Wifi power levels compared to mobile phones.

[farmerste]

don't see how you can lose a debate by asking questions ?

 

all i have heard is the standard response that is generally given by people who ' like their gadgets'

 

i have merely asked a question initially about powerlevels, and range of WAPs and i have along the way discovered lots of things, mostly questions.

 

And i didn't call anyone a nazi, it was used as an example of a regime where asking questions was suppressed.

 

my viewpont hasn't changed, i would like more info, but the area is pretty restricted, as large profits are made from wireless comunications, most probably at the cost of human life, which to me should not be allowed.

 

It is those that shout loudest that get heard, but i like to listen to all viewpoints. Mine is not fixed despite what you might think, it moves !

[localzuk]

don't see how you can lose a debate by asking questions ?

 

all i have heard is the standard response that is generally given by people who ' like their gadgets'

 

 

my viewpont hasn't changed, i would like more info, but the area is pretty restricted, as large profits are made from wireless comunications, most probably at the cost of human life, which to me should not be allowed.

 

You say you are just asking questions, when in fact you have a stand point - that wireless devices are bad as they are most probably costing human life. A neutral stand point would be 'we don't know, so i'll just follow advice as it stands from the independent government investigations, done in various countries'.

 

You also seem to be happy to vilify those of us who think you are obsessing or have any view other than your own ('people who 'like their gadgets', referring to nazis).

 

Your viewpoint won't change because you have your goals set on wireless being proved to be dangerous. You don't seem to be willing to allow normal scientific method to occur - ie. it is not possible to prove something *isn't* dangerous.

[enjay]

WiFi could be dangerous, even with the current research saying it is fine; heck, there are plenty other examples of things which were thought to be good at the time, but subsequently found to be harmful (thalidomide, lead in petrol...). WiFi may be another of these, however one can only (sensibly) act in the light of the current research on the topic, and that states there is no proven risk. If future research proves a risk, then I will act accordingly, both at home and in work. Until then, I will continue doing what I'm doing.

 

More research is required, but I wonder if it is actually possible - as I said earlier, there aren't many people in the developed world who don't live under the exposure of mobile masts and WiFi signals, so I wonder what research can be done without a "control sample".

 

I also wonder what will actually change even if a risk is proven. Will we turn all WiFi and mobiles off? Unlikely. I find it far more likely that we will continue on in the knowledge that they're killing themselves but feeling that the ends justify the means. Much like with smoking, drinking, burning fossil fuels, using pesticide and many other examples.

[broc]

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???)

 

Sunburn is caused by Ultraviolet (UV) light. Ultraviolet is extreme violet light, and it falls just beyond the violet range in the visible spectrum, which means we cannot see it with our eyes.

 

Some forms of glass filter out UV (typically car windscreens), so you might get hot but you should not burn under the right sort of glass.....

 

We all need some UV light to avoid vitamin D deficiency, which causes rickets in children and can cause problems with calcium levels in adults.

 

I agree that overexposure to UV is very harmful (& painful)

[jamesb]

Sunburn is caused by Ultraviolet (UV) light. Ultraviolet is extreme violet light, and it falls just beyond the violet range in the visible spectrum, which means we cannot see it with our eyes.

 

Some forms of glass filter out UV (typically car windscreens), so you might get hot but you should not burn under the right sort of glass.....

 

Pretty much all glass filters it out to a lesser or greater degree, as does water. However its worth remembering that water also reflects UV, so standing in the swimming pool your head and shoulders will burn, and you'll get a nice line to indicate where the water came up to.

 

Skiing has something similar, which is why you should always wear goggles with UV filtering when skiing. Snow-blindness is not fun (basically sunburned retinas).

[farmerste]

i dont have a 'standpoint' but i have a viewpoint, which is flexible, and also moves, my viewpoint is, currently ( but due to change after this point )

 

1- so called 'independant' organisiations are not independant, or could be described as 'industry friendly' at best because of money/funding issues.

 

2- so called scientific 'proof' is purely based around thermal effects of non-ionising radiation ONLY, and ignores any other observed effects

 

3 - I honestly think that emissions from wifi, dect, mobile phone masts, and phones , damage, mutate, cells, that can then lead to cancer and other complications.

 

4- whilst the levels of the damage occured from this radiation may be minor or insignificant for short term use, i suspect that over the long term this radiation is suppressing the human immune system, as with increased coverage of mobile phones, and WAPs we are constantly in this type of radiation. This then suppressed immune system 'fails' to remove or repair damaged cells quickly enough.

 

5 - i do not recommend wireless communication because it is poor, and the devices that usually use it are also poor in my opinion.

 

as you might have noticed the 'latest' OS's are become more and more demanding, this demand requires more powerful CPU's, which in turn give off more heat, thus making devices smaller and smaller becomes harder and harder. I professionally do not recommend any type of wireless 'portable' device over a wired desktop computer, as the portable devices tend to be, expensive, under powered, and less reliable. But that has nothing to do with my viewpoint on wireless communications.

[enjay]

1 - I'll grant you that Ericcson's report is somewhat biassed, but how would you say the HPA are not independent?

 

2 - scientific "proof" may focus largely on thermal effects, but presumably with some foreknowledge that this is the key area of concern. Other non-scientific "proofs" (sp?) focus on people who don't get headaches now they've lined their houses with tin foil. Flawed though they both may be, I know which I favour...

[jamesb]

1- so called 'independant' organisiations are not independant, or could be described as 'industry friendly' at best because of money/funding issues.

 

Correct. Many of the 'independent' organisations which feature in news articles are not in fact independent (well, except from independence from the manufacturers of wi-fi kit, but they tend to be closely allied to those who sell little quartz crystals you can stick to your phone to block the 'harmful' rays). You can tell the ones who are actually scientific organisations because they tend to subject their reports to peer review prior to publication in actual scientific journals, rather than just posting them off to the Sun after ten minutes with a spell checker.

 

2- so called scientific 'proof' is purely based around thermal effects of non-ionising radiation ONLY, and ignores any other observed effects

 

Because there are no other observed effects...hence why they focus only on the observed effects.

 

3 - I honestly think that emissions from wifi, dect, mobile phone masts, and phones , damage, mutate, cells, that can then lead to cancer and other complications.

 

I think that eating brussel sprouts will lead your skin to turn green and your body to begin working through photosynthesis. I have as much peer-reviewed, scientific evidence for this as you do.

 

4- whilst the levels of the damage occured from this radiation may be minor or insignificant for short term use, i suspect that over the long term this radiation is suppressing the human immune system, as with increased coverage of mobile phones, and WAPs we are constantly in this type of radiation. This then suppressed immune system 'fails' to remove or repair damaged cells quickly enough.

 

You're making a very big assumption here. This statement relies on the fact that all of your previous statements are correct, and assumes proof of them. There is no evidence whatsoever of this. Again, I ask where your indications of this are? Lifespan is continuing to increase, if these things really were so harmful that would not be the case.

 

5 - i do not recommend wireless communication because it is poor, and the devices that usually use it are also poor in my opinion.

 

Great. I really don't need your recommendation though I'm afraid. I don't actually have a landline phone at home, because its plain inconvenient. I use my mobile for calls, GPS when walking, a lot of web browsing, and many other purposes. When I need more scaled up access I tend to use my laptop and wireless access point in my house.

 

as you might have noticed the 'latest' OS's are become more and more demanding, this demand requires more powerful CPU's, which in turn give off more heat, thus making devices smaller and smaller becomes harder and harder. I professionally do not recommend any type of wireless 'portable' device over a wired desktop computer, as the portable devices tend to be, expensive, under powered, and less reliable. But that has nothing to do with my viewpoint on wireless communications.

 

How exactly are these two things related at all? I have a desktop computer (which also runs over wireless and functions as my house media server/web server/cocktail inventory/multipurpose device in various ways). The bandwidth my wireless provides is more than enough for any use I'd put it to. A quick count of the wireless devices in my home would be about six devices, all running off a single access point. Putting in wires gains me no speed benefit, as my requirements are reasonable, so the convenience of wireless saves me buying cables and running them all over the house.

 

On top of that my laptops are perfectly reliable, as is my netbook. They were not particularly expensive and have more than enough power for my needs.

 

scientific "proof" may focus largely on thermal effects, but presumably with some foreknowledge that this is the key area of concern. Other non-scientific "proofs" (sp?) focus on people who don't get headaches now they've lined their houses with tin foil. Flawed though they both may be, I know which I favour...

 

Many of these same people who now don't get headaches also don't get headaches if they're unaware that a wireless device is present. Or do get headaches if a device is present but switched off. Or if a fake device with no circuitry is present. I love studies like this.

 

And don't forget. Sticking a small crystal to the speaker (only £19.99) prevents all of the harmful radiation doing you any damage.

[farmerste]

 

 

 

Because there are no other observed effects...hence why they focus only on the observed effects.

 

 

 

QUOTE]

 

There are no effects if you IGNORE them, of course not.

 

 

just as a bit more info about background radiation :-

 

At the frequency of 1800 MHz, the ICNIRP level for maximum exposure which applies in the UK is 58 V/m. By comparison in Switzerland, Italy, Russia and China the guideline level is 6 V/m and in Salzburg it is 0.06 V/m.

(The natural cosmic background levels which mankind has evolved in are 0.00000002 V/m.)

[jamesb]

There are no effects if you IGNORE them, of course not.

 

So, what exactly are these other effects? All you've said so far is that they haven't been/can't be measured.

 

just as a bit more info about background radiation :-

 

At the frequency of 1800 MHz, the ICNIRP level for maximum exposure which applies in the UK is 58 V/m. By comparison in Switzerland, Italy, Russia and China the guideline level is 6 V/m and in Salzburg it is 0.06 V/m.

(The natural cosmic background levels which mankind has evolved in are 0.00000002 V/m.)

 

The electric field strength of the earth's magnetic field, around ground level, is about 120 V/m.

 

Please note by the way that V/m is a measure of electro-magnetic field strength. Not a measure of the energy content of electro-magnetic radiation.

Edited June 1, 2009 by jamesb

[farmerste]

firstly let me say, if you 'google' dangers of mobile phones, and wifi , you will recieve a lot of 'so called' science which, underlying all this is someone trying to sell you something. But if you are prepared to dig deeper, i think you can find some good research work that has been done. I am trying to find more links on the web for you to peruse, but i have found a lot have vanished.

maybe this might be a good one that give links and references to 'papers' and studies

 

Powerwatch News - 11/05/2009 - April 2009 - Science Update

 

Also i am using the term 'radiation' to describe frequencies in the Ghz spectrum, i think the densities you quoted are in a much lower area of frequency.

 

but have a look online at the range of videos available, i have an interesting mp3 of a radio show, but the link doesn't seem to work anymore, but i'll try again later.

[srochford]

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

 

I do know that - I can't believe I actually wrote such nonsense!

 

Can I claim that my account has been hacked as a defence :-)

[farmerste]

i found that link to the radio programme about health risks from mobile phones, it is quite long, but it covers a lot of areas.

 

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/the_science_of_rfr_health_risks.mp3

 

hope the link works

[jamesb]

i found that link to the radio programme about health risks from mobile phones, it is quite long, but it covers a lot of areas.

 

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/the_science_of_rfr_health_risks.mp3

 

hope the link works

 

Unfortunately I can't listen to an MP3 at work, and I struggle to see a radio programme as a valid source of scientific evidence anyhow.

 

Maybe a peer-reviewed paper somewhere?

[farmerste]

you might not think that, and the show takes around 5 minutes to get going, but trust me its worth a listen, the professor is a world authority in his area.

 

there are also links to papers in the previous website address, and also executive summaries of those papers.