>prerequisite for, even being in that industry.]
It can happen to anyone that watches TV or computahs to any extent.
When first started watching TV and later dealing with computahs, I had
a full head of hair, a positive attitude, a steady hand, and full bank
account. After years of exposure to TV and CRT's of all types, the
hair is falling out, the attitude decidedly pessimistic, the hand is
shakey, and the bank account is depleted. Surely such wide spread
symptoms can only be caused by exposure to TV and CRT's.
>But don't expect these replies to have any impact on the tin-hat types
>who have obviously being carrying out an organized campaign in many of
>the initial posts in this thread.
Yep. Everyone lies, but that's ok because nobody listens. The tin
foil hat is a sure sign of the problem. You want to absorb RF, not
reflect it. Instead of tin, some graphite concoction would be more
effective. Kinda like wearing a stealth fighter suit.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:11:21 -0800, doug <xx@xx.com> wrote:
>One of the major problems in trying to blame RF for health problems
>is that no one can propose any mechaism for the effects that would
>be needed. The RF is not ionizing and there is not enough power
>density for heating. What is left?
What's left? Of course, whatever isn't right.
Cellular membrane hardening causing the accumulation of cellular waste
products and toxins.
<http://www.cellphone-health.com/mret-howitworks.htm>
It also causes stenosis (narrowing of the arteries) of the brain:
<http://www.cellphone-health.com/mret-mratest.htm>
If that's not enough, there's tired blood from RF exposure:
<http://www.cellphone-health.com/mret-bloodtest.htm>
and abnormal EEG waveforms:
<http://www.cellphone-health.com/mret-eeg.htm>
and immune system reactions:
<http://www.cellphone-health.com/mret-cranial.htm>
However, there may be a positive side to all this. RF apparently
stunts seed growth:
<http://www.cellphone-health.com/mret-planttest.htm>
I can see a bright future in using a cell phone to retard crab grass
proliferation.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Any definitive proof?
In article
<5a8ceba0-6c41-470c-98b8-b3c131ef6e5e@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
seaweedsl <seaweedsteve@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 7:57*am, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > Why can't it be careful, managed growth
> > with reasonable deliberation?
> >
> > What I'd really like to leave for future generations is the tools
> > (including both information and attitude) that allow for and encourage
> > informed choice. That's where I see this falling down. We're telling
> > people "it's safe" because we've forgotten that it's okay to say "we
> > don't know yet."
> > ix
>
> I would adjust *we don't know yet* (again, do we ever know for
> sure ?) to - *looks safe enough so far, but we'll know more when it's
> been in use longer*
I think in general that's a fair statement with the caveat that "looks
safe so far" could foreseeably lead someone to infer that there's any
meaningful data on the topic. In this particular debate, as I've said, I
don't agree that we do. We're talking about a specific effect that
typically takes decades to manifest and we're just now hitting that
window in data collection while the demographic and usage patterns have
changed greatly over that span.
> Please don't take my attempt at fun with Calorie as a dismissal of
> intelligent comments. I appreciate the clear informed discussion
> between Gregory and Jeff that's surfaced here.
>
> I won't be surprised to find out in 20 years that something we are
> doing now is harmful to some degree. The odds favor it as we are
> changing so much, so fast.
>
> But, like experimenting with... things...in my youth, I'm into living
> life boldly (not foolishly) and willing to take my chances with the
> stuff that's not shown itself to be obviously toxic right away.
> Especially if it's fun or useful.
And again, I have no problem with that. Make choices for yourself;
that's great. Informed choices even more so. It's where you start
impacting the ability of others to make their own choice for themselves
that I get fidgety.
--
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?
doug wrote:
> People also ignore the relative danger of sunlight. It is 1000 watts
> per square meter and it is ionizing radiation.
That would affect the large population of people that sky dive in
the nude from high altitude, like above 100,000 feet, beyond
the shielding effect of the atmosphere.
For those at ground level and under 10,000 feet, the atmosphere
provides adequate shielding from ionizing radiation.
Re: Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation?Any definitive proof? 
Linear Mode
