• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 10th November 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Radiation's Health Effects (EM; RF; Nuclear; Mobile Tech; Etc.)

rynner2 said:
Mythopoeika said:
Wallpapering with thick foil would have been cheaper.
Click to expand...
I want to see your calculations on that! 8)

And if she didn't want shiny reflective walls, she'd have to have painted it over anyway!
Click to expand...

:p
 
Whilst maintaining compassion for what clearly is a tragic situation for the girl, her family, and friends, I am (eternally, predictably, but strongly) skeptical about all of this.

Without meaning to be disrespectful, I wonder if her reported symptoms improved if/when the wireless equipment was ever turned off?

I remain unconvinced regarding electrosensitivity. Open minded, willing to see evidence, but very doubtful.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...developing-allergic-reaction-WiFi-school.html

"Schoolgirl, 15, found hanged after 'developing an allergic reaction to the WiFi at her school'
By Hugo Gye for MailOnline14:09 30 Nov 2015, updated 17:24 01 Dec 2015

A schoolgirl was found dead in woodland after suffering an allergic reaction to her school's WiFi that made her life a misery, an inquest heard.

The parents of 15-year-old Jenny Fry claim that she suffered from electro-hypersensitivity (EHS), which caused her to suffer tiredness, headaches and bladder problems.

Her mother Debra told the hearing that Jenny was badly affected by the wireless internet connections at Chipping Norton School in Oxfordshire, where she was a pupil."
 
Last edited:
Indeed, that must be one of the easiest 'conditions' to identify and remedy. My main concern in that particular case, would be how/why the poor girl's obviously troubled mental state was ignored by everyone including her parents.
 
Ermintrude said:
Whilst maintaining compassion for what clearly is a tragic situation for the girl, her family, and friends, I am (eternally, predictably, but strongly) skeptical about all of this.

Without meaning to be direspectful, I wonder if her reported symptoms improved if/when the wireless equipment was ever turned off?

I remain unconvinced regarding electrosensitivity. Open minded, willing to see evidence, but very doubtful.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...developing-allergic-reaction-WiFi-school.html

"Schoolgirl, 15, found hanged after 'developing an allergic reaction to the WiFi at her school'
By Hugo Gye for MailOnline14:09 30 Nov 2015, updated 17:24 01 Dec 2015

A schoolgirl was found dead in woodland after suffering an allergic reaction to her school's WiFi that made her life a misery, an inquest heard.

The parents of 15-year-old Jenny Fry claim that she suffered from electro-hypersensitivity (EHS), which caused her to suffer tiredness, headaches and bladder problems.

Her mother Debra told the hearing that Jenny was badly affected by the wireless internet connections at Chipping Norton School in Oxfordshire, where she was a pupil."
Click to expand...

Given the amount of WiFi hotspots all over the place, was it only the school that affected her?

This is nonsense.

We now will have even more idiots trying to get WiFi banned from schools.

Sorry for parents but their idiocy has to be faced down.

By not bringing Jenny to a doctor they have to share responsibility for her death.
 
ramonmercado said:
Given the amount of WiFi hotspots all over the place, was it only the school that affected her?
Click to expand...

The dense electromagnetic fog that surrounds us all (not just from man-made sources) has never been conclusively shown to directly cause ill-health. Localised heating levels have been noted in some circumstances, also, people can understandably confuse the potential effects of ionising and non-ionising radiation types, but, we've been bathed in radiowaves all our lives.

Is the average human lifespan falling? Are people presenting with consistent testable symptoms relating to wireless mobile phone exposure? Or powerlines?

This girl may sadly have had a wide spectrum of different issues: but not necessarily linked to the radiofrequency spectrum.
 
According to the Standing Committee on Health, June 2015, 41st parliament, second session (Canada), and the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, those that argue that evidence of biological harm from cell and wi-fi radiation is non-existent, are unaware of or willfully ignoring such evidence.

"…the panel concluded that Safety Code 6 avoided established health effects…"
http://www.parl.gc.ca/housepublications/publication.aspx?DocId=8041315

"…the standards-setting agencies ignore the biology," according to Dr. Blank. He describes the FCC as "being in industry‘s pocket."
http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf

Consider this, from the woman who brought you Climate Change:
"[Cell phone and wifi radiation are] the largest unrecognized threat to public health in the world today."
Devra Davis, PhD, Nobel Laureate, Contributing Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(24:00)
 
Is this really a thing. I've never heard of anyone being allergic to wifi waves. I thought they were just like radio waves, harmless.

Maybe this girl just had other problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smithee said:
Is this really a thing. I've never heard of anyone being allergic to wifi waves. I thought they were just like radio waves, harmless.

Maybe this girl just had other problems.
Click to expand...
You are correct wireless wifi is just another radio signal. There's no such thing as being allergic to wifi waves since the wifi signal is a very low amplitude signal. No matter how close you are to the transmitter it can't effect you.

It is possible to get burned by a radio signal if you walked right in front of a high powered military radar.
 
Jim said:
There's no such thing as being allergic to wifi waves since the wifi signal is a very low amplitude signal.
Click to expand...
This is very much my understanding. Whilst some people believe there are dangers from low signal-strength radiofrequency transmissions, there is no evidence at all to support this. Similarly, people who claim electosensitivity (eg purported allergies to electically-powered household appliences, or house powerline cabling) have not been able to demonstrate a blind-test physiological awareness of such equipment being in a powered off or powered on state.

Note that in a proper Fortean style, I don't discount the possibility that somewhere there could somehow be a type of unexplained perception being repeatedly-demonstrable by a very small number of people.

And focusing-in on WiFi....would sufferers exhibit worse or lesser symptoms, if the systems were running at modern 5GHz instead of legacy 2.4GHz? Or, would they somehow claim to be affected by Bluetooth, but not WiFi? Despite partially-shared channels....

Let's also not forget the simple physics of inverse-square reductions for signal field-strength. Double the seperation....quarter the 'exposure'. Move away ten times the distance....signal drops to a hundredth of original level.

I am extremely' skeptical about the actual (not owner-claimed, or believed-to-be-by-customer) value of services such as this....http://electroplague.com/sanctuaries/

COLORADO: EM Sensitivity Research Institute
Click to expand...
in Rockvale, Colorado – This facility is still in the planning stages. According to the website: “The Institute would be located on a campus of 59 acres of presently undeveloped land in Rockvale, Colorado where the ambient fields are relatively low. Sensitives would travel to the Institute and live in specially built cabins. These cabins will operate on 24 VDC and perhaps 380 VDC, but no 60 Hz alternating electricity. Cell phones and WiFi would not be allowed on campus.” Consult the website for further information, updates, and to contact the planners directly.
Click to expand...
 
Jim said:
You are correct wireless wifi is just another radio signal. There's no such thing as being allergic to wifi waves since the wifi signal is a very low amplitude signal. No matter how close you are to the transmitter it can't effect you.

It is possible to get burned by a radio signal if you walked right in front of a high powered military radar.
Click to expand...
Especially in the 60s-80s when receiver sensitivity was quite low, so radars pumped out massive power. My father worked on the Type 80 and the transmitter was accessed via a gantry with safety interlock on the gate to prevent anyone being irradiated. There was an 'incident' when someone overrode the interlock with a technician on the gantry. The radar head did one turn and someone slammed the power off and everyone headed to the gantry heart-in-mouth. The technician was OK, but he said "I knew the radar was on as the fillings in my teeth rattled and my watchstrap got hot."

The chap who overrode the interlock was court-martialled out.
 
When I worked in telecoms, someone told me a story from the early days of radar at defence installations.
Apparently, during cold weather, a guard would go for a crafty smoke on the roof, and he'd found that he could keep warm by standing near the antenna as it rotated.
Somebody discovered him one night and told him that if he'd stood up there for any longer, he'd have been cooked...

OK, that was my half-remembered anecdote, possibly scrambled in transmission.
 
A microwave oven uses a relatively small magnetron. It is pulsed to produced microwaves which then produce a molecular vibration in the food thus resulting in heat.

Some (usually military) radar's also use magnetron tubes but much larger ones that can produce much more peak power say in the 10's of kilowatts. I have seen a high powered magnetron light up the florescent lights in a nearly building.
 
Jim said:
A microwave oven uses a relatively small magnetron. It is pulsed to produced microwaves which then produce a molecular vibration in the food thus resulting in heat.

Some (usually military) radar's also use magnetron tubes but much larger ones that can produce much more peak power say in the 10's of kilowatts. I have seen a high powered magnetron light up the florescent lights in a nearly building.
Click to expand...
The Magnetrons used in Type 80 days were on trolleys.
 
Coal said:
Especially in the 60s-80s when receiver sensitivity was quite low, so radars pumped out massive power.
Click to expand...

Receiver's were much less sensitive in the in the 60's to 80's. The 1st stage in most receiver currently is a LNA "low noise amplifier" which amplifies the signal while contributing only a very small noise contribution of it's own. The transistors and or I.C.'s used in these type of amps weren't available back then.

Also the LO needed to mix with the input received radio signal in order to bring the signal down to a lower more manageable lower frequency. These LO's were much more noisy back then. Now frequency agile low phase noise synthesizers are used in nearly all receivers.

In order to maintain similar range capabilities the only thing that can be done is to increase the transmitted power if the ability to receive a signal is reduced.
 
Jim said:
Receiver's were much less sensitive in the in the 60's to 80's. The 1st stage in most receiver currently is a LNA "low noise amplifier" which amplifies the signal while contributing only a very small noise contribution of it's own. The transistors and or I.C.'s used in these type of amps weren't available back then.

Also the LO needed to mix with the input received radio signal in order to bring the signal down to a lower more manageable lower frequency. These LO's were much more noisy back then. Now frequency agile low phase noise synthesizers are used in nearly all receivers.

In order to maintain similar range capabilities the only thing that can be done is to increase the transmitted power if the ability to receive a signal is reduced.
Click to expand...
Yep, ^this^. I suspect we have overlapping trades @Jim. :cool:

(Although the Smith chart is a giveaway, how I hate those).
 
Well, this is certainly a forum refreshingly free of woo-woo pseudo science - at least relating to 'electro sensitivity'.

However, there is mounting evidence that being in even relatively low EM fields may be bad for us. Although as an RF engineer working for a large British broadcasting corporation, I'm not yet convinced. The electro sensitivity symptoms are so vague as to be caused by almost anything. As far as I know no studies have identified people who can say when they are in a field and when they are not.

The frequency of the field (i.e. 900 MHz from a 2mW wi-fi router or 1 MHz from a 10 kW AM transmitter) I would have thought would be relevant. I suspect the nocebo effect is at work here - i.e. any ill effects are all in the mind, although the mind is a very powerful thing.

Nevertheless I have seen a biologist state that the maximum field strengths deemed harmful at different frequencies are based on the heating effects on the body. He claimed that more subtle effects at cellular levels at much lower field strengths should be considered.

Will he be proved right in 10 years?

Bakelite Brain
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
What keeps the mobile phone in my pocket from basically microwaving my testicles?
 
bakelite brain said:
Well, this is certainly a forum refreshingly free of woo-woo pseudo science - at least relating to 'electro sensitivity'.

However, there is mounting evidence that being in even relatively low EM fields may be bad for us. Although as an RF engineer working for a large British broadcasting corporation, I'm not yet convinced. The electro sensitivity symptoms are so vague as to be caused by almost anything. As far as I know no studies have identified people who can say when they are in a field and when they are not.

The frequency of the field (i.e. 900 MHz from a 2mW wi-fi router or 1 MHz from a 10 kW AM transmitter) I would have thought would be relevant. I suspect the nocebo effect is at work here - i.e. any ill effects are all in the mind, although the mind is a very powerful thing.

Nevertheless I have seen a biologist state that the maximum field strengths deemed harmful at different frequencies are based on the heating effects on the body. He claimed that more subtle effects at cellular levels at much lower field strengths should be considered.

Will he be proved right in 10 years?

Bakelite Brain
Click to expand...

I was an RF-MW research - design engineer for > 18 years, prior to retirement. Working for several international firms such as Harris and Bosch. I will tell everyone out of hand that this bit about low powered Wi-Fi signals generally transmitted around 2.45 GHz, are transmitted at such a low magnitude as not to possible cause health problems.

I worked with signals all my life and often had devices with integral semi -Omni antennae radiating me with 2dBm to 20 dBm. Exposure to low level RF and Microwave is-was common place for engineers, technicians and other lab personal during development and testing of radar and communication devices. Particularly those using integral antenna or antennae. To my knowledge of the thousands of individuals doings such work no reports arose about issues at these power levels.

Years ago I did a study for DARPA on how much radiation it would take to harm an individual with a direct transmission. I don’t remember the results precisely, but it took a bit more than one might expect. The lower RF frequencies tend to cause damage by inducing exterior RF burns. The higher microwave RF signals tend to induce damage by cooking the tissue.
 
There have been cases in the past where radio transmitters have caused people's ears and head to ache. Which of course was picked up by the X-Files. HAARP is now pointed to as being the main culprit. How ever. A Russian radio wave experiment on a state in the US was making people depressed then eventually committing suicide. A new form of warfare. It is stated that the US government knew what was happening, but let it happen, because they wanted to see the out come for themselves.
We have an electric current running through us. New technology can manipulate are way off thinking, by a sent text or e-mail. This technology exists.
 
Maria Olivia Shrieves said:
There have been cases in the past where radio transmitters have caused people's ears and head to ache. Which of course was picked up by the X-Files. HAARP is now pointed to as being the main culprit. How ever. A Russian radio wave experiment on a state in the US was making people depressed then eventually committing suicide. A new form of warfare. It is stated that the US government knew what was happening, but let it happen, because they wanted to see the out come for themselves.
We have an electric current running through us. New technology can manipulate are way off thinking, by a sent text or e-mail. This technology exists.
Click to expand...


HAARP is/was used for ionospheric experiments. It works in the 3 to 10 MHz band. This can be confirmed by an informed look at the antennas. I know it is a widely-held view that HAARP does all sorts of strange things, but apart from investigators who have little or no knowledge of RF power transmission (as detailed in Angels Don't Play This HAARP), there is no real evidence that it does not do what it says it does.

I'd like to know more about the Russian radio wave experiment on a state in the US. It seems unlikely from a number of angles. Are you referring the Soviet Woodpecker transmitter that first burst onto the airwaves in the mid 1970s? There was much ill-informed and fevered speculation in the non-technical media, but it was soon confirmed by radio frequency engineers in Europe and the US to be nothing more than high-power over the horizon radar.

Do you have any sources for the link with this experiment and suicides?

Bakelite Brain
 
Mobile phones linked to cancer in groundbreaking study
'Where people were saying there's no risk, I think this ends that kind of statement'
Siobhan Fenton

A major study has suggested there is a link between mobile phones and cancer. The report is an in-depth peer reviewed study conducted by the US government and represents a significant development in long-running controversy over how mobile phones impact on users' health.

Researchers from the National Toxicology Program exposed male rats to the type of radio frequencies which are commonly emitted by mobile phones. Following this exposure, "low incidences" of two types of tumours were found in the animals in both the brain and the heart. Tumours were not found in rats not exposed to the frequencies.

More than 2,500 rats were experimented on at various intervals over a two year period for the study.

In a report released alongside the study, the researchers said: "Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to [radio-frequency radiation] could have broad implications for public health.”

The study is thought to be one of the largest and most in-depth analyses of mobile phones and cancers, costing the US government $25 million to carry out over the course of several years.
Ron Melnick, a former National Toxicology Program researcher who reviewed the results told the Wall Street Journal: "Where people were saying there's no risk, I think this ends that kind of statement."

The scientific community has been divided on the issue since it was first raised in the early 1990s. Many previous studies have suggested a link between cancer and mobile phone use but have been criticised for methodology or having small sample sizes which may be subsequently subject to bias.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-cancer-new-study-says-it-could-a7051516.html

I've probably mentioned up-thread that my boss (when I worked in a chandlery) got some kind of cancer in his head - and barely a minute of the day passed when he didn't have a phone clamped to his ear.
 
Just watched a rather average Filipino romance flick called 'the girl who was allergic to WiFi' - it's of interest because the plot hangs on electronic hypersensitivity and literal tinfoil hats feature prominently in the movie.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top