Wifi power levels compared to mobile phones.

[webman]

Shame I can't find a "paranoia" emoticon.

[farmerste]

no there is loads of smilies, but there never seems to be the one you are looking for, the paranoia one is missing, but so is the ' please don't take away my toys' one.

if we like it, it must be safe right ?

 

[bossman]

@farmerste:

 

I think you are right to be alarmed as a NHS study done recently has found that there has been an increase of brain tumours in children between the ages of 8 - 16 by 40%.

 

Now I am not saying that one thing is to blame here but I feel mobile phones have been on the increase over the past 5 years to such an extent that the ages of the young people using them has gone down from the average age of 14 to 12 years which I find quite disturbing.

 

What I find alarming is the use of Wimax transmitters which are so power hungry and about 30-40% efficient being used in clusters around our towns and cities and people are not aware that in America the people around the local areas where these transmitters have been placed have suffered form radiation poisoning and have started legal proceedings against the phone companies who have installed them. I feel it will not be long before these phone companies and ISPs who initiate these wifi solutions will be up to their necks in lawsuits and will go cap in hand to the relative governments to bail them out.

 

Don't get me wrong I am all for communication but in a safe environment for everyone.

 

Bossman

[Hacksawbob]

Just to thread resurrect,

Wireless N is now 'limited' to 1 Watt at a higher frequency.

[jamesb]

What I find alarming is the use of Wimax transmitters which are so power hungry and about 30-40% efficient being used in clusters around our towns and cities and people are not aware that in America the people around the local areas where these transmitters have been placed have suffered form radiation poisoning and have started legal proceedings against the phone companies who have installed them. I feel it will not be long before these phone companies and ISPs who initiate these wifi solutions will be up to their necks in lawsuits and will go cap in hand to the relative governments to bail them out.

 

Now that's quite impressive. Seriously. Managing to get radiation poisoning from a source which is in no way radioactive is a real achievement.

[farmerste]

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.

 

[jamesb]

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.

[localzuk]

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.

[enjay]

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...

 

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.

 

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.

[farmerste]

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.

[farmerste]

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.

[enjay]

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!

[localzuk]

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

 

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!

[jamesb]

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.

[Quackers]

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.....

[farmerste]

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.

[localzuk]

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...

[enjay]

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?!

[farmerste]

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 !

[srochford]

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???)

[localzuk]

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???)

 

Sun burn is not caused by visible light. It is caused by ultra-violet light, which is non-visible.

[localzuk]

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.!

 

Yes, there are questions - but posing them over and over again isn't helping. All you can do is wait. Also, generally it is poor form to start calling people nazis simply because you are losing a debate.

 

And whilst your stance for wireless may be suitable for home users, it is far from practical in an education or business environment.

[farmerste]

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...

 

if you suspect nothing will change if people are aware of rediation emissions, measure the amount from a phone mast at various places, and then measure it from a WAP, and compare the two, obviously you will need to see both when working under load from wireless devices.

Then show this evidence to parents, and see what they think.

 

so the above 'response' answers, i hope , your question. Either peoples perception of wireless dangers will change, or wireless devices will change, eg less of them.

 

And i don't think society is a better place for wireless devices, i can honestly say i have never found a wireless device that performs anywhere as well as a wired device. wired connectivity is known as 'the 5 9's ' that is because it is 99.999% reliable.

[contink]

Yes, there are questions - but posing them over and over again isn't helping. All you can do is wait.

Finally... !

 

Also, generally it is poor form to start calling people nazis simply because you are losing a debate.

I actually think I agree with about 2 of his points so I wouldn't say he's losing totally... more research is required. However 90% of the arguements have bordered on tin hat paranoia and that means the 10% of reliable, useful, or even factual information is completely ignored.

 

Enough already!

[localzuk]

And i don't think society is a better place for wireless devices, i can honestly say i have never found a wireless device that performs anywhere as well as a wired device. wired connectivity is known as 'the 5 9's ' that is because it is 99.999% reliable.

 

This is simply a view that is outdated. Wireless devices are over-taking wired devices in pretty much ever consumer market where connectivity is an issue. There are countries where mobile broadband is more widely used than wired! With the introduction of the next generation of mobile connection technologoy (WiMax and the like), this will only increase usage. Look at the iPhone's success - simply because it is an easy way to stay connected in ways other than just via text/phone services.

 

The bandwidth available for wireless devices is every increasing, the reliability is ever increasing also. A managed wireless system is quite capable of giving you your five 9's reliability (even though 5 9's is actually a myth in itself).