http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/interesting_email_emf_emr.htm
--------
Would you forward to masts list please?
Thanks
Gary
Subject: Wireless broadband Internet dangers
http://www.thetechzone.com/?m=show&id=522&page=1
Singing the WiFi Blues Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love has it. Many in San Francisco want it... Wireless broadband Internet access (WiFi) seems too good to be true. At relatively low cost, anyone can get on the Internet anywhere in a city. All the city needs to do is install WiFi antennas. An argument in favor of citywide WiFi is that it will reduce the digital divide: the poorer you are, the more limited your access to the Internet and its information resources. Cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco are actively trying to close the digital divide. One option is WiFi. Yet in weighing the options, virtually nothing is heard about the potential health risks. Saturating an entire city with WiFi adds to the existing burden of nonionizing radiation. That burden, called electrosmog by some, consists of long-term exposure to low-level concentrations of nonionizing radiation from familiar sources like radio and TV signals, electronic and electrical devices, and the ubiquitous cell phone. Wireless Internet Access Local area networks (LANs) link computers, printers, modems, and other devices. Traditional LANs make the links physically using wire cable. Messages between computers and the other devices on the network are managed by a device called a router. A wireless LAN does away with the wire cable by using a router that transmits and receives radio signals. To use a wired LAN, you have to plug the computer or other device into a wall socket. A wire leads from the socket to the router, which manages signal traffic between the devices on the network. With a wireless LAN, each device on the network is built so that it can send a signal to the router and receive signals back. Wireless routers typically have a range of a hundred to several hundred feet. The range can be increased by adding a booster that increases the signal strength. As with all radio signals, the closer you are to the transmitter (the router) the stronger the signal. Cell phones work on the same principle. The difference is that cell phones work at a different frequency and put out a stronger signal than wireless LANs.
Radio Frequencies Cell phones operate at frequencies in the 3 to 30 GHz range, similar to microwave ovens. Wireless LANs operate at one tenth of that range‹0.3 to 3 GHz, the range of UHF television broadcasts. GHz stands for gigaHertz, a standard measure of radio frequency radiation (RFR)‹electromagnetic radiation created by sending an alternating electrical current through an antenna. The higher the GHz, the faster the current alternates. Frequency by itself does not measure the potential effect of RFR. As you would guess, the strength of the signal also matters. The strength of a signal is measured in watts, a standard measure of electrical energy. For example, a 100 watt light bulb is brighter because it puts out more energy than a 60 watt bulb. Think of the effect of waves at the beach: small waves far apart (low strength, low frequency) versus large wave close together (high strength, high frequency). The former is likely to have less of an effect than the latter. The exposure to RFR is measured using SAR‹specific absorption rate. SAR is expressed either in milliwatts/kilogram (mW/kg) of body weight or milliwatts/cubic centimeter (mW/cm2) of exposed body area: the size of the wave and how much of your body it strikes.
Health Risks WiFi enthusiasts dismiss health risk concerns because the power output and SAR exposure is significantly below the minimum standard set for cell phones. But cell phone standards are set for the short term exposure of a cell phone in use pressed to your head. In addition, the standards are set based on the thermal (heating) effect of the radiation. Nonthermal effects of cell phones are documented at exposures below the current US standards, including memory loss, sleep disruption, slowed motor skills and reaction time, decreased immune function, spatial disorientation and dizziness, headaches, lowered sperm count, increased blood pressure and pulse, DNA breakage and reduced DNA repair capacity, and cell proliferation. A second problem is that cell phone exposure is intermittent, whereas WiFi exposure is constant. A more accurate comparison is to the effect of cell phone broadcast antennas. These antennas send and receive radio frequency signals constantly. The signal strength from an antenna is comparable to a cell phone only at very close range. The exposure is not a cell phone¹s brief blast but a persistent bath of low- strength RFR. In addition to the health effects documented for cell phone use, exposure to cell phone antennas include increased blood pressure and pulse, sleep disruption, emotional effects such as increased depression and irritability, memory loss and mental fog, fatique and vertigo, and increased cancer risk. Because of these effects, the International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO) decided in 2004 that they will not permit cell phone antennas on fire houses.
RFR Hypersensitivity Much of the discussion of RFR health effects is framed as a concern with people who are hypersensitive. Hypersensitivity is the technical term for allergies and similar immune system overreactions. But instead of pollen, RFR hypersensitivity is a reaction to nonionizing radiation. It seems that an unlucky few are affected while the rest of us are off the hook. Research by Olle Johansson and Örjan Hallberg of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm suggests otherwise. They looked at the incidence of cancer in Europe and the US and found a striking association between the increase in certain cancers during the 20th Century and exposure RFR as measured by radio and TV broadcasts. What the hypersensitive really represent is one extreme in a complex landscape of effects and risks. Just like any other environmental stressor, RFR will affect some people more than others. And as with other environmental stressors, the greater the overall burden, the greater the risk of becoming one of the the "unlucky few." Wireless LANs add to the existing burden of RFR. Just as burning more fossil fuels adds more smog, adding more RFR adds more electrosmog. You don't have to expose your home or your city to the increased burden created by WiFi. There's a viable alternative: a wired LAN. The hype might make it seem less convenient and more expensive. But what¹s a good night's sleep worth? Or reducing your risk of cancer? Resources International Association of Fire Fighters. 2004. Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions. Access at
http://www.iaff.org/safe/content/celltower/celltowerfinal.htm .
Johansson, Olle and Doug Loranger. 2005. Electrosmog. Your Own Health And Fitness. Broadcast November 29, 2005.
http://yourownhealthandfitness.org/radiation.html .
Sage, Cindy. 2005. Comment on San Francisco TechConnect Community Wireless Broadband Initiative. Sage Associates: September 2005.
An Interesting Letter Posted by: "Paul..... Date: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:16 am ((PDT))
Dear Ms. L,
My son has been having serious ailments over the last 6 months including: Severe and constant headaches, leg pains, poor sleep, and even heart palpitations. Various specialists were at a loss as to why he had these conditions! The only thing that showed up in extensive bloodwork was a low IgA level. I did some research and figured out that it may be the WiFi Wireless Internet I installed in our home exactly 6 months prior.
So I quietly unhooked the system, and monitored my son so not to tell him of my changes. Sure enough, within hours his headache that he had without pause for 6 months went away. We're about 2 weeks from when I first disabled the WiFi system and my sons ENTIRE medical symptom list has complete cleared up! No longer does he complain of sore legs or headaches, which is a big relief to us.
Most importantly, his blood panel showed that his IgA levels returned to normal. Upon investigation I found that EMF/EMR from Wireless Networks can lower Melatonin, which indirectly lowers IgA - there are studies that confirm this. IgA itself is responsible for fighting a VARIETY of illness. So we can say indirectly that EMF/EMR may be responsible for an extremely wide range of human ailments.
I have found some schools and some countries are already removing WiFi systems because of extremely high levels of complaints from teachers and students about ill effects after their installation. . I believe this issue is vastly more dangerous than Cellular towers because of the highly concentrated continuous signal nature of wireless internet.
I believe there needs to be some detailed and up to date works to reflect the rapid increase of high powered wireless internet networks being installed in schools, homes, and cities nationwide.
Any opinions on this? Kind Regards,
Robert
Dear Robert,
Thanks for this email. I will pass it along to appropriate people in federal regulatory agencies who need to hear this exact kind of information. Just so you know, this is about the 10th such communication within the last year that I have gotten describing pretty much the same symptoms. WiFi is certainly a problem. When I lecture on cell towers, I now say that it never ceases to amaze me that people will fight a cell tower in their neighborhood, then throw in a WiFi system at home which is just like inviting a cell tower indoors. The problem with towers/infrastructu re now is that they are using significantly higher frequencies due to the FCC licensing of broadband, i.e. telecom companies can now offer Internet access, TV, text messaging, music downloads, etc. etc. Yesterday's old analog cell tower that could cover a 10-15 mile radius morphed into digital PCS that could cover about a 3-mile radius, and now the "next generation" infrastructure requires antennas/towers every 1-2 miles. These are likely all unsafe technologies, it's just a question of degree and exposure parameters. But personal WiFi domestic systems are by far the worst right now due to it's very close proximity to people and the higher frequencies at which they operate. And of course whole cities are going WiFi. Unfortunately the learning curve on this is steep, there are literally NO research funds available in America, and the FCC, which controls for exposure standards, is a non-health agency. So everyone is learning about this one individual anatomy at a time, literally. Eventually the adage that the "plural of anecdote is data" will come to pass. But someone needs to collect the information and we don't even have that going on. No one wants to monitor this. Everyone just wants it to be fine. People who get into difficulties have no one to tell but a journalist like me. And most MDs are clueless. I am glad that you figured out your son's problems so quickly. That's unfortunately rare. Please let me know how he progresses.
Best Regards,
Blake
P.S. I wrote about melatonin in my first book on this subject and there is another book called The Melatonin Hypothesis, edited by Stevens, Wilson&Anderson. That latter is mostly about powerline frequencies but it is full of good information.
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
Wireless City Projects
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/3498258/
Health fears lead schools to dismantle wireless networks
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/2957963/
LIBRARY DIRECTOR RESIGNS BECAUSE OF WIFI
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/3194530/
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Melatonin
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Olle+Johansson
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Örjan+Hallberg
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Melatonin
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Wi-Fi
http://omega.twoday.net/topics/Wissenschaft+zu+Mobilfunk/
