WIFI, RF & EMF

[mbrooke]

Here is the link

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/30/bee.decline.mobile.phones/

Exactly to what I was thinking of!

 

[DarylH]

The study would have been more interesting if they had taken similar hives and placed unpowered phones in them of the same brand and model and left them off for the duration of the experiment.

Was it the fact that the phone were turned on for 15 minutes a couple times a day, or was it just due to the fact that bees didn't like the phones in their hive period. Might have been a chemical used in the phones manufacturing that they smelled and didn't like, could have been ultrasonic vibrations of one of the crystals in the oscillator chain, any number of things. But without a control it's hard to say it was due to only the RF.

 

[GoldDigger]

The study would have been more interesting if they had taken similar hives and placed unpowered phones in them of the same brand and model and left them off for the duration of the experiment.

Was it the fact that the phone were turned on for 15 minutes a couple times a day, or was it just due to the fact that bees didn't like the phones in their hive period. Might have been a chemical used in the phones manufacturing that they smelled and didn't like, could have been ultrasonic vibrations of one of the crystals in the oscillator chain, any number of things. But without a control it's hard to say it was due to only the RF.

One possible control would be the same model phone turned on but in "airplane mode" with all transmitters turned off. You could still have incidental radiation from the local oscillator, display driver, etc.

 

[StarCat]

WIFI Dangers

WIFI Dangers

WIFI is extremely dangerous Technology and person that should have the intelligence to realize this are avoiding the truths and the research which is all quite scientific.Many districts and places which have had it in the past are banning it while the USA is going hog wild.
All proliferation of Microwave Frequencies are dangerous and are being ignored by an uninformed public who is now addicted to all their gadgetry.
Everything being done with these frequencies is a major mistake.
WIFI will be shown to be worse than tetraethyl lead, which most have also forgotten about with its total campaign of blatant lies.

 

[DarylH]

WIFI is extremely dangerous Technology and person that should have the intelligence to realize this are avoiding the truths and the research which is all quite scientific.Many districts and places which have had it in the past are banning it while the USA is going hog wild.
All proliferation of Microwave Frequencies are dangerous and are being ignored by an uninformed public who is now addicted to all their gadgetry.
Everything being done with these frequencies is a major mistake.
WIFI will be shown to be worse than tetraethyl lead, which most have also forgotten about with its total campaign of blatant lies.

References please.

 

[Rampage_Rick]

The people who have "proof" that low-power EMFs are dangerous are likely in the same group as the people who believe vaccines cause autism. A good portion of both groups are surprisingly well off and educated, which makes it that more difficult to convince them otherwise. The fact remains that tests performed in a scientific double-blind manner have shown absolutely no evidence of "electromagnetic hypersensitivity"

I regularly direct people to the following video. People underestimate the power of the mind...

 

[zbang]

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)

It kills people every day.

 

[winnie]

The fact remains that tests performed in a scientific double-blind manner have shown absolutely no evidence of "electromagnetic hypersensitivity"

There is at least some evidence of electromagnetic _sensitivity_, for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784

They places a person with self diagnosed with electromagnetic hypersensitivity between a pair of electrodes, subjecting their head to pulsed 60Hz electric fields (not magnetic fields). They used a blinded protocol where the subject was either actually exposed or 'sham' exposed. The subject developed both subjective and measurable symptoms synchronized with the changes in field state.

Interestingly, the subject of this study could not tell if the electric field was on or off, but was developing symptoms after transitions.

Having followed this subject for a few years now, my suspicion is that some people have sensitivity to otherwise safe electric and magnetic fields. By sensitivity I specifically mean 'some people can detect these fields', not 'harm is directly caused by these fields'. Then on top of this ability to be almost aware of these fields, for whatever reason they have trained themselves to a strong adverse response to this sensation.

Consider how you might respond if there were a radio hidden away somewhere in your room, playing music that you absolutely detest, just at the threshold of hearing...just loud enough that you are aware of it, but just quietly enough that you are not sure you are really hearing something, just quietly enough that you can't locate the thing. (This happens to me with a particular 'boom box' in tape player mode without a tape playing; it demodulates just enough RF in this mode to play a radio station _very_ quietly, but all of the indicators show that it is off. Sometimes it will bug me for a while before I figure out what is going on.) Or any other stimulus that is just strong enough to be annoying but not strong enough that you can localize it and fix it.

-Jon

 

[Dennis Alwon]

It is interesting how many feel about electromagnetic field's. It seems like voodoo to many of us but there are too many people that complain about it. I am confident that electromagnetic field's do affect some people and not others. My wife gets migraines and she can often tell there is a weather change long before it happens. My dog is freaked out by lightning-- she starts acting weird long before we are aware that a storm is need. I would not be surprised if she senses this electrical field.

Myself-- it is voodoo to me but I can't dismiss the evidence

 

[jxofaltrds]

It is interesting how many feel about electromagnetic field's. It seems like voodoo to many of us but there are too many people that complain about it. I am confident that electromagnetic field's do affect some people and not others. My wife gets migraines and she can often tell there is a weather change long before it happens. My dog is freaked out by lightning-- she starts acting weird long before we are aware that a storm is need. I would not be surprised if she senses this electrical field.

Myself-- it is voodoo to me but I can't dismiss the evidence

Remember when we were kids and they said do not sit close to the TV? Probably because they knew that the tubes were producing EMF.

Internal high readings (residential) are caused by incorrect wiring methods (most likely) or a lost utility neutral.

I have used my meter to locate metal water lines in a yard before. (lost utility neutral).

High readings can be seen next to equipment also.

 

[zbang]

Remember when we were kids and they said do not sit close to the TV? Probably because they knew that the tubes were producing EMF.

IIRC parents were worried about x-rays; especially from early color sets. They weren't worried about generic lower-frequency fields.

 

[DarylH]

One of the tools that I use to measure RF fields is the Narda NBM-550 meter. The meter can test against the FCC limits I posted earlier.

Here are a couple shots of the meter next to a 1000 W microwave oven in the break room near my office. This is my first time uploading pictures to the site so sorry if the size isn't quite right.

For grins I periodically test the RF field near the ovens while and heating a cup of water. This oven is performing as usual with levels way way under the allowable limit.





The reported level in the picture is 2.7 microwatts, which is about 360 times lower than the 1 milliwatt limit.

There is also a WiFi hot spot outside my office door. Inside my office with the meter sitting on my desk, it is reading around 0.06% of the allowable FCC limit.

Now, my hair is thinning a bit and it is starting to turn grey, the other day my knee started acting up. Do I think it's the result of RF fields around me - nope, just getting old

 

[DarylH]

. . . The reported level in the picture is 2.7 microwatts, which is about 360 times lower than the 1 milliwatt limit.

Sorry, meant to type per centimeter squared after the power levels but spaced - again WiFi hotspot induced memory loss I guess.

Should be 2.7 uW/cm^2 and 1 mW/cm^2 for the levels.

 

[mbrooke]

WIFI is extremely dangerous Technology and person that should have the intelligence to realize this are avoiding the truths and the research which is all quite scientific.Many districts and places which have had it in the past are banning it while the USA is going hog wild.
All proliferation of Microwave Frequencies are dangerous and are being ignored by an uninformed public who is now addicted to all their gadgetry.
Everything being done with these frequencies is a major mistake.
WIFI will be shown to be worse than tetraethyl lead, which most have also forgotten about with its total campaign of blatant lies.

I know the proof doesn't exist black on white yet, but I do have to agree with you for the most part. I am keeping an open mind. How dangerous are they really I don't know, I can only guesstimate, but its safe to say if any danger exists its not something the public is supposed to know about. Billions of dollars are in this industry and growing. If you look at any mainstream subject on WIFI concerns it is down played and those that are questioning it are made to look not to sane. Of course that's no accident IMO.


FWIW I remember when cells phones were coming out people were buzzing about RFI and if phones are safe. Suddenly all went quiet right before the big take off.

It is interesting how many feel about electromagnetic field's. It seems like voodoo to many of us but there are too many people that complain about it. I am confident that electromagnetic field's do affect some people and not others. My wife gets migraines and she can often tell there is a weather change long before it happens. My dog is freaked out by lightning-- she starts acting weird long before we are aware that a storm is need. I would not be surprised if she senses this electrical field.

Myself-- it is voodoo to me but I can't dismiss the evidence

x2. Some people do indeed seem sensitive to them. Animals in particular have been known to demonstrate such.

To condense a complex topic to something short IMO high EMFs are a slight to moderate health risk but more so dependent on the individual. A normal healthy person is less at risk while children and those less healthy are more at risk. The studies in childhood leukemia and power lines did it for me. Just my opinion


FWIW, electromagnetic hyper sensitivity disorder is a recognized diagnosis in Sweden.

Remember when we were kids and they said do not sit close to the TV? Probably because they knew that the tubes were producing EMF.

Internal high readings (residential) are caused by incorrect wiring methods (most likely) or a lost utility neutral.

I have used my meter to locate metal water lines in a yard before. (lost utility neutral).

High readings can be seen next to equipment also.

View attachment 11041

I agree wiring errors are the biggest contributor in all ways. If you ever do work in a place with sensitive electronics like a hospital something as simple as a pinched neutral in a troffer can seriously effects equipment. The ole computer monitor jitter is a classic give away.

 

[DarylH]

. . . but its safe to say if any danger exists its not something the public is supposed to know about. Billions of dollars are in this industry and growing. If you look at any mainstream subject on WIFI concerns it is down played and those that are questioning it are made to look not to sane . . .

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this point with respect to RF safety.

I travel to DC to meet with the FCC regularly and also to other parts of the world to meet with regulators from other countries regarding radio spectrum and licensing. There is certainly no attempt being made by regulators to sweep RF exposure concerns under the rug. To the contrary the topic is one regulators are very much interested in.

Regulators also listen to their respective public and some of the standards put into place are overly conservative with respect to results from studies using scientific method because regulators recognize that not everyone agrees that these studies represent the final word in long term exposure risk.

 

[mbrooke]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this point with respect to RF safety.

I travel to DC to meet with the FCC regularly and also to other parts of the world to meet with regulators from other countries regarding radio spectrum and licensing. There is certainly no attempt being made by regulators to sweep RF exposure concerns under the rug. To the contrary the topic is one regulators are very much interested in.

Regulators also listen to their respective public and some of the standards put into place are overly conservative with respect to results from studies using scientific method because regulators recognize that not everyone agrees that these studies represent the final word in long term exposure risk.

There isn't really anything to sweep under the rug with them. All they have to say is "there is no risk" for an area where risk may exist (such as a home next to a cell tower). That statement in theory can neither be proven nor denied. Yes scientific studies exist, but as Ive said before they go both ways. From a scientific perspective as a whole (considering all data) the claim can not be admitted nor denied.

Granted we may be talking relatively here because RF is a massive spectrum that applies from every thing to military radar to a wifi router to medical equipment in different strengths, intensities and kinds...


My point is this. IMO radio waves in an average home or a classic (FM/AM) radio antenna half a mile away pose no significant or even remote concern. However, a cell phone held up to ones head, or a cell tower very near by, IMO does pose some risk and reasonable caution should be taken. Of course that's my opinion, but all anyone has to say from an agency of authority "we do not believe the risk is worth anything to worry about"

 

[DarylH]

Regulators aren't saying there is no risk.

This is true in the US and abroad, there is no world-wide conspiracy to keep the public in the dark. The risk is acknowledged, read the docs at the OET links I published early in the thread.

As a result, conservative standards for exposure that take frequency and exposure time into account have been established.

Regulators monitor research and rules change as a result. There were new requirements in the US released last year that require a licensee to take not only the radiated power of their system into account, but to also include the aggregating power of other systems in the area.

In addition there are labeling and signage requirements to advise the general public and occupational users about the potential for risk from a transmitting system.