+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65
Wireless Networks Thread, Wifi power levels compared to mobile phones. in Technical; i'm sure the 'radiation poisoning' mentioned there refers to 'symtoms' and other noticeable effects of wireless radiation ( which is ...
  1. #31
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    21

    radiation poisoning

    i'm sure the 'radiation poisoning' mentioned there refers to 'symtoms' and other noticeable effects of wireless radiation ( which is called NON-ionising ), however, this non-ionising radiation has been shown to cause cellular damage very similar to ionising radiation, just on a much reduced scale- i.e if your immune system is ok, your body will repair the damage, or destroy the mutated cells that are created by the radiation.
    The problem occurs ( or at least the most reasonable explanation is ) when a person is subjected to this type of radiation over a long period of time, this is usually from telephone masts, or high mobile phone useage. This prolonged exposure suppresses the immune system, and thus causes, in my opinion the cancer cells, or stops them from being 'removed' by the human body. This information is what i have gathered so far, and of course requires proper scientific affirmation. But one way that we could start this is to let people of all countries access to the ' cancer postcode database' or its equivalent, which would go part way to settling the argument.
    One of the biggest problems is public perception, for instance we are told that planners should not allow mobile phone masts near schools, but the parents don't realise that the power levels from a mobile phone mast at 50m is in most cases less than the power measured from a wifi point in a home, school etc. ( it is the 'pulsing' frequency of the data that causes the power levels to be high i believe).
    Although a year or two ago, a bbc panorama show caused 'outcry' about wireless in school etc, it was then quickly rubbished, but the program was shown to be scientifically correct, as it used clear measurement of power levels used.

    i welcome any information on the subject, as we are way - way away from an answer just yet.


  2. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    i'm sure the 'radiation poisoning' mentioned there refers to 'symtoms' and other noticeable effects of wireless radiation ( which is called NON-ionising ), however, this non-ionising radiation has been shown to cause cellular damage very similar to ionising radiation, just on a much reduced scale- i.e if your immune system is ok, your body will repair the damage, or destroy the mutated cells that are created by the radiation.
    Which is kind of a good thing, given that we receive more non-ionising (and in fact ionising) radiation from the sky and the rest of the universe pouring down on us than we'll ever receive from a little wireless access point.

    If these people were really allergic to such things, or suffered migraines, they'd be better off walking around with a lead umbrella then whining about mobile phones and wireless networking.

  3. Thanks to jamesb from:

    localzuk (1st June 2009)

  4. #33

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,639
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,891 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    but the program was shown to be scientifically correct, as it used clear measurement of power levels used.
    On what planet was that program shown to be correct? It was universally slammed for it's lack of scientific method, and for causing an unnecessary 'panic' amongst parents!!

    I'm sorry, but this subject is one that your persistence in following is plain ridiculous now. You are not a scientist within the field of biology, or with expertise regarding non-ionising radiation. Let the subject lie until actual scientific papers are published - this constant stream of hypothesising, guessing and opinion giving is not helping anyone! (And by scientific papers, I mean actual papers in journals and the like - not attention grabbing headlines in newspapers, on tv shows or blogs.)

    One of the things you have to remember is this - we are now living in 'the information age'. This means we are always connected, and always want to be connected (we being the majority, as obviously there are some who dislike the way society is moving forward). The amount of wireless devices is only going to increase, regardless of the health effects. What is the alternative? There is no turning back the clock now.

    Also, you may find that the number of health issues etc... from supposed wireless devices (even in the worst fear-mongering figures) are far lower than issues caused by the cars i am sure you all drive (particulate pollution, co2 pollution, the pollution due to the manufacturing of those devices, and the pollution from the maintenance and laying of roads etc...), or even from simple collisions. Or the health issues caused by the farming industry (resistance to anti-biotics, heart disease due to over consumption of meat, pollution from intensive farming methods etc...).

    Even if wifi or mobile phones are causing an increase of 40% in brain tumours in young children, this is still just a drop in the ocean compared to every other aspect of our lives.

  5. Thanks to localzuk from:

    enjay (1st June 2009)

  6. #34
    enjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,485
    Thank Post
    282
    Thanked 196 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    This information is what i have gathered so far, and of course requires proper scientific affirmation.
    Such as the work of the likes of the HPA you mean? Not affirmation, of course, since they disagree with you, but scientific nonetheless...

    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    But one way that we could start this is to let people of all countries access to the ' cancer postcode database' or its equivalent, which would go part way to settling the argument.
    Information out of context can be very dangerous, though - there are all sorts of reasons for cancer pockets which have nothing to do with mobile phone masts. You could easily "prove" all sorts of things using models like that - I remember a lovely election campaign leaflet from the Natural Law Party "proving" a link between the number of yogic flyers in a town and a drop in crime! There is almost certainly a branch of Tesco within 2 miles of every cancer pocket too, which proves nothing unless you want it it.

    Also bear in mind that mobile masts are probably so common nowadays that it would be difficult to see anything, as there aren't many people who lives miles and miles from one. I don't doubt that there are mobile masts in cancer pockets, but there are also plenty of masts in areas with lower cancer rates, as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    Although a year or two ago, a bbc panorama show caused 'outcry' about wireless in school etc, it was then quickly rubbished, but the program was shown to be scientifically correct, as it used clear measurement of power levels used.
    That's debatable - there are plenty of people out there who would still argue that it is rubbish.

  7. #35
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    21

    radiation myths

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Which is kind of a good thing, given that we receive more non-ionising (and in fact ionising) radiation from the sky and the rest of the universe pouring down on us than we'll ever receive from a little wireless access point.

    If these people were really allergic to such things, or suffered migraines, they'd be better off walking around with a lead umbrella then whining about mobile phones and wireless networking.
    I believe your knowledge on background radiation to be incorrect :-

    We've been exposed to this radiation for years, it must be safe

    From the Sun
    Yes, we had heard quite a few people saying that standard cosmic background radiation has enough microwaves in it that we should already be being affected even before the appearance of TV and radio, let alone mobile phones. The background microwave radiation (by which we refer to frequencies ranging from 300 MHz to 30 GHz) from the Sun was almost non-existent, millionths of what can be found in your local wireless cafe. So even if the signals themselves were the same, this claim is nonsense.

    Background on Radiation Frequencies
    It is generally accepted now that X-rays can cause health problems via known mechanisms (e.g. DNA strand breaks). It is also generally accepted that visible light does not cause much harm (with the possible exception of eye-damage if the intensity is too great) during the daytime (caveat here as night-time visible light may cause health problems such as breast cancer indirectly by melatonin suppression). As any physicist could tell you, whilst both naturally occurring forms of radiation, they consist of very different wavelengths and are not comparable.

    From Radio and TV
    FM Radio tranmissions are at about 100 MHz, considerably lower than the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz of GSM mobile phone communications. Moreover, and we believe this is of critical importance, radio transmissions are continuous wave transmissions, and do not rely on pulsed signals to transmit data. Likewise, whilst the transmission frequency of TV is much closer (approximately 450 to 850 MHz), this is again close to continuous wave, and does not have anything like the amplitude modulation that mobile phone carriers do.
    This is crucial, not because it guarantees that there must therefore be a risk, but because it highlights that this exposure is new. We are now being surrounded and bombarded by radiation that is unlike anything we have been exposed to previously. It may be safe, it may not be, but we cannot use the argument that it has been around for years as this is not the case.

  8. #36
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    On what planet was that program shown to be correct? It was universally slammed for it's lack of scientific method, and for causing an unnecessary 'panic' amongst parents!!


    Even if wifi or mobile phones are causing an increase of 40% in brain tumours in young children, this is still just a drop in the ocean compared to every other aspect of our lives.
    I appear to have lost the information showing the panorama programme to be correct, or at least a good part of it, it basically said that as the levels were MEASURED ones, the levels shown were correct, that is assuming the devices were correctly calibrated. ( i will look for this reference and try to post it )

    I don't think an increase in any illness, however small, to whomever it occurs is ' a drop in the ocean' , certainly not in children, that to me reads, well - sick to be honest.

    I , and i think most people, would welcome study into any cause of illness.

  9. #37
    enjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,485
    Thank Post
    282
    Thanked 196 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    One of the many problems with the validity of the Panorama program was that their main talking head on the subject was the chairman of the HPA (Health Protection Agency, Govt-funded scientific research body who looked into mobile phone and WiFi risks). Unfortunately, what Sir William was saying was actually NOT the findings of his organisation!

  10. #38

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,639
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,891 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    I don't think an increase in any illness, however small, to whomever it occurs is ' a drop in the ocean' , certainly not in children, that to me reads, well - sick to be honest.

    I , and i think most people, would welcome study into any cause of illness.
    I think a utilitarian approach is best with society - the greatest good for the greatest number. Wireless devices create a better society than not having them...

    Also, regardless of what you think, or I think, or any other individual thinks, my point stands - the number of illnesses caused by anything 'modern' is tiny compared to the number cause simply due to our methods of producing the food we eat.

    Combine that with my other comment, that we'll never manage to roll back the clock on this technology, then what is the point of all this posturing? The only thing we should do is pay attention to scientific studies, and follow any advice given. The current HPA position is

    Quote Originally Posted by HPA
    There is no consistent evidence to date that WiFi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population. The signals are very low power, typically 0.1 watt (100 milliwatts) in both the computer and the router (access point) and the results so far show exposures are well within internationally accepted (ICNIRP) guidelines. Based on current knowledge and experience, radio frequency (RF) exposures from WiFi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones. Also, the frequencies used in WiFi are broadly the same as those from traditional RF applications.
    On the basis of the studies so far carried out in house, the Agency sees no reason why WiFi should not continue to be used in schools. However with any new technology it is a sensible precautionary approach, as happened with mobile phones, to keep the situation under ongoing review so that parents and others can have as much reassurance as possible. That is why our Chairman, Sir William Stewart, has stated it would be timely to carry out further studies as this new technology is rolled out. The Health Protection Agency is discussing this with relevant parties.
    So, I'll be working by that then!

  11. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    I believe your knowledge on background radiation to be incorrect :-

    We've been exposed to this radiation for years, it must be safe
    I never said it was safe, just that our own contribution is pretty minimal compared to natural sources - both of microwave radiation and natural sources - [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation]Background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    It is generally accepted now that X-rays can cause health problems via known mechanisms (e.g. DNA strand breaks). It is also generally accepted that visible light does not cause much harm (with the possible exception of eye-damage if the intensity is too great) during the daytime (caveat here as night-time visible light may cause health problems such as breast cancer indirectly by melatonin suppression). As any physicist could tell you, whilst both naturally occurring forms of radiation, they consist of very different wavelengths and are not comparable.
    Gee, thanks, I never knew the difference in spectrums before now. Visible light though is only a portion of the radiation we receive from the sun, and from the rest of the universe.

    This is crucial, not because it guarantees that there must therefore be a risk, but because it highlights that this exposure is new. We are now being surrounded and bombarded by radiation that is unlike anything we have been exposed to previously. It may be safe, it may not be, but we cannot use the argument that it has been around for years as this is not the case.
    Which wasn't really the argument I was using. My point was, even taking all of this into account, the total energy we receive from this radiation is tiny compared to the energy caused by 'natural' sources. There are also so far no indicators that any of this supposedly highly dangerous microwave radiation is in any way harmful.

    Mobile phones have now been around for years, so where's the massive rise in cancers that you'd expect if any of the crackpot theories about dangers of them were true?

    If microwave radiation is a risk factor, its one we can disregard while we look after much larger risk factors such as diet and lifestyle choices.

  12. #40
    Quackers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,310
    Thank Post
    40
    Thanked 141 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    53
    The increase in brain tumors IMO is from the increase in Aspartamne in more and more food/drink we digest ie all this nasty "diet" food and drink, as well as it creaping into some normal version of the products now, not Wifi and mobiles. Non industry funded studies has shown to cause brain tumors, and if you go and ask your science department what they teach in regards to artificial sweetners at biology school.....

  13. Thanks to Quackers from:

    farmerste (1st June 2009)

  14. #41
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by NickJones View Post
    Such as the work of the likes of the HPA you mean? Not affirmation, of course, since they disagree with you, but scientific nonetheless...


    Also bear in mind that mobile masts are probably so common nowadays that it would be difficult to see anything, as there aren't many people who lives miles and miles from one. I don't doubt that there are mobile masts in cancer pockets, but there are also plenty of masts in areas with lower cancer rates, as well.


    .
    So is your definition of scientific- only look at one area , and ignore any other observations? because all the so called health guardian agencies ( which are not independant ) only 'work' on thermal effects shown, and ignore any other data. Any fool can see that the microwaves from a phone will not heat the tissue enough to cause damage !! so it must be safe right ????

    And as for postcode cancer, it appears that 'rare' forms of cancer occur surroundind phone masts, but not in a uniform way, greater numbers occur when the people live in the ' beam of greatest intensity' from the mast, so i think more work needs to be done there, at least a scientific study must be worth doing.

  15. #42

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,639
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,891 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    So is your definition of scientific- only look at one area , and ignore any other observations? because all the so called health guardian agencies ( which are not independant ) only 'work' on thermal effects shown, and ignore any other data. Any fool can see that the microwaves from a phone will not heat the tissue enough to cause damage !! so it must be safe right ????

    And as for postcode cancer, it appears that 'rare' forms of cancer occur surroundind phone masts, but not in a uniform way, greater numbers occur when the people live in the ' beam of greatest intensity' from the mast, so i think more work needs to be done there, at least a scientific study must be worth doing.
    No-one is saying that we should not investigate these issues. That is a given. But what you appear to be doing is, well to be honest, paranoid and obsessive.

    And you have yet to actually respond to my comments - even if there is scientific evidence that appears at some point in the future showing a causal link between wifi and illnesses, what will the effect be? Nothing will change...

  16. #43
    enjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,485
    Thank Post
    282
    Thanked 196 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Quackers View Post
    The increase in brain tumors IMO is from the increase in Aspartamne in more and more food/drink we digest ie all this nasty "diet" food and drink, as well as it creaping into some normal version of the products now
    I worry about that too - I bought a carton of juice recently from the Co-Op and noticed that it contains a warning to parents that sugars can be dangerous and encouraging them to switch to low-sugar drinks instead. Seriously?!?! Alternatively, why not clean your teeth and excercise?!

  17. #44
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    21

    questions questions........

    questions and more questions.....

    I dont feel that any progress has been made, there are, for me at least lots of unanswered questions. And i will not stop asking questions either, nor be bullied into it either. ( have the NAZI's suddenly taken over ? )
    I am quite happy to admit when i have got things wrong, its good to learn new stuff and move on with more knowledge gained.

    scientific study can only be done when enough things indicate that a study may be possible.

    My stance on wireless is this - ensure you can turn off the wireless access point when not in use.



    its simple really !

  18. #45

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,154
    Thank Post
    114
    Thanked 527 Times in 450 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    It is also generally accepted that visible light does not cause much harm (with the possible exception of eye-damage if the intensity is too great) during the daytime (caveat here as night-time visible light may cause health problems such as breast cancer indirectly by melatonin suppression).
    Are you real???

    Do you know how much damage is caused by visible light?? Have you read anything about the skin cancers caused by over-exposure to visible light (sun burn anyone???)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Unlocking mobile phones
    By edie209 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 24th December 2009, 12:05 AM
  2. Mobile phones in schools
    By gaz350 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 17th October 2008, 07:04 PM
  3. Mobile phones
    By kerrymoralee9280 in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 6th March 2008, 09:11 AM
  4. Mobile Phones - Suggestions?
    By acrobson in forum Hardware
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 9th January 2008, 09:56 AM
  5. Combined WIFI/GSM Phones
    By plexer in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11th September 2007, 07:57 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •