14 replies to this topic

[dannov]

I've been reading a lot on wireless technology lately in regard to the effects that it has on our well-being. I found a good, comprehensive article created with a number of cited sources that I felt I should share with you folks, and get your opinions about:

http://www.rense.com/general78/rad.htm


Here's a quote from the article:

Even if there were reliable compliance monitoring, many experts say that FCC public exposure guidelines for RF/microwave radiation are deadly because they are based on the obsolete and unfounded theory that only power density hot enough to flash-cook tissues is harmful. This puts FCC at odds with current scientific knowledge regarding the minimum exposure level at which harm to living cells begins.
 
Myriad symptoms of radiation poisoning can be induced at exposure levels hundreds, even thousands of times lower than current standards permit. Russia's public exposure standards are 100 times more stringent than ours because Russian scientists have consistently shown that, at U.S. exposure levels, humans develop pathological changes in heart, kidney, liver and brain tissues, plus cancers of all types.16

[caston]

The article seems very dramatic and one sided:

WiMAX radiation could one day be cranked up to a bone-incinerating 66 gigahertz.36 A single WiMAX tower could provide internet coverage for an area of 3,000 square miles, although coverage for 6-25 square miles is the norm now. Promoters say WiMAX may some day replace all cable and DSL broadband services and irradiate virtually all rural areas.  Yet, not a single environmental or public health study has been required as the industry unleashes infrastructure for this savage new wireless technology from which no living flesh will escape.

I know that HSDPA towers are actually very efficent in that they transmit the minimum energy required to communicate with each device currently connected with it. Telcos place lots of small ones around the place as this is preferred to having larger (high powered) ones that could be dangerous at close range.

WIFI(802.11g) is one you might watch out for.. the frequency it transmits on is absorbed by water, proteins and sugar and it excites their molecular motion producing heat. But the power given out by most 802.11g devices so is so small that effects should be minimal. I would still be careful to only transmit at the power that is needed. In an apartment block the owners of competiting wifi access points may increase their energy output kind of like a lot of people in a room with each one trying to shout ot be heard.

As for the biological effects of EME. I'm currently studying this for my own interest not just in terms of safety but in terms of potential therapies that could make use of it. But as regard to DNA damage from EME this is my current suspicion; there might be some slighly increased level of DNA strand breaks but our bodies probably upregulate DNA repair to make up for this.

I don't know how to account for those breaks as the radiation is non-ionising but I expect it may be a culmative effect on the other processes in the cells when the required enzyme activation energies are lowered ever so slightly.

Edited by caston, 11 October 2007 - 02:36 PM.

[Live Forever]

Oh good gosh. These people that are always harping on "wireless radiation" remind me of the conspiracy theorists. (they have done it for regular wireless networks, cell phones, power lines, etc, etc) There has never been any proof of any negative effects; Unless you are basically standing on the antenna yourself, the dispersion is such that there should be no effects whatsoever.

[Mind]

I think there is some effect on the human body. Every form of radiation (even light from the sun) has an effect somewhere in the body, however, at this point I am not going to get hysterical because despite the huge increase in TV, Radio, Cell, Wireless, etc...transmissions during the last 100 years, there does not seem to be a similar dramatic increase in deaths. If you believe the scare stories out there, people should be dropping like flies, the average lifespan of everyone on the planet should be less than 40 with everyone getting cancer by the time they are 30. It isn't happening. Cancer rates have gone up, but most experts attribute that to increasing lifespan. Most cancer deaths occur in older adults. The older you get the higher the odds of getting cancer.

[dannov]

Well, what's interesting is that there are many, many studies out there that demonstrate how dangerous these signals are. You're being bombarded with natural radiation and artificial radiation that we are not evolved to cope with. This artificial radiation is a thing of the '90s largely as that was the advent of wifi.

If you noticed at the bottom, you'll see the author used 39 legitimate references for this work. It's not just an opinion article, but moreso an awareness one. I'm not sure how longer lifespans can be a significant cause of increase in cancer when cancer usually occurs far earlier than the 70s or 80s.

[Live Forever]

There are so many misconceptions about radiation. Anyone that wants to know a bit more about radiation in general (and this type of radiation specifically) watch the 2 lectures on radioactivity from this series of lectures at UC Berkley:
http://webcast.berke...esid=1906978275
(not that those are the only good ones, and the nukes ones would probably partially apply as well, but I think it would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding)

Also, on a Science Saturday bloggingheads a few months ago, they talked about the crazy WiFi people who think there is a cancer link to WiFi access. Here is a direct link to the relevant part. Luckily George Johnson has been being an activist against the crazies in that situation.

[Live Forever]

There are so many misconceptions about radiation. Anyone that wants to know a bit more about radiation in general (and this type of radiation specifically) watch the 2 lectures on radioactivity from this series of lectures at UC Berkley:
http://webcast.berke...esid=1906978275
(not that those are the only good ones, and the nukes ones would probably partially apply as well, but I think it would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding)

Also, on a Science Saturday bloggingheads a few months ago, they talked about the crazy WiFi people who think there is a cancer link to WiFi access. Here is a direct link to the relevant part. Luckily George Johnson has been being an activist against the crazies in that situation.

Here is an article George wrote about the different types of radiation, and how there isn't much to worry about when it comes to these kinds. (people hear "radiation" and go crazy because they don't understand that some types are, for all intents and purposes, harmless):
http://santafereview...ew1.17.php#39.3

[Mind]

If wireless transmissions were extremely dangerous I should think the average lifespan of people around the globe would be decreasing, not increasing. Sweden historically has been one of the first countries to adopt new wireless technology, yet they have one of the highest average lifespans in the world.

You do make a good point about transmissions continuing to go up with the advent of wifi (and more cell phone use) and it shouldn't be ignored, but the article you linked to makes it sound like we are all going to die tomorrow. Most of the sick people interviewed in the article were exposed to high doses of radiation at very close range.

[niner]

...as the industry unleashes infrastructure for this savage new wireless technology from which no living flesh will escape.

With language like this, I have a really hard time taking the article seriously. What exactly is the mechanism by which WiFi frequencies cause damage? I have a hard time believing that an imperceptible temperature increase is a problem. Are there ostensible biomolecules that have modes at these frequencies?

[mitkat]

..as the industry unleashes infrastructure for this savage new wireless technology from which no living flesh will escape.

With language like this, I have a really hard time taking the article seriously.  What exactly is the mechanism by which WiFi frequencies cause damage?  I have a hard time believing that an imperceptible temperature increase is a problem.  Are there ostensible biomolecules that have modes at these frequencies?

I agree with you Niner, this kind of talk is impressing nobody nohow.

Savage new wireless technology...hah, is that like a savage new bluetooth headset? The only thing living that isn't going to escape Is my sense of style and good taste from using too many tacky devices.

[dannov]

I agree--the tone of the article is pretty "end of the world-ish" and ultimately, fact or fiction, there's not a whole lot that we could due to escape artificial radiation anyway since it permeates pretty much everywhere these days.

Niner, the mechanism, I believe, was summed up in the following paragraph in the article:

Human DNA hears this energetic cacophony loud and clear, reacting like the human ear would to high volume country music, R&B plus rock and roll screaming from the same speaker. Irradiated cells struggle to protect themselves against this destructive dissonance by hardening their membranes. They cease to receive nourishment, stop releasing toxins, die prematurely and spill micronuclei fragments into a sort of "tumor bank account."  This is precisely how microwave radiation prematurely ages living tissues.

I appreciate the great replies--love this forum! :0)

[Mind]

I'm not sure how longer lifespans can be a significant cause of increase in cancer when cancer usually occurs far earlier than the 70s or 80s.

Check this out

Salient quote:

A person is 100 TIMES more likely to get cancer at age 65 than at age 35. But new research reported today in the journal Nature Genetics identifies naturally occurring processes that allow many genes to both slow aging and protect against cancer in the much-studied C. elegans roundworm.

[dannov]

Wow, that's amazing. Thanks for the link Mind.

[william7]

Does anybody know whether this BIOPRO Universal Chip, at http://72.30.186.56/...&icp=1&.intl=uk, will really work to reduce the radiation from wireless transmissions or is it just a another scam to make money off our ignorance and fears?

[Brainbox]

Does anybody know whether this BIOPRO Universal Chip, at http://72.30.186.56/...&icp=1&.intl=uk, will really work to reduce the radiation from wireless transmissions or is it just a another scam to make money off our ignorance and fears?

Toaster: one chip

[lol]

Well, I'm very sceptical. The only thing proven to block RF radiation is a faraday cage, to block nuclear radiation: lead and to block low frequence EM radiation: Mu-metal.

I.e. Shielding.

Edited by brainbox, 05 November 2007 - 09:43 PM.