[LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Lincoln mailing list
Here are the Federal Communications Commission’s conclusions about the safety of wireless communication devices: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns
--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Annamaria San Antonio-2
Sir,
Sadly, the FCC is NOT the authority on the potential risks of this technology.  The maximum allowable SAR levels that they have set do not cover it !  Germany is far ahead of us in understanding the threats to public health and safety.  We must understand that our perception of whether such technology is affecting us may be greatly mitigated by our dependency on it. Myriad of reasons why we all respond differently but if it hurts only one, it hurts us all. Let us open our minds to the potential risks and dangers - an inconvenient truth to be sure.  Come to the forum today and be informed about ways to best protect ourselves and our communities and how to live symbiotically with this technology. 
~Jai Kaur


On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 9:33 AM Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
Here are the Federal Communications Commission’s conclusions about the safety of wireless communication devices: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns
--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Kati Winchell
One of the topics to be discussed at today’s regional public forum on Wireless Technology  are the specifics
of how and why the referenced FCC safety rules are outdated and inaccurate.

Please come and learn more, 2-5pm at Willard School in Concord.

On Jan 12, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Annamaria San Antonio <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sir,
Sadly, the FCC is NOT the authority on the potential risks of this technology.  The maximum allowable SAR levels that they have set do not cover it !  Germany is far ahead of us in understanding the threats to public health and safety.  We must understand that our perception of whether such technology is affecting us may be greatly mitigated by our dependency on it. Myriad of reasons why we all respond differently but if it hurts only one, it hurts us all. Let us open our minds to the potential risks and dangers - an inconvenient truth to be sure.  Come to the forum today and be informed about ways to best protect ourselves and our communities and how to live symbiotically with this technology. 
~Jai Kaur


On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 9:33 AM Edward Young via Lincoln <[hidden email]> wrote:
Here are the Federal Communications Commission’s conclusions about the safety of wireless communication devices: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns
--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.



--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Andrew Payne
In reply to this post by Annamaria San Antonio-2
 
Let us open our minds to the potential risks and dangers - an inconvenient truth to be sure.  Come to the forum today and be informed about ways to best protect ourselves and our communities and how to live symbiotically with this technology. 

I believe it's very important to understand the risks of wireless technology.

But for this forum, much of the information offered is heavily biased, sensationalized, and/or omitting important context and details or, worse, providing outright misrepresentations.

For example, one of the presenters, Devra Davis, founded EHTrust.org, which offers a "safe cell phone use briefing book", which presents a "documented risk":

U.S. brain cancer registries are showing an increase in frontal and temporal lobe
tumors, the parts of the brain most affected by cell phone use. (Zada et al, 2012)

But if we actually look at the cited report, it only talks about small increases in frontal and temporal tumor incidences, while other brain cancers have actually decreased.

A different report, using the same data, came to a more specific conclusion:

[...]
No increases were apparent for temporal or parietal lobe cancers, or cancers of the cerebellum, which involve the parts of the brain that would be more highly exposed to radiofrequency radiation from cellular phones. Frontal lobe cancer rates also rose among 20–29-year-old males, but the increase began earlier than among females and before cell phone use was highly prevalent. Overall, these incidence data do not provide support to the view that cellular phone use causes brain cancer.

(Emphasis added)

In another example, recent research found that long-term, high-power 2G/3G frequencies (900mhz) did cause:
  • Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
BUT, but, but if you read the details, these rats were exposed to radio-frequency radiation for 18 hrs/day, 7 days/week, for two years.   They were exposed at power levels ("SAR") of 1.5, 3, and 6 W/kg throughout their entire body.  (Compare to current US limits of 0.08 W/kg for whole-body and 1.6 W/kg peak/localized, and 2 W/kg for Germany).

To replicate this risk, you'd have to have a cell phone (or several) strapped to your head for every waking minute (and then some!), with the cell radio at non-stop full power and Bluetooth and Wifi operating constantly...for two years.

It's well-established science that high-power, long-term RF exposure causes cancer and other health problems.  But like our recent leaf blower health discussion, it's all about power levels, distances, and durations.  Long-term, "up close" exposure health risk doesn't automatically mean danger-at-a-distance.  Stated differently, just about anything in excess (like x-rays) causes cancer.

The real question:  do our actual (and future) RF exposures put us in a danger zone?

I support continued research and being mindful of risks we don't yet fully understand.   But I hope our discussion and policies are informed by a fair, accurate, objective, and balanced understanding of the facts.  

-andy


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Diana Abrashkin
Hi Andy -- Way back when ('60's and '70's), I was totally addicted to rock n roll. I went to live performances and stood right next to the giant speakers because I wanted to "feel" the music in my body, the way you can feel the organ music in a church with the right acoustics. Well, I started losing my hearing by age 40, which is premature and needed hearing aids at 60..

Nobody talked about the risks of amplifiers then, so I say that FWIW all the fears or doubts about cellphone use should  now be explored and documented thoroughly... Cheers, Diana

Diana Abrashkin, Registered Architect 

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 12:15 PM Andrew Payne <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
Let us open our minds to the potential risks and dangers - an inconvenient truth to be sure.  Come to the forum today and be informed about ways to best protect ourselves and our communities and how to live symbiotically with this technology. 

I believe it's very important to understand the risks of wireless technology.

But for this forum, much of the information offered is heavily biased, sensationalized, and/or omitting important context and details or, worse, providing outright misrepresentations.

For example, one of the presenters, Devra Davis, founded EHTrust.org, which offers a "safe cell phone use briefing book", which presents a "documented risk":

U.S. brain cancer registries are showing an increase in frontal and temporal lobe
tumors, the parts of the brain most affected by cell phone use. (Zada et al, 2012)

But if we actually look at the cited report, it only talks about small increases in frontal and temporal tumor incidences, while other brain cancers have actually decreased.

A different report, using the same data, came to a more specific conclusion:

[...]
No increases were apparent for temporal or parietal lobe cancers, or cancers of the cerebellum, which involve the parts of the brain that would be more highly exposed to radiofrequency radiation from cellular phones. Frontal lobe cancer rates also rose among 20–29-year-old males, but the increase began earlier than among females and before cell phone use was highly prevalent. Overall, these incidence data do not provide support to the view that cellular phone use causes brain cancer.

(Emphasis added)

In another example, recent research found that long-term, high-power 2G/3G frequencies (900mhz) did cause:
  • Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
BUT, but, but if you read the details, these rats were exposed to radio-frequency radiation for 18 hrs/day, 7 days/week, for two years.   They were exposed at power levels ("SAR") of 1.5, 3, and 6 W/kg throughout their entire body.  (Compare to current US limits of 0.08 W/kg for whole-body and 1.6 W/kg peak/localized, and 2 W/kg for Germany).

To replicate this risk, you'd have to have a cell phone (or several) strapped to your head for every waking minute (and then some!), with the cell radio at non-stop full power and Bluetooth and Wifi operating constantly...for two years.

It's well-established science that high-power, long-term RF exposure causes cancer and other health problems.  But like our recent leaf blower health discussion, it's all about power levels, distances, and durations.  Long-term, "up close" exposure health risk doesn't automatically mean danger-at-a-distance.  Stated differently, just about anything in excess (like x-rays) causes cancer.

The real question:  do our actual (and future) RF exposures put us in a danger zone?

I support continued research and being mindful of risks we don't yet fully understand.   But I hope our discussion and policies are informed by a fair, accurate, objective, and balanced understanding of the facts.  

-andy

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Dennis Liu

Diana wrote:  >Nobody talked about the risks of amplifiers then, so I say that FWIW all the fears or doubts about cellphone use should  now be explored and documented thoroughly...

 

It should be noted that, as Andy Payne pointed out, there HAS BEEN many, many, many studies about any possible exposure risk to radiation from cellphones and other modern technology (e.g., wifi). 

 

Furthermore, it is now well known that continued, repetitive exposure to very loud sound sources, whether vocationally or in recreation, can cause hearing impairment and loss.  We should definitely take precautions when engaged in such activities, whether it’s wearing ear protection, avoiding sources of loud noises, or not having the volume cranked all the way up on one’s headphones/earpieces.

 

HOWEVER, it should be pointed out that (1) even back in the 60s and 70s, hearing loss due to exposure was widely known; some simply chose to ignore the warnings and indulge in what made them happy; and

 

>”In the latter half of the 20th century, many governments imposed regulations to limit workers' exposure to loud sounds. Because of this recent action, some people may believe that the recognition of occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is relatively new. However, a review of selected historical and medical manuscripts, books, and articles show that the association of hearing changes with loud noise exposure was recognized for centuries before systematic attempts were made to limit the exposure. “  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22821731

 

(2) it’s a very different situation between those who are exposed to these loud sources on a constant, regular level (e.g., playing in a band and standing in front of giant speakers 200 nights per year for decades), and those who attended a few dozen shows over the course of young adulthood.

 

>Given the worrying implications of hidden hearing loss caused by recreational noise, Le Prell and her team assessed neural function and hearing performance in young adults before and after attending a loud recreational event. Different people attended different types of events, which included a concert, a multi-day music festival, a bar with live or electronic music, and a movie. The team also looked for any relationship between the participants’ history of noise exposure in the previous 12 months and their baseline “before” assessments.

 

The study, published in open-access journal Frontiers in Neuroscience, is the first to prospectively monitor potential hearing change: Previous studies have only examined this retrospectively based on self-reported noise exposure history. In another first, the participants used a smartphone app to measure the sound level during the recreational event. The tests included assessments of middle ear, cochlear and auditory nerve function, determination of the hearing threshold level, and a Words-in-Noise test to evaluate how well the participants could understand speech in background noise.

 

The team did not find any statistically significant relationship between retrospective recreational noise history and neural function. While a temporary threshold shift was observed within 24 hours of attending the recreational event, the effect was generally small and had disappeared one week later. Similarly, while Words-in-Noise performance was lower one day after the event, there was no significant effect one week later. There was also no evidence of neural injury following the recreational event, either within 24 hours of the event or one week later.

 

“Despite multiple calls for alarm in the media and in the scientific literature, we found no evidence that typical recreational noise exposure is associated with permanent decreased auditory nerve function or poorer understanding of speech when there is background noise,” says Dr Le Prell.  https://blog.frontiersin.org/2017/10/02/frontiers-in-neuroscience-hearing-loss-from-loud-noise-music-concerts/

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Diana Abrashkin
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 1:27 PM
To: Andrew Payne <[hidden email]>; John Avault <[hidden email]>; Lincoln Talk <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

 

Hi Andy -- Way back when ('60's and '70's), I was totally addicted to rock n roll. I went to live performances and stood right next to the giant speakers because I wanted to "feel" the music in my body, the way you can feel the organ music in a church with the right acoustics. Well, I started losing my hearing by age 40, which is premature and needed hearing aids at 60..

 

Nobody talked about the risks of amplifiers then, so I say that FWIW all the fears or doubts about cellphone use should  now be explored and documented thoroughly... Cheers, Diana

 

Diana Abrashkin, Registered Architect 

 

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 12:15 PM Andrew Payne <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Let us open our minds to the potential risks and dangers - an inconvenient truth to be sure.  Come to the forum today and be informed about ways to best protect ourselves and our communities and how to live symbiotically with this technology. 

 

I believe it's very important to understand the risks of wireless technology.

 

But for this forum, much of the information offered is heavily biased, sensationalized, and/or omitting important context and details or, worse, providing outright misrepresentations.

 

For example, one of the presenters, Devra Davis, founded EHTrust.org, which offers a "safe cell phone use briefing book", which presents a "documented risk":

 

U.S. brain cancer registries are showing an increase in frontal and temporal lobe

tumors, the parts of the brain most affected by cell phone use. (Zada et al, 2012)

 

But if we actually look at the cited report, it only talks about small increases in frontal and temporal tumor incidences, while other brain cancers have actually decreased.

 

A different report, using the same data, came to a more specific conclusion:

 

[...]

No increases were apparent for temporal or parietal lobe cancers, or cancers of the cerebellum, which involve the parts of the brain that would be more highly exposed to radiofrequency radiation from cellular phones. Frontal lobe cancer rates also rose among 20–29-year-old males, but the increase began earlier than among females and before cell phone use was highly prevalent. Overall, these incidence data do not provide support to the view that cellular phone use causes brain cancer.

 

(Emphasis added)

 

In another example, recent research found that long-term, high-power 2G/3G frequencies (900mhz) did cause:

  • Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.

BUT, but, but if you read the details, these rats were exposed to radio-frequency radiation for 18 hrs/day, 7 days/week, for two years.   They were exposed at power levels ("SAR") of 1.5, 3, and 6 W/kg throughout their entire body.  (Compare to current US limits of 0.08 W/kg for whole-body and 1.6 W/kg peak/localized, and 2 W/kg for Germany).

 

To replicate this risk, you'd have to have a cell phone (or several) strapped to your head for every waking minute (and then some!), with the cell radio at non-stop full power and Bluetooth and Wifi operating constantly...for two years.

 

It's well-established science that high-power, long-term RF exposure causes cancer and other health problems.  But like our recent leaf blower health discussion, it's all about power levels, distances, and durations.  Long-term, "up close" exposure health risk doesn't automatically mean danger-at-a-distance.  Stated differently, just about anything in excess (like x-rays) causes cancer.

 

The real question:  do our actual (and future) RF exposures put us in a danger zone?

 

I support continued research and being mindful of risks we don't yet fully understand.   But I hope our discussion and policies are informed by a fair, accurate, objective, and balanced understanding of the facts.  

 

-andy

 

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety

Kati Winchell
In reply to this post by Andrew Payne
Over 200 people attended yesterday's public forum on Wireless Technology in Our Midst: The Risks & Solutions.  A link to the video of the program will be made available as soon as it’s ready, so those who couldn’t attend can see it themselves, should they wish.

I’d like to address a number of points in this stream, but for now I offer this explanation for why the FCC Safety Rules (which are applied to wireless technologies) are outdated and inadequate: https://ehtrust.org/policy/fcc-safety-standards/

The co-founder and president of the above website, Environmental Health Trust, is Dr. Devra Davis, one of the six speakers at yesterday’s forum.

Kati



--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety: cellphones vs ISM

Roy Harvey-2
Hi Kati,

Thanks for the link to the vast trove of info on cellphone safety.

I agree that putting a transmitter next to your head to talk to a cellphone tower a mile away is not something to do for long periods of time (especially if the tower is on the other side of your head from the phone and there are a lot of trees in the way, as in Lincoln).

But the people at the forum yesterday were against all wireless, including:
  • Utility meter reading, where the meter's transmitter is on the outside of your house, tens of feet away from you
  • Home IoT devices like Amazon Echo, which are feet or tens of feet from you and only need enough transmit power to reach a few tens of feet
  • WiFi, which is usually at least feet away from you (excepting things like Apple Watch, which I never saw the point of anyway) and only needs enough transmit power to span tens of feet.

Devices using WiFi, Zigbee (eg Echo) and similar technologies use the Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) frequency band, which the FCC regulates. This band is unlicensed, so anyone can use it if they follow the regulations.  Potentially a lot of ISM devices can occupy a home or other setting.  The FCC set the emission limits very low so the devices don't interfere with one another.  (Interfering devices have to cease operating, which would reduce the RF power level in the area.)  Because power density decreases as the square of the distance, and the distances between ISM devices and you are so much greater than between your cellphone and you (say, meters vs mm), the received power level is much lower, even from a multitude of transmitters.

If there's credible peer-reviewed data showing that ISM data transmissions such as WiFi are hazardous, I'd be interested to read it.

The wireless opponents yesterday proposed wired connections as an alternative.  I didn't hear them address the health and environmental damage from copper mining, RF emissions from overhead cables, and other relevant aspects of wired networks.

Best regards,
Roy
On January 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kati Winchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

Over 200 people attended yesterday's public forum on Wireless Technology in Our Midst: The Risks & Solutions.  A link to the video of the program will be made available as soon as it’s ready, so those who couldn’t attend can see it themselves, should they wish.

I’d like to address a number of points in this stream, but for now I offer this explanation for why the FCC Safety Rules (which are applied to wireless technologies) are outdated and inadequate:  https://ehtrust.org/policy/fcc-safety-standards/

The co-founder and president of the above website, Environmental Health Trust, is Dr. Devra Davis, one of the six speakers at yesterday’s forum.

Kati


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


 

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety: cellphones vs ISM

Dennis Liu

Great points, Roy.  If anyone is interested, the National Cancer Institute at the NIH has a resource page here:  https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

 

Bottom line:  there’s very, very little evidence to support the theory that cell phone use results in a greater risk of cancer; there are many, many studies to show that there is no such association.  Take a look for yourself.

 

Same too for the American Cancer Society:  https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html

 

And for those of us that are utterly determined to find risk everywhere . . . please keep this in mind.

 

Any potential risk of an elevation in cancer rates from cellphone use is UTTERLY, MASSIVELY dwarfed by . . . exposure to the sun.  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/the-big-cancer-risk-is-the-sun-not-the-cellphone/article4251734/

 

Thus, if one is well and truly convinced that using a cell phone (or wifi or what have you) is a real danger to yourself, and you shun this technology, then, for logical consistency, you should never, ever expose yourself to sunlight, in whatever degree.  Because enjoying yourself for an hour or two in the sun exposes you to far more radiation (including ionizing radiation, whereas cellphones produce none) than making a call.

 

BTW, here’s a very illustrative chart to help visualize radiation risks:  https://xkcd.com/radiation/  (also attached below)

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

cid:image001.png@01D5CA27.BA259C60

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ROY HARVEY
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 3:20 PM
To: Kati Winchell <[hidden email]>
Cc: Lincoln Talk <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety: cellphones vs ISM

 

Hi Kati,

 

Thanks for the link to the vast trove of info on cellphone safety.

 

I agree that putting a transmitter next to your head to talk to a cellphone tower a mile away is not something to do for long periods of time (especially if the tower is on the other side of your head from the phone and there are a lot of trees in the way, as in Lincoln).

 

But the people at the forum yesterday were against all wireless, including:

  • Utility meter reading, where the meter's transmitter is on the outside of your house, tens of feet away from you
  • Home IoT devices like Amazon Echo, which are feet or tens of feet from you and only need enough transmit power to reach a few tens of feet
  • WiFi, which is usually at least feet away from you (excepting things like Apple Watch, which I never saw the point of anyway) and only needs enough transmit power to span tens of feet.

 

Devices using WiFi, Zigbee (eg Echo) and similar technologies use the Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) frequency band, which the FCC regulates. This band is unlicensed, so anyone can use it if they follow the regulations.  Potentially a lot of ISM devices can occupy a home or other setting.  The FCC set the emission limits very low so the devices don't interfere with one another.  (Interfering devices have to cease operating, which would reduce the RF power level in the area.)  Because power density decreases as the square of the distance, and the distances between ISM devices and you are so much greater than between your cellphone and you (say, meters vs mm), the received power level is much lower, even from a multitude of transmitters.

 

If there's credible peer-reviewed data showing that ISM data transmissions such as WiFi are hazardous, I'd be interested to read it.

 

The wireless opponents yesterday proposed wired connections as an alternative.  I didn't hear them address the health and environmental damage from copper mining, RF emissions from overhead cables, and other relevant aspects of wired networks.

 

Best regards,

Roy

On January 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kati Winchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

Over 200 people attended yesterday's public forum on Wireless Technology in Our Midst: The Risks & Solutions.  A link to the video of the program will be made available as soon as it’s ready, so those who couldn’t attend can see it themselves, should they wish.

 

I’d like to address a number of points in this stream, but for now I offer this explanation for why the FCC Safety Rules (which are applied to wireless technologies) are outdated and inadequate:  https://ehtrust.org/policy/fcc-safety-standards/

 

The co-founder and president of the above website, Environmental Health Trust, is Dr. Devra Davis, one of the six speakers at yesterday’s forum.

 

Kati

 


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


 


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety: cellphones vs ISM

Louis Zipes
Stop changing the Subject line.  Now I have to also 'mute' this conversation.    #lincolntalkproblems

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 3:42 PM Dennis Liu <[hidden email]> wrote:

Great points, Roy.  If anyone is interested, the National Cancer Institute at the NIH has a resource page here:  https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

 

Bottom line:  there’s very, very little evidence to support the theory that cell phone use results in a greater risk of cancer; there are many, many studies to show that there is no such association.  Take a look for yourself.

 

Same too for the American Cancer Society:  https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html

 

And for those of us that are utterly determined to find risk everywhere . . . please keep this in mind.

 

Any potential risk of an elevation in cancer rates from cellphone use is UTTERLY, MASSIVELY dwarfed by . . . exposure to the sun.  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/the-big-cancer-risk-is-the-sun-not-the-cellphone/article4251734/

 

Thus, if one is well and truly convinced that using a cell phone (or wifi or what have you) is a real danger to yourself, and you shun this technology, then, for logical consistency, you should never, ever expose yourself to sunlight, in whatever degree.  Because enjoying yourself for an hour or two in the sun exposes you to far more radiation (including ionizing radiation, whereas cellphones produce none) than making a call.

 

BTW, here’s a very illustrative chart to help visualize radiation risks:  https://xkcd.com/radiation/  (also attached below)

 

Vty,

 

--Dennis

 

cid:image001.png@01D5CA27.BA259C60

 

From: Lincoln <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of ROY HARVEY
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 3:20 PM
To: Kati Winchell <[hidden email]>
Cc: Lincoln Talk <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Wireless technology safety: cellphones vs ISM

 

Hi Kati,

 

Thanks for the link to the vast trove of info on cellphone safety.

 

I agree that putting a transmitter next to your head to talk to a cellphone tower a mile away is not something to do for long periods of time (especially if the tower is on the other side of your head from the phone and there are a lot of trees in the way, as in Lincoln).

 

But the people at the forum yesterday were against all wireless, including:

  • Utility meter reading, where the meter's transmitter is on the outside of your house, tens of feet away from you
  • Home IoT devices like Amazon Echo, which are feet or tens of feet from you and only need enough transmit power to reach a few tens of feet
  • WiFi, which is usually at least feet away from you (excepting things like Apple Watch, which I never saw the point of anyway) and only needs enough transmit power to span tens of feet.

 

Devices using WiFi, Zigbee (eg Echo) and similar technologies use the Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) frequency band, which the FCC regulates. This band is unlicensed, so anyone can use it if they follow the regulations.  Potentially a lot of ISM devices can occupy a home or other setting.  The FCC set the emission limits very low so the devices don't interfere with one another.  (Interfering devices have to cease operating, which would reduce the RF power level in the area.)  Because power density decreases as the square of the distance, and the distances between ISM devices and you are so much greater than between your cellphone and you (say, meters vs mm), the received power level is much lower, even from a multitude of transmitters.

 

If there's credible peer-reviewed data showing that ISM data transmissions such as WiFi are hazardous, I'd be interested to read it.

 

The wireless opponents yesterday proposed wired connections as an alternative.  I didn't hear them address the health and environmental damage from copper mining, RF emissions from overhead cables, and other relevant aspects of wired networks.

 

Best regards,

Roy

On January 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Kati Winchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

Over 200 people attended yesterday's public forum on Wireless Technology in Our Midst: The Risks & Solutions.  A link to the video of the program will be made available as soon as it’s ready, so those who couldn’t attend can see it themselves, should they wish.

 

I’d like to address a number of points in this stream, but for now I offer this explanation for why the FCC Safety Rules (which are applied to wireless technologies) are outdated and inadequate:  https://ehtrust.org/policy/fcc-safety-standards/

 

The co-founder and president of the above website, Environmental Health Trust, is Dr. Devra Davis, one of the six speakers at yesterday’s forum.

 

Kati

 


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


 

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [hidden email].
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.