Health Concerns

causal

bminish wrote:

In a nutshell yes.

The frequencies are very similar (in some cases the same ) the exposure levels (at the head, body etc) are broadly similar (or indeed above) exposure levels from GSM handsets, DECT WiFi etc.
Yes they are further away from the head but the power levels are vastly larger, in many cases producing SAR levels to workers near the maximum occupational exposure levels.
In the case of both radar and microwave oven exposure the E/m radiation is pulsed (some folk are claiming that pulsed E/M radiation is is some way more harmful than steady state fields )
The durations of exposure are in many cases also similar (often entire working days, every day for years )

There may or may not be correlations between the studies you describe and ongoing studies of wifi/dect/gsm.
The fact is that it has not been proven one way or another, not yet.
And I am not alone in that thinking:


According to ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), who advise the WHO (World Health Organisation) and several other agencies
[url] http://www.icnirp.org/documents/epiRFreviewPublishedinEHPDec04.pdf[/url]

"We have undertaken a comprehensive review of epidemiologic studies about the effects of radiofrequency fields (RFs) on human health in order to summarize the current state of knowledge, explain the methodologic issues that are involved, and aid in the planning of future studies.
There have been a large number of occupational studies over several decades, particularly on cancer, cardiovascular disease, adverse reproductive outcome, and cataract, in relation to RF exposure. More recently, there have been studies of residential exposure, mainly from radio and television transmitters, and especially focusing on leukemia. There have also been studies of mobile telephone users, particularly on brain tumors and less often on other cancers and on symptoms. Results of these studies to date give no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between RF exposure and any adverse health effect. On the other hand, the studies have too many deficiencies to rule out an association. A key concern across all studies is the quality of assessment of RF exposure. Despite the ubiquity of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Other cautions are that mobile phone studies to date have been able to address only relatively short lag periods, that almost no data are available on the consequences of childhood exposure, and that published data largely concentrate on a small number of outcomes, especially brain tumor and leukemia. "

So we've got "no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between RF exposure and any adverse health effect"
And we've also got " On the other hand, the studies have too many deficiencies to rule out an association "

This is far from "completely safe" as you previously asserted, the jury is still out, the scientists are still researching.

Note also their key concerns about the existing research:
"quality of assessment of RF exposure"
"little is known about population exposure from RF sources"
"even less about the relative importance of different sources"

And I draw your attention to this 'caution':
"Other cautions are that mobile phone studies to date have been able to address only relatively short lag periods"

That's the same thinking behind my statement:
"any potential chronic effects of wifi/mobiles/dect etc. won't be seen for another 20 years or so, they simply haven't been around long enough."


Do you wish to maintain that wifi/dect/gsm exposure is equivalent to the microwave research you referred to, despite the 'key concerns' and 'caution' of the ICNIRP?
Do you wish to accept that wifi/dect/gsm exposure should be studied for it's own phenomena, in agreement with my statments, and the ICNIRP position, and withdraw your statement that is "ill informed FUD" on my part?


causAl

happydude13

I received a following notification by email.
It's part of the IEE Irish Branch lecture circuit,

Might be of interest, I'd imagine it's all welcome
but I can't guarantee so...

Anyhow



---
Health Effects of EMFs and New EU Directive

John McAuley, M.D Compliance Engineering

"Young children should only use mobile phones in Emergencies" - Sir
William
Stewart of NRPB. January 2005.

Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health continues to make the news,
whilst research into potential harmful effects of EMF's continues apace.
In addition, the E.U is strengthening legislation in the area, most
recently with the publication of a directive setting limits for EMF's in
the workplace. The directive requires employers to carry out
assessments of the risks posed to their employees from electromagnetic
fields. The directive sets out issues that should be covered in this
risk assessment.


John McAuley has worked in this area for over twenty years and his
presentation will draw n his considerable experience. He has previously
worked for Enterprise Ireland and The Electrical Research Association in
the
UK. He is currently a member of a CENELEC working Group in this area

Date: Thursday 17th February 2005

Time: 6 PM

Venue: Room 326, UCD Engineering Building, Belfield, Dublin 4

Nietzschean

causal wrote:

Regardless of whether that is or is not the case, the fact remains:
There are NOT over 50 years worth of data on human and animal exposure to wifi/mobiles/dect.

Do you not understand the difference?
People have not spent the last 50 years with microwave transmitting mobile phones in their pockets, and against their heads;
People have not spent the last 50 years with microwave transmitting dect phones in their homes, and against their heads;
People have not spent the last 50 years with microwave transmitting wifi routers in their homes, and in their workplace.

I'll reiterate:
"any potential chronic effects of wifi/mobiles/dect etc. won't be seen for another 20 years or so, they simply haven't been around long enough".

causAl

so by that reasoning, we should never devlop a new technology as we won't ever have 50 years of data on it in order to determine wheither its safe. So based on
that, if we left devlopment to people like urself i think we'd all still be living in caves wondering if enough data has been gathered on fires in order for us to determine if its ok to ever start one

causal

Darth Bobo wrote:

so by that reasoning, we should never devlop a new technology as we won't ever have 50 years of data on it in order to determine wheither its safe.

That's ridiculous 'reasoning' on your part - no-one suggested that.
What was suggested was more research.

Darth Bobo wrote:

So based on
that, if we left devlopment to people like urself i think we'd all still be living in caves wondering if enough data has been gathered on fires in order for us to determine if its ok to ever start one

Equally ridiculous, not surprising, since it's premised on a ridiculous statement. :rolleyes:

Research & Development go hand-in-hand.


causal

fostertom

Me, Maths Physics Chemistry at school but these days I read 'popular science', and I experience subtle things below the (present) threshold of respectable science. So how about this:

The assumption that if radiation is weak enough, it's harmless, is coming seriously into question. Strong signals are one thing - they can cause gross poisoning. But it's emerging that the body has a different, highly potent sensitivity to ultra-weak signals. It's not enough to say that wifi is 10x weaker than a mobile phone, or 10,000x weaker if square-law proximity to the ear is taken into account, and therefore a negligible risk. The opposite is true.

The body's stupendous sensitivity e.g. the ear to microscopic sound power levels, the eye to single photons, is because our sense organs, whch include the entire body, have two modes; 1) as passive receptors, like a microphone; and 2) at low levels, as active resonance amplifiers. When a weak signal is detected, or merely suspected, in mode 2) the body searches its memory and sets up an oscillation of complex harmonics and interference patterns, whether airborne, or electromagnetic or even in a quantum-type field. It postulates a signal and if it resonates with the incoming weak signal, wave reinforcement occurs, the signal becomes readable and - most important - it acquires profound meaning, as it's correlated with the body's memory.

So the body really 'gets' a weak signal, whereas it's merely bludgeoned by a strong signal. That now appears to be the basis of homeopathic medicine, which has proved inexplicably effective for 2.5 centuries. In homeopathy, if a patient is suffering symptoms similar to say mercury poisoning (e.g. depression, excema etc etc), then the remedy is a homeopathic dose of mercury, i.e. a mercury sample diluted again and again with water (also succussed i.e. subjected to shock waves) until there is unlikely to be a single molecule of mercury left in the administered dose. The imprint of the harmonics and interference patterns of the molecular oscillations, the 'signature' of the original mercury, lingering in its water medium, is highly 'tuneable' to the body, which siezes on this clear meaningful signal to reattune its own confused and overwhelmed immune system. Hence the cure. The homeopathic potency of the preparation goes up the more it's diluted.

The pattern is, that starting from a strong signal level, any body effect will reduce as signal strength decreases, to a point. Below that, the effect increases again as signal strength is further reduced. The effects of ultra-weak signals on the body are extremely potent and respectable science has been completely blind to this anti-common-sense phenomenon, so has nothing useful to say about it.

A good book to read is The Whispering Pond by Physicist Erwin Lazslo. It's clear, systematic - and an eye-opener at the frontiers of new science.

bminish

fostertom wrote:

The assumption that if radiation is weak enough, it's harmless, is coming seriously into question. Strong signals are one thing - they can cause gross poisoning.

NO, not 'gross poisoning', thermal heating and the effects associated with thermal heating (I.e Cooking!)

Lot's of pseudo-scientific babble with no supporting evidence cut.

That now appears to be the basis of homeopathic medicine, which has proved inexplicably effective for 2.5 centuries.

Homoeopathic medicine is not 'inexplicably effective' it works just as well as a pacebo. It has no beneficial effects (other than perhaps being non-harmful, something that is not always true of conventional medicine

http://www.theness.com/articles/homeopathy-cs0103.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

The effects of ultra-weak signals on the body are extremely potent and respectable science has been completely blind to this anti-common-sense phenomenon, so has nothing useful to say about it.

This theory has also failed to stand up to respectable science, where is the supporting evidence please.

.Brendan

fostertom

bminish wrote:

NO, not 'gross poisoning', thermal heating and the effects associated with thermal heating (I.e Cooking!)

Sorry, 'gross' sounds like an insult, not intended, just to distinguish the conventionally-understood kind of big-dose 'gross' poisoning from the 'subtle' but potent effect of the weak dose.

bminish wrote:

Homoeopathic medicine is not 'inexplicably effective' it works just as well as a pacebo. It has no beneficial effects
http://www.theness.com/articles/homeopathy-cs0103.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

Well, it's your 'popular science' against mine.

bminish wrote:

This theory has also failed to stand up to respectable science, where is the supporting evidence please.

Read the book I suggested.

osmethod

"Original Posters Quote"
"Hi there,

I am contemplating installing a wireless router in my house.
The thing is that I have 2 young children and the missus has expressed concerns about having the signals floating round the house etc"
_____________________________________________________________

How many computers have you operating in the house and how far apart are they? Are they in separate rooms?

Have you ADSL or better still can you explain the type of setup you envisaged...?

osmethod

Peanut

I think your average wifi router is relatively safe.
However I wouldn't like to have it within a couple of feet continuously throughout the day.

Fostertom your suggestions about weak signals have some truth to them I believe, but I don't think it works like this for pure RF signals - in this case I think the idea would be if in doubt, put distance between yourself and the transmitter.

What does seem beyond refute is that RF can in certain circumstances have effects on living organisms at levels below that needed for thermal changes, ie. heating, to occur.

Homoeopathic medicine is not 'inexplicably effective' it works just as well as a pacebo. It has no beneficial effects (other than perhaps being non-harmful, something that is not always true of conventional medicine)

Bminish, not to stray too much off-topic, but read this (item #4):
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600

fostertom

Peanut wrote:

Fostertom your suggestions about weak signals have some truth to them I believe, but I don't think it works like this for pure RF signals - in this case I think the idea would be if in doubt, put distance between yourself and the transmitter.

Interesting, Peanut - why do you say that pure RF signals wouldn't have the effect? Is it because this kind of RF is an artificially simple single frequency, rather than the information-rich complex harmonics found in nature?

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.guerrilla.net/reference/10ghz_link/uwave.html

With the recent proliferation of personal cellular telephones and other high-frequency consumer devices, RF safety has become a topic of frequent discussion and debate. As with most such unresolved questions, good technical judgment demands that we choose a position somewhere between the Chicken Little crowd ("if it saves just one child, we've all got to freeze to death in the dark!"), and reckless disregard for known biological consequences of exposure to excess RF radiation ("hell, back on the DEW Line in Iceland we used to stand in front of 20-megawatt magnetron feeds to keep warm!"). It's well known that RF power levels high enough to cause thermal (tissue-heating) effects in humans carry a high degree of risk to organs such as the eyes, genitals, and brain. Certainly no sane person would defeat a microwave oven safety interlock and stick his/her head inside to see if the oven's working. However, several recent studies have also suggested a link between long-term exposure to low-level (athermal) RF radiation and certain forms of cancer. These newer studies are far from conclusive, having generally taken the form of epidemiological surveys which are limited to pointing out correlations, rather than causal links, between RF exposure and health risks to humans. Still, given what we know (and perhaps more important, don't know) about the biological effects of RF radiation at varying frequencies and power levels, it's not unwise to minimize long-term exposure to even the low levels of power emitted by the microwave data link's Gunnplexers.

My take on this is that our RF limits are lower that the americans who are more litigous. Also since there have been 15KW 10cm magnetrons in use since 1940 there are 65 years of experiance of devices chucking out half a million times as much power as your average WiFi card at similar frequencies. Ok you point out that the military would cover it all up etc. But back in 1947 (two years before the Soviets got the bomb) the Yanks, Brits and canadians had a conference at which they agreed that there was no safe minimum level of nuclear radiation at which there was no increased risk. And unlike the old glow in the dark microwave radiation can be stopped at the flick of a switch.

IHMO the state of fear in the US generated by government/corporates/media is just a smoke screen to divert your attention from the real issues like what the people in power are really doing. I reckon far more harm has been done by stress and worries about RF radiation than by using devices as the were intended to be used.

In a domestic situation microwave ovens are passed as safe if they leak up to 30 times as much as a WiFi card. Also far bigger dangers are not having a carbon monoxide monitor , having stairs in your house. When you have sorted out the actual dangerous things (have you rewired your house for 110V or better still 24V, do you wear hi visibility jackets when crossing the road ?) then consider ones that might be dangerous.


http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/rfsafety.cgi
for WiFi - power 0.03 Watts / antenna 2.2 dB frequency 2400 or 5800 MHz

Peanut

fostertom wrote:

Interesting, Peanut - why do you say that pure RF signals wouldn't have the effect? Is it because this kind of RF is an artificially simple single frequency, rather than the information-rich complex harmonics found in nature?

hmmm not quite, you allude to the idea that the body is somehow sensitive to 'vibrations' of a sort and can pick up on them, even if very weak. You mention the U-curve relationship between signal 'amplitude' and 'effect'.

I believe this may apply for some forms of energy, however I don't think you can generalise this idea to include for example, all radio waves. If that was the case, then we would be constantly bombarded & affected by RF transmitters miles away, all over the place!

Re: safety limits, the only thing that would worry me in the comparision between a microwave & wifi router, is that the router will emit e.g. 1000 times less energy, however depending on setup it could be constantly on in the background.

It's like a neighbour's house alarm going off when they're away - even if it's not very loud, if it's constantly ringing it can drive you nuts. The same may happen with your body & radio energy. (I am very much inclined to believe, through personal experience & other peoples' experience, that your body can in fact pick up on RF energy below levels needed for thermal change.)

I really don't think it's a problem with 99.99% of what people are going to use, however I think it's just something else to bear in mind that the output power isn't the whole story, it could also depend on usage patterns.

rsynnott

It's strange how much people worry about this particular, unproven danger, while they happily ignore proven ones. Saw a protest against the erection of a 3G mast recently; there were a surprising number of people smoking Many of them had gone to the protest in cars, too.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and considerinng the length of time microwaves (at far higher power than those found in data transmission) have been in use, the whole thing looks a bit FUDish.

oscarBravo

fostertom wrote:

The pattern is, that starting from a strong signal level, any body effect will reduce as signal strength decreases, to a point. Below that, the effect increases again as signal strength is further reduced.

This raises the question - given how quickly signal strength drops off with distance (per the inverse square law), how far do I have to get from a wireless access point before I spontaneously combust from the ever-diminishing power of the microwaves?

Peanut

While there is certainly a lot of FUD flying around, what doesn't help is the perception of mobile operators that studies that show an effect, but not necessarily a detrimental effect, are unimportant.

Then there was the quite literally astonishing call by the head of a Parent-Teacher group in England that children should use mobiles more because the heating effect helped increase reaction times.

It's still an open issue IMHO but I agree that the vast majority of protesters etc. are getting mis-information and FUD.

The other thing is that while we have had radio for approx. 100 years now, we have never had personal and household radio communication devices on such a massive scale as we have at the moment.

rsynnott

oscarBravo wrote:

This raises the question - given how quickly signal strength drops off with distance (per the inverse square law), how far do I have to get from a wireless access point before I spontaneously combust from the ever-diminishing power of the microwaves?

Excuse me? Are we talking about homeopathic death rays now?

Capt'n Midnight

Let's not forget the radiation emitted by TV's ,cathode rays n' all that, are basically low intensity X-rays and we've had people staring at them for decades, especially those playing computer games and has anyone every linked TV with changes in behaviour like increased violence ??

Similarily up to 30% of the radiation from fluorscent lights is in the UV spectrum, do you hear people trying to ban them because of that or the toxic white powder on the inside (Personally I dislike halogen lamps, they've got a highe enough UV content too.)

The number of devices and the frequencies they use have gone up, but better reciever technology especially FEC and spread spectrum mean that they need far lower levels of power to do the same job. Todays mobile phones and SKY dishes are smaller then past ones but still do the same job.

Back at the turn of the century in Newfoundland and here in Valentia? they had spark gap stations with sparks up to 6 feet long to get across the atlantic, since the end of WWII most major cities have had radar installed at airports and ports, in aeroplanes and ships and thus a good proportion of the worlds population have been exposed to low levels of microwave radiation.

With so many other hazards it would be very difficult to identify a new risk caused by RF. Background radiation levels have gone up, Irish sea/sellafield, new types of biochemicals are released into the enviroment - there are stories about rivers in the Uk where all the fish are one sex because of the levels of hormones caused by the contrceptive pill, SUV's are on the increase , lead free petrol is being replaced by polycyclic hydrocarbons in smokey diesels.

TBH: if you keep the devices out of the way (wall mounted) and power them down when not needed (timer switch) and use a bit of common sense (not trying to melt ear way with the antenna of your mobile phone) the RF risks associated with most consumer electronics are far less than other dangers in the house. There is an email going around that 14 people get killed by 9V batteries in the UK / alarm clock radios - I reckon it's a hoax but...

oscarBravo

rsynnott wrote:

Excuse me? Are we talking about homeopathic death rays now?

Hey, you can never be too careful. I'm staying right beside my AP until someone proves it's safe to walk away from it.

Peanut

oscarBravo wrote:

Hey, you can never be too careful. I'm staying right beside my AP until someone proves it's safe to walk away from it.

lol :rolleyes:
BTW homeopathy isn't simple dilution

digiking

I do partime work in a theatre in the lighting & Sound department. One day i was messing around with wifi and bluetooth etc etc. All was working alright. Once we turned on all the UV Lighting.things went wrong.Lost comms etc etc.

UV Most be bad for wireless hardware. Let alone you health.

bminish

digiking wrote:

I do partime work in a theatre in the lighting & Sound department. One day i was messing around with wifi and bluetooth etc etc. All was working alright. Once we turned on all the UV Lighting.things went wrong.Lost comms etc etc.

2 things

1/ WiFi and Bluetooth are not always very compatible, they use the same bit of radio spectrum.

2/ UV does not interfere with radio, period!
In your case it is probable that the interference was cased by RF interference generated by either the dimmers or a faulty Ballast for the lights. Theatre lighting circuits, especially old, incorrectly installed or poorly maintained ones are notorious generators of electrical and radio frequency interference.

UV Most be bad for wireless hardware.

That's a bit of a leap to make isn't it ?

About as valid as this piece of research perhaps?

Two scientists are talking in a lab one day and one says to the other, "Wait till you see my latest discovery. It'll blow your mind!" Naturally intrigued, the second scientist asks for a demonstration of this amazing discovery. At his request, the first scientist gets a spider out of a matchbox, places it on the desk and says, "Spider FORWARDS!" At his command, the spider moves forwards. The scientist then says, "Spider, TURN AROUND", to which the spider obeys. The scientist then says "Spider, FORWARDS", and again the spider does exactly as it is told. The second scientist, impressed with his friend's command of the spider, congratulates him on his work. The first scientist then replies, "No, you haven't seen my discovery yet. Wait till you see *THIS*", and he then pulls all of the spiders legs off and places it back on the desk. The first scientist then repeats his order to the spider "Spider, FORWARDS", but the spider doesn't move. "Spider, TURN AROUND". But it still doesn't move. By this point the second scientist is getting a little confused, and so asks his friend what it is he's trying to do, pointing out that the spider isn't going to move. Exactly!" the first replies. "I've just discovered that when you pull a spider's legs out, they go deaf!"

.Brendan

digiking

Sorry.

IF you say so then. But the uv lights were not through our dimmers. straight into mains with a switch on them...By the way our stage gear is all up to date. Were spending 9000 euro on a new dimmer in july...

Capt'n Midnight