Wi-Fi

[Foxie Loxie]

Hello All! A question for anyone who might understand about these things. I live in small trailer & have WI-FI so I can use the laptop at either end. Could this be affecting my health in any way? :idea:

[uzn]

Yup, remember the hysteria when it became apparent that mobiles have lots of microwave-radiation and the public started debating about it. Now WiFi transmitts 4-6 times stronger than any mobile. If you are very sensitive you should switch the router(WiFi) off when not surfing. But also remember that if u live in normal House in a city there are at least 20 WiFi atennas nearby.

[ThePythonicCow]

Hello All! A question for anyone who might understand about these things. I live in small trailer & have WI-FI so I can use the laptop at either end. Could this be affecting my health in any way? :idea:

Like many things, the human body has a wide tolerance for harmful effects, but not an infinite tolerance.

Indeed, the body grows healthiest when it has to adapt to some toxic food, water, air, and electronic emissions. It's healthier to eat a little dirt than to live in sterile isolation.

Wi-Fi does effect the body, of that I'm pretty sure. How much varies by person, and where they are on the curve of health. For a few, the effects of Wi-Fi can be quite noticeable and not appreciated.

Personally, I have never consciously noticed any effects of Wi-Fi or other high frequency pollution ... but still I turn off my Wi-Fi when I am not using it, on general principles :).

[Bill Ryan]

.
Proximity is a major factor in any exposure to anything. :)

It's best not to sleep with a router next to your pillow! (That's a joke.) But if the router (which is the thing that broadcasts the Wifi signal) is way removed from where you usually are, your devices should pick up the signal well, but your body won't really notice at all.

It's like sound, and Wifi attenuates (decreases with distance) in the same way. If I'm right next to you and I whisper in your ear, you'll pick up what I'm saying loudly and clearly. But if I'm at the other end of your trailer, you'd not even know that I was ever whispering anything at all. :star:

[Ted]

Bill's right, signal strength decreases exponentially with distance. You get a lot more RF exposure from a cell phone right next to your body than from a router a few feet away.
Living in a trailer with aluminum siding might have a higher overall level of radiation due to the reflection off the aluminum. There are cheap little RF detectors to measure signal strength which you can buy if you're concerned. As was mentioned above, if you're in good health and don't notice any ill effects I wouldn't worry about it. We are constantly bombarded with all kinds of radiation which the body seems to cope with.

[AriG]

Hello All! A question for anyone who might understand about these things. I live in small trailer & have WI-FI so I can use the laptop at either end. Could this be affecting my health in any way? :idea:

I will bow to the more technical expertise noted here on Wi-Fi, but.. I do know this. A little background.

When we moved to our land and began building our Barndo, we purchased a small RV in which to "flop" during construction. We did this as it was easier than driving from the city every day to work. Within 30 days of living in the RV, I was horribly sick. The gases and formaldehydes used in trailers is incredibly toxic. I would encourage you to do some research if you are not feeling well. Luckily, we only used the trailer for about 60 days, but it was quite detrimental to my health (incidentally, I have Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, Encephalopathy and lupus). If you are feeling "off", you may want to investigate your RV or trailer. I also see that you are in Central NY. How in the world do you survive winter in a trailer? You must be made of really tough stuff :) Anyhow, don't want to scare you, but do look into the air quality in your trailer. xoxo

[ThePythonicCow]

Bill's right, signal strength decreases exponentially with distance. You get a lot more RF exposure from a cell phone right next to your body than from a router a few feet away.
The laptop that's connected by Wi-Fi will also generate signal ... normal interaction over the Web sends data both ways, and Wi-Fi links have underlying signals being sent, just to stay connected, even when not actually sending any data.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


When we moved to our land and began building our Barndo, we purchased a small RV in which to "flop" during construction. We did this as it was easier than driving from the city every day to work. Within 30 days of living in the RV, I was horribly sick. The gases and formaldehydes used in trailers is incredibly toxic.
New trailers can be especially bad for formaldehyde.

When I bought the trailer I live in, brand new 8 years ago, I was fortunate to be able to leave it unoccupied for over a month, with all the windows and interior doors wide open, and several fans blowing air hither and yon, to "air" it out some.

[sirdipswitch]

Hey Foxie!! Thanx fer thread and asking this question!!!

And THANX ALL... for all the great replies!!!!!!

I been wonderin this very same question!!

Still tryin to figure out how to do what... with this here new puter... that is now hooked up with---WIFI !!!

And of course I been wonderin about all the scarry stuff I been readin right here about all the harmful effects of WIFI.

I told George I been wonderin about this stuff... and He just chuckles and says:

"Yae, and sometimes I wonder about You." :wizard:
grrrr...hate when He does that...ccc

[uzn]

For local PC´s and Laptops that are always at the same desk i would use a Lan-cable to the router and skip WiFi altogether. Doesn´t really work for Tablets or if u change ur location much. Always remember, very many military radaroperators have gotten cancer not so long after their service.

[Foxie Loxie]

Thanks to all for the answers! Actually, we had a mild winter up here this year; so I'm not complaining. At least I can get my windows open for a bit now & then this Spring. ;)

[justntime2learn]

This just doesn't sound like a good Idea ...

"WiFi on Wheels Puts Two Districts on the Fast Track to 24/7 Access Internet-enabled school buses keep students connected on the road, in school parking lots and in their own neighborhoods."

https://thejournal.com/~/media/EDU/THEJournal/Images/2015/04/20150430_WiFi%20Buses.jpg

Link:https://thejournal.com/articles/2015/04/30/wifi-on-wheels.aspx

[Mike]

It depends on your health.

Ive mentioned many times this mitochondrial disease im dealing with. If I handle a smart phone for over 45 mins, or a laptop, I will experience unpleasant symtoms for days or even weeks.

My brain will become muddled and slow....and my heart will feel like a black hole-unfathomably empty and devoid of energy.

I have to operate in fits n spurts on the net.

Healthy people on the other hand feel nothing, and can go on internetting for hours n hours without symptoms.. But I have no doubt that wifi radiation is working on their systems in a harmful way...they just don't feel it

[Nick Matkin]

From an engineering background, I can confirm what others have said, that the field strength falls rapidly with distance - known as the inverse square law. If you double the distance you quarter the field strength.

I and my colleagues have worked for decades in radio fields-strengths orders of magnitude higher than the public are ever exposed to. We are all still fit and healthy - at the moment! We tend to look at all these health scares about low-level EMF radiation with scepticism; we tend to think there are psychological aspects at work here (the nocebo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo)effect), though I think it is possible a very few people might be sensitive. If you really are one of those people, living with wi-fi in what amounts to a metal box - with you in it - may be a bad idea.

I don't bother to switch off my wi-fi at night, even though it's in the bedroom...

(This probably goes against what most people on this forum want to believe, but it is my experience.)

[3(C)+me]

From what I can tell these fields often have long term effects, for instance, you if start using a cell phone at age 16 and talk on it many times a day putting it close to your ear in a good 10/20 years you may find a cancerous growth on the phone side of your ear. This is already been reported. Some time a few years ago their was a article on how wall street investors who have a cell glued to their ear were coming down with a particular type of head cancer to one side of the head. George Noory talks about his sister's death by this type of cancer. So things are beginning to leak out despite the MSM blackout on this type of news.
But for me the real question is what forces are behind the pushing of the electronic pollution on us relabeling it as progressive and fun.
To me that is the red flag.
Remember these guys are control freaks.

[Nick Matkin]

[...] But for me the real question is what forces are behind the pushing of the electronic pollution on us [...]


That'll be the public's appetite for easily available information at almost any place, any time, although most people are ill equipped to assess the quality of the information. (But that's another story entirely.)

[TargeT]

[...] But for me the real question is what forces are behind the pushing of the electronic pollution on us [...]


That'll be the public's appetite for easily available information at almost any place, any time,


No conspiracy here.. sunlight is more "dangerous" than WIFI.


I feel confident stating that 99.99999% of people will have absolutely no effect from being around WIFI; leaving a very very small margin for some freak of probability.


There are MANY other places to start looking when one is concerned with health, diet should be first (and second, and third, and fourth).



although most people are ill equipped to assess the quality of the information. (But that's another story entirely.)

Oh I'm sure they do fine with their facebook(societal/emotional porn) and their porn (regular style porn) and MSM offerings (fear porn)... most don't go for overly dense data sets or papers before they go for kitten videos and facebook status updates.

while there is an issue with information absorption, it's not much of an issue as the average interwebs user doesn't seem to expose themselves to too much informational based consumption when there's so much entertainment based things to consume.

[Mike]

[...] But for me the real question is what forces are behind the pushing of the electronic pollution on us [...]


That'll be the public's appetite for easily available information at almost any place, any time,


No conspiracy here.. sunlight is more dangerous than WIFI.


I feel confident stating that 99.999999999999999% of people will have absolutely no effect from being around WIFI; leaving a very very small margin for some freak of probability.


There are MANY other places to start looking when one is concerned with health, diet should be first (and second, and third, and fourth).



although most people are ill equipped to assess the quality of the information. (But that's another story entirely.)

Oh I'm sure they do fine with their facebook(societal/emotional porn) and their porn (regular style porn) and MSM offerings (fear porn)... most don't go for overly dense data sets or papers before they go for kitten videos and facebook status updates.

while there is an issue with information absorption, it's not much of an issue as the average interwebs user doesn't seem to expose themselves to too much informational based consumption when there's so much entertainment based things to consume.



Actually, sunlight is quite healthy as long as youre getting your healthy fats:sun:...but I digress.

I'm 100% confident that your statement that 99.999999999.....% of people arent affected negatively by wifi is incorrect. I don't say that to engender some flip response from you, I say it because besides myself, I know 3 other freaks of probablity that are indeed affected negatively by wifi. Imagine the odds?;) I listed just a couple of my symptoms above. There are many more.

I do agree that diet should be examined first if one is feeling unwell. We tend to get very esoteric about things here sometimes while ignoring the obvious. But wifi can be detrimental to health, without a doubt. I know firsthand. Of course there are various factors, such as location, frequency of use etc..

[3(C)+me]

[...] But for me the real question is what forces are behind the pushing of the electronic pollution on us [...]


That'll be the public's appetite for easily available information at almost any place, any time,


No conspiracy here.. sunlight is more dangerous than WIFI.


I feel confident stating that 99.999999999999999% of people will have absolutely no effect from being around WIFI; leaving a very very small margin for some freak of probability.


There are MANY other places to start looking when one is concerned with health, diet should be first (and second, and third, and fourth).



although most people are ill equipped to assess the quality of the information. (But that's another story entirely.)

Oh I'm sure they do fine with their facebook(societal/emotional porn) and their porn (regular style porn) and MSM offerings (fear porn)... most don't go for overly dense data sets or papers before they go for kitten videos and facebook status updates.

while there is an issue with information absorption, it's not much of an issue as the average interwebs user doesn't seem to expose themselves to too much informational based consumption when there's so much entertainment based things to consume.

You really need to do some due diligence and read the research coming out of Europe about the a adverse effects of Wi-Fi.
Because your above statement is simply untrue and you are without knowing it are simply spreading more disinformation rather than clarifying things.
Less surfing the web more research things you are 99% sure is harmless.


10 Shocking Facts about the Health Dangers of Wi-Fi



Wi-Fi is convenient but many have raised doubts concerning the safety of unseen forces that permeate everything around us. Since the introduction of Wi-Fi in 1997, researchers have performed dozens of studies to explore the subject. The results are clear and shocking — Wifi can negatively affect overall health and brain health, especially in children.

Perhaps most shocking is that this information is not new or even that controversial. In fact, in 2008 the well-renowned publication Scientific American ran a piece called “Mind Control by Cell Phone” which explained the danger Wi-Fi has on the human brain. [1] Let’s further explore the potential dangers of Wi-Fi with these 10 facts.

1. Contributes to the Development of Insomnia

Have you ever felt more awake after using Wi-Fi or even struggled to sleep through the night? Reports of these phenomena have been frequent and even prompted a study in 2007 that evaluated low-frequency modulation from cell phones and its impact on sleep. Participants were exposed to the electromagnetic signals from real phones or no signal from fake phones. Those exposed to the electromagnetic radiation had a significantly more difficult time falling asleep and changes in brainwave patterns were observed. [2]






It’s been suggested that sleeping near a phone, in a home with Wi-Fi, or in an apartment building with many Wi-Fi signals can create chronic sleep problems as the constant bombardment of Wi-Fi pollution interferes with falling asleep and sleep patterns. For many, sleep deprivation is just the start for larger problems. The development of depression and hypertension have also been linked to inadequate sleep. [3]

2. Damaging to Childhood Development

Exposure to non-thermal radio frequency radiation from Wi-Fi and cellular phones can disrupt normal cellular development, especially fetal development. A 2004 animal study linked exposure to delayed kidney development. [4] These findings were supported by a 2009 Austrian study. In fact, the disruption of protein synthesis is so severe that authors specifically noted, “this cell property is especially pronounced in growing tissues, that is, in children and youth. Consequently, these population groups would be more susceptible than average to the described effects.” [5] In short, bathing the developmentally young in Wi-Fi increases their risk of developmental issues.

3. Affects Cell Growth

When a group of Danish ninth graders experienced difficulty concentrating after sleeping with their cell phones by their head, they performed an experiment to test the effect of wireless Wi-Fi routers on garden cress. One set of plants was grown in a room free of wireless radiation; the other group grew next to two routers that released the same amount of radiation as a cell phone. The results? The plants nearest the radiation didn’t grow. [6]

4. Derails Brain Function

Just as the Danish high schoolers noticed problems with concentration, scientists have begun to look at the impact of 4G radiation on brain function. Using MRI technology, research performed just last year found that persons exposed to 4G radiation had several areas of reduced brain activity. [7]

5. Reduces Brain Activity in Females

A group of 30 healthy volunteers, 15 men and 15 women, were given a simple memory test. First, the entire group was tested without any exposure to Wi-Fi radiation — no problem. Then, they were exposed to 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi from a wireless access point for about 45 minutes. During that portion of the testing, brain activity was measured and the women had a noticeable change in brain activity and energy levels. [8] Sorry ladies! But guys, don’t get too comfortable…

6. Neutralizes Sperm

…Because we’ve known for a long time that the heat generated by laptops kills sperm. Well, now it turns out that heat isn’t the only threat to a man’s virility. Research has found exposure to Wi-Fi frequencies reduce sperm movement and cause DNA fragmentation. [9] Both human and animal testing has confirmed that exposure negatively affects sperm. [10] [11]

7. May Impact Fertility

And, it’s not just sperm. The results of an animal study suggest that some wireless frequencies may prevent egg implantation. During the study, mice exposed 2 hours a day for 45 days had significantly increased oxidative stress levels. The cellular damage and impact on DNA structure from exposure suggest a strong possibility of abnormal pregnancy or failure of the egg to implant. [12]

The Karolinska Institute in Sweden released a warning in 2011, stating:
•“Pregnant women are cautioned to avoid using wireless devices themselves and distance themselves from other users,”
•“Current US [and Canada]…standards for radio frequency and microwave radiation from wireless technology are entirely inadequate,” and
•“Safety standards also ignore the developing fetus…” [13]

8. Provokes Cardiac Stress






If you think your heart races when surrounded by wireless networks or 3G or LTE cell phones, it may not be in your head. A study involving 69 subjects reported that many of them experienced a real physical response to electromagnetic frequencies. Exactly what was the physical response? Increased heart rate — similar to the heart rate of an individual under stress. [14]

9. Linked to Cancer?

This is extremely controversial but we can’t ignore that plenty of animal models indicate that exposure to electromagnetic radiation increases the risk of tumor development. While human studies are rare, reports and case studies abound. One such case involves a young 21-year-old woman who developed breast cancer. What makes this case unique was that her family did not have a predisposition to breast cancer… and she developed the tumor right on the spot she carried her cell phone in her bra. [15]

10. You Can Protect Yourself

Although mainstream outlets may ignore the proven dangers, especially in the US and Canada, researchers have identified several methods that can offer a level of defense. First off, reduced melatonin seems to correspond with exposure. Thus, increasing melatonin through supplementation may help offset some of the effects. [16] [17] [18] In animal tests, L-Carnitine provides antioxidant support for nutrients negatively affected by 2.4 GHz radiation. [19] [20]

Limiting Exposure and Staying Healthy

Although melatonin and L-Carnitine offer a nutritional defense, they don’t block exposure. And that’s very hard to accomplish anyway. Look at coverage maps from cell phone companies, or notice how many Wi-Fi networks your smart phone prompts for you to join. We’re surrounded and bombarded by electromagnetic radiation. Blocking exposure is difficult but there are a few small steps you can take. For one, do not keep cell phones, laptops, and tablets close to your body. And if it’s not being used, shut them off (your wireless router too). There are also a number of devices available to counteract electromagnetic frequencies. Check out these ways to protect yourself from laptop radiation and cell phone radiation, too.

Have you experienced negative side effects of Wi-Fi? What measures have you taken to protect yourself and your family? Please leave a comment below and share your experience with us!


References:
1.Fields, R. Douglas. Mind Control by Cell Phone. May 7, 2008. (last accessed 2014-04-01)
2.Hung CS, Anderson C, Horne JA, McEvoy P. Mobile phone ‘talk-mode’ signal delays EEG-determined sleep onset. Neurosci Lett. 2007 Jun 21;421(1):82-6. Epub 2007 May 24.
3.Cunnington D, Junge MF, Fernando AT. Insomnia: prevalence, consequences and effective treatment. Med J Aust. 2013 Oct 21;199(8):S36-40.
4.Pyrpasopoulou A, Kotoula V, Cheva A, Hytiroglou P, Nikolakaki E, Magras IN, Xenos TD, Tsiboukis TD, Karkavelas G. Bone morphogenetic protein expression in newborn rat kidneys after prenatal exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2004 Apr;25(3):216-27.
5.AUVA REPORT: Nonthermal Effects Confirmed; Exposure Limits Challenged; Precaution Demanded. Edition July 21, 2009. (last accessed 2014-04-01)
6.Bohn, Mathias. Student Science Experiment Finds Plants Won’t Grow Near Wi-fi Router. (last accessed 2014-04-01)
7.Lv B, Chen Z, Wu T, Shao Q, Yan D, Ma L, Lu K, Xie Y. The alteration of spontaneous low frequency oscillations caused by acute electromagnetic fields exposure. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Sep 4. pii: S1388-2457(13)00976-0. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.018.
8.Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields. (last accessed 2014-04-01)
9.Avendaño C. et al. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.
10.Atasoy H.I. et al. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229.
11.Kesari KK, Behari J. Microwave exposure affecting reproductive system in male rats. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2010 Sep;162(2):416-28. doi: 10.1007/s12010-009-8722-9. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
12.Shahin S, Singh VP, Shukla RK, Dhawan A, Gangwar RK, Singh SP, Chaturvedi CM. 2.45 GHz microwave irradiation-induced oxidative stress affects implantation or pregnancy in mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2013 Mar;169(5):1727-51. doi: 10.1007/s12010-012-0079-9. Epub 2013 Jan 22.
13.Karolinska Institute Department of Neuroscience, Stockholm, Sweden. LATEST WARNING: Wi-Fi Dangerous to Children and Pregnant Women – Must Read! February 3, 2011. (last accessed 2014-04-01)
14.Havas M. and Marrongelle J. Replication of heart rate variability provocation study with 2.45GHz cordless phone confirms original findings. Electromagn Biol Med 32(2): 253-266.
15.KTVU.com. Doctors warn of breast-cancer link to keeping cell phone in bra. Posted November 13, 2012. (last accessed 2014-04-01)
16.Aynali G. et al., Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.
17.Nazrolu M. et al. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92.
18.Oksay T. et al. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044.
19.Gumral N. et al. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.
20.Nazirolu M. and Gumral. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689.



http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/10-shocking-facts-health-dangers-wifi/

[TargeT]

Actually, sunlight is quite healthy as long as youre getting your healthy fats:sun:...but I digress.

that was my failed attempt at irony ;)


I'm 100% confident that your statement that 99.999999999.....% of people arent affected negatively by wifi is incorrect. I don't say that to engender some flip response from you, I say it because besides myself, I know 3 other freaks of probablity that are indeed affected negatively by wifi. Imagine the odds?;) I listed just a couple of my symptoms above. There are many more.

well technically 99.99999% still allows for 700 probabilistic freaks ;) (based on 7 billion)


But wifi can be detrimental to health, without a doubt. I know firsthand. Of course there are various factors, such as location, frequency of use etc..

I understand your anecdotal response, but that by no means means that your statement applies to anyone else.

There are two possibilities here:

1) your a probabilistic fluke that shares some resonance relationship with the frequency being output by your phone (though this is highly unlikely)

2) your problem is psychosomatic (which is a common thing).



You really need to do some due diligence and read the research coming out of Europe about the a adverse effects of Wi-Fi.

I've spent hundreds of hours studying radiation, to include a trip to an abandoned uranium mine & purchasing my own uranium ore jewlery; I have a pretty solid grasp of radiation (I was studying the kinds that can cause serious issues with DNA health)... I will go through your large wall of text and look at the "studies" but I've read quite a few before and their method was anything but empirical or scientific, the ones you included maybe different. I doubt it however.

I own a giger counter.

I've done personal experiments with alpha, beta and gama radiation (to include penetration testing on various materials).. it was interesting to me at the time.

What was that about due diligence again? you read some articles and now because of what they say you feel an expert on this matter? I've worked in IT since before WIFI existed & very intimately know it's "ins and outs".
(side note: congrats! it's not often I get to have an ego response.. I guess I have some inadequacy feelings to deal with re: my work)


But then, I research as a hobby, not somehting everyone is interested in.

[3(C)+me]

There are over 2,000 studies about the adverse effects of Wi-Fi
You got some reading to do.
Pleasure reading for a sunday afternoon next to your router.

[Whiskey_Mystic]

My teacher has suffered with chronic pain throughout her body for years. She has been overweight since her pregnancy five years ago, despite eating extremely healthy and being very active. She was an athlete before her pregnancy with a very lean and muscular body. Except her giant dancer muscles on her legs. She would almost always wake up 2-3 times per night and her son would wake up at least one.

As an experiment, she began turning her wifi off at night and whenever she left the house.

The weight loss began immediately and I noticed as soon as I saw her a week later. Her chronic pain vanished overnight. She sleeps through the night now as does her son. Her face looks fifteen years younger. She quickly developed something that resembled a cold that lasted about a week. Lots of phlegm release as though her body were detoxing.

I turned off my own wifi for just one night and noticed nothing different. Maybe we all have different levels of sensitivity. I will try a longer experiment soon.

I offer no conclusions. This is not science. Just telling you a story. Make of it what you will.

[Mike]

Hi TargeT,

Nope, not psychosomatic. In fact, it was quite the opposite: I DIDNT want to believe wifi was affecting me. And I didnt...until i couldnt deny it anymore. After several experiments involving frequent use and no use at all, I was forced to accept the obvious truth.

Look, I want to be wrong about this! Id like to hitch my wagon to yours! I like being on the net...admittedly more for the ...er..."entertainment" and less for the "dense data sets";)..

As I said, in my small circle of friends, there are 4 (including me) that are very sensitive to wifi...and we don't even represent a pin prick on the map. I think I could get to 700 without even leaving my county.

I would agree that the majority of people don't experience any obvious symptoms from wifi,..at least not initially. But the evidence is growing in leaps n bounds that it is indeed harmful

[Carmody]

All connections are wired in my place, and I don't use wireless keyboards, etc. I use a wireless mouse, though, and may change that to being wired.

My phone is wireless, but I use it on speakerphone. as for cells, my is almost always off, and when in use, it is almost always handsfree speakerphone..

[Hervé]

[...]
... This is not science. Just telling you a story. Make of it what you will.

Many a science began with empirical data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research) accumulated from... observations and experiments :)

[TargeT]

[...]
... This is not science. Just telling you a story. Make of it what you will.

Many a science began with empirical data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research) accumulated from... observations and experiments :)

it's gotta start somewhere...


I don't see why this radiation would be different from the others I've looked into; possible that it is. I do not think so however... we have a VERY powerful mind.. if you want to be gluten intolerant, you will be (just watch the various fads come and go and the people who jump on and off them sound JUST as convinced as some posts here that their issue is gluten, or *what ever*) I'll lean much more to the psycosemantic conclusion until I see some good controlled studies; haven't seen one yet.


Did you know that Wifi & microwaves function at the frequency of the cosmic background radiation... so when you go out side, you are getting "wifi" even if there is no router present.

A lot of this myth comes from when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRIC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), classified more than 290 agents as Class 2B Carcinogens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens) – possibly carcinogenic to humans.That list includes radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF). The main sources of RF/EMF are radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-Fi devices.....But on that list are also pickled vegetables, Magnetic fields, and other common objects .... So be afraid of everything?


This stuff isn't magic & if you spend a bit of time with it it's not hard to understand. The brain is very powerful, if removing wifi makes you feel heather; then absolutely do it! But correlation does NOT equate with causation & it never will.

[Hervé]

Beside psychosomatics (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/psychosomatics) and placebo effects, some people may be built - or build themselves - to tune in, others to tune out... wouldn't that be an interesting controlled study to conduct?

In any case, the empirical data remain valid, it's only a matter of chasing down the actual causation...

[TargeT]

Beside psychosomatics (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/psychosomatics) and placebo effects, some people may be built - or build themselves - to tune in, others to tune out... wouldn't that be an interesting controlled study to conduct?

In any case, the empirical data remain valid, it's only a matter of chasing down the actual causation...

I have no doubt that there are people who share some resonant relationship with certain frequencies.. we HAVE to at some level.. but where that frequency is on the spectrum is the question (and it's a LARGE spectrum) and how large is the effect.

I suspect for most of us we have no "one single" resonant frequency that would effect us noticeably... but probability being what it is, there has to be some people who are more greatly effected by a resonant relationship... but it's probably a small number.

There's no reason for it not to be studied; I have no motivation because I feel that I understand the situation (the best way to stop learning is to "know" something.. haha)

[MorningFox]

Maybe keep a fan next to you, inbetween yourself and the router, in order to blow the signal away from your body.

:ROFL:

[TargeT]

Maybe keep a fan next to you, inbetween yourself and the router, in order to blow the signal away from your body.

:ROFL:

I sleep with a fan on (mostly as mosquito defense...), no wonder I've had no issues!

[Mike]

[...]
... This is not science. Just telling you a story. Make of it what you will.

Many a science began with empirical data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research) accumulated from... observations and experiments :)

it's gotta start somewhere...


I don't see why this radiation would be different from the others I've looked into; possible that it is. I do not think so however... we have a VERY powerful mind.. if you want to be gluten intolerant, you will be (just watch the various fads come and go and the people who jump on and off them sound JUST as convinced as some posts here that their issue is gluten, or *what ever*) I'll lean much more to the psycosemantic conclusion until I see some good controlled studies; haven't seen one yet.


Did you know that Wifi & microwaves function at the frequency of the cosmic background radiation... so when you go out side, you are getting "wifi" even if there is no router present.

A lot of this myth comes from when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRIC), part of the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), classified more than 290 agents as Class 2B Carcinogens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens) – possibly carcinogenic to humans.That list includes radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF/EMF). The main sources of RF/EMF are radios, televisions, microwave ovens, cell phones, and Wi-Fi devices.....But on that list are also pickled vegetables, Magnetic fields, and other common objects .... So be afraid of everything?


This stuff isn't magic & if you spend a bit of time with it it's not hard to understand. The brain is very powerful, if removing wifi makes you feel heather; then absolutely do it! But correlation does NOT equate with causation & it never will.



The mind is indeed powerful, and the placebo effect a definite reality, but I think the psychosomatic angle here is a vastly oversimplified one, especially in light of my direct, personal experience..and also the something like 8 trillion studies posted by ccme;)....are you not moved at all by those? I mean, I do respect your mind, but c'mon dude..

Instead of the wifi experiement I did (2 days using wifi for hours and feeling awful, then 2 days off and feeling good again...and repeating several times over with same results) what if I told you I banged my knee into a wall for 2 days and felt great pain, then stopped for 2 days and experienced comfort? You wouldnt suggest the pain I felt was psychosomatic, would you? But the problem in this instance is that youve already made up your mind about wifi and therefore any contradictory point of view - no matter how convincing - must be psychosomatic...or all in one's head. In other words, imaginative. Which is a little simplistic and also a bit condescending. I could similarly dismiss all that cool research you did, saying you imagined it. ("Yes I know youre convinced you did all that work, but the mind is a powerful thing!;")

My little study was quite simple. Theres really no room for imaginings there. At some point in time, you gotta realize 1+1=2.

[TargeT]

The mind is indeed powerful, and the placebo effect a definite reality
My little study was quite simple. Theres really no room for imaginings there. At some point in time, you gotta realize 1+1=2.


Here's the problem with your experiment.. at some level (well all levels) you KNEW it would be off, and you KNEW it would be on; this has to be eliminated in order to rule out the "mind" factor.
Your experiment was the physical version of the logical fallacy "correlation does not equal causation" ie: just because two things can correlate (you turning wifi off & feelinig better) does not mean that one was the cause of the other.

Now that observation (wifi off = feel better) is a good starting point for some empirical testing (double or triple blind (I can go into the profound effects an observer has on experiments (just the fact that you are observing) but suffice it to say: a double blind test is the best we have for determining issues like this.) mandatory for validity)
I can go into the profound effects an observer has on experiments (just the fact that you are observing) but suffice it to say: a double blind test is the best we have for determining issues like this.

On the topic of harmful WIFI, all the double blind tests have failed to show significant results (results other than expected); that's why you see so many OTHER articles saying WIFI is safe. (putting a plant in a room with wifi and one in a room with out wifi then saying "plant a didn't grow and plant b did!" is not the correct method).

I'm very open to the idea that there are some latent effects there & maybe something like the length of your hair is a factor... But I need to see at least something that can be repeated & pass a double blind before I take any solid stance on it...

as of now, the double blind experiments support my view (and so does physics, my own personal experiments etc..) but I'm not omnipotent & I certainly could have missed something here.



And ALL of that aside, I've worked with electronics for years.. I understand radio wave propagation and attenuation... signal strength management...

This is a fact most people ignore: The radiation exposure from a WiFi network for a year is equivalent to that from talking on a cell phone for 20 minutes (phone to head, typical way people talk) & the wavelength of Wi-Fi signals is the same as the cosmic background radiation: 12cm. These two things alone (aside from the rest of this post) are very hard to ignore.

[Mike]

The mind is indeed powerful, and the placebo effect a definite reality
My little study was quite simple. Theres really no room for imaginings there. At some point in time, you gotta realize 1+1=2.


Here's the problem with your experiment.. at some level (well all levels) you KNEW it would be off, and you KNEW it would be on; this has to be eliminated in order to rule out the "mind" factor.
Your experiment was the physical version of the logical fallacy "correlation does not equal causation" ie: just because two things can correlate (you turning wifi off & feelinig better) does not mean that one was the cause of the other.

Now that observation (wifi off = feel better) is a good starting point for some empirical testing (double or triple blind (I can go into the profound effects an observer has on experiments (just the fact that you are observing) but suffice it to say: a double blind test is the best we have for determining issues like this.) mandatory for validity)
I can go into the profound effects an observer has on experiments (just the fact that you are observing) but suffice it to say: a double blind test is the best we have for determining issues like this.

On the topic of harmful WIFI, all the double blind tests have failed to show significant results (results other than expected); that's why you see so many OTHER articles saying WIFI is safe. (putting a plant in a room with wifi and one in a room with out wifi then saying "plant a didn't grow and plant b did!" is not the correct method).

I'm very open to the idea that there are some latent effects there & maybe something like the length of your hair is a factor... But I need to see at least something that can be repeated & pass a double blind before I take any solid stance on it...

as of now, the double blind experiments support my view (and so does physics, my own personal experiments etc..) but I'm not omnipotent & I certainly could have missed something here.



And ALL of that aside, I've worked with electronics for years.. I understand radio wave propagation and attenuation... signal strength management...

This is a fact most people ignore: The radiation exposure from a WiFi network for a year is equivalent to that from talking on a cell phone for 20 minutes (phone to head, typical way people talk) & the wavelength of Wi-Fi signals is the same as the cosmic background radiation: 12cm. These two things alone (aside from the rest of this post) are very hard to ignore.


I didnt even make a dent, did I?

You stubborn bastard:wink:

:handshake:

[TargeT]

I didnt even make a dent, did I?

You stubborn bastard:wink:

:handshake:

haha, well it forced me tobrush up on my wifi studies... so , im cool with it ;)

[Carmody]

Target, don't forget about the study from the US office of Naval Research, which published a study that illustrated that DNA was superconducting. In the body. At room temperature. Of course--no one noticed. except those of us who were paying attention.

The next domino to fall in such scenario, is that... superconducting means..sensitive to disturbance. ie, responsive to almost massless levels of excitation. We are also talking about very high frequencies, which are multiplexed.

Multiplexed frequencies means, combined patterns that produce ultra-short pulses at much higher frequencies.... in effect, FREAK WAVES. same scenario as ocean freak waves, same outcome. except for the fact of the occurrence of freak waves in Wi-fi being far, far far more prevalent, as the multiplexing is resonantly coupled and insistently continuous ie, patterned and perfected. enforced resonance.

Imagine a ball sitting in the mouth, at the hinge... of a set of scissors that are wide open. Now, shut or slam the scissors closed, as fast as they can be. The ball is accelerated out of the gap/tips, and at the time the scissors close, the acceleration approaches infinity (the scissor blades approach being parallel--but are closing). Think of the multiplexed waves being like this. The secondary production of extreme delta freak waves is a given. (bi-filar transformers are similarly used in FTL wave creation experiments)


It even happens in optical lattices (http://phys.org/news/2013-12-optical-rogue-storm-tube.html). We even use these Techniques in RF to produce higher frequencies, depending on the application.

Of course, they don't measure the freak waves in the multiplexed, bounced,resonated, and poorly matched/poorly implemented leaky Wi-fi systems (with digital thresholds so that distortion is rendered meaningless, but still exists in the analog real world of radiation)..... they are not expecting them, they are not understanding that they are there, they are not looking for them... and the pulses are short and out of the bands they are analyzing.

Of course, when there is in excess of two trillion dollars worth of business and infrastructure and money all hammered into wireless technology...all of that on the table..... such a thing....does not want anything to do with this reality.

A thing sitting at two trillion dollars, and growing..will crush anything in it's way, no matter how real or logical the thing getting in it's way - may be.

And then, at two trillion dollars and growing, Target, where did your double blind studies come from? Who funded them? How independent are they? What is their background and prior associations? Who are they connected to? Who funds the people who funded them?

[TargeT]

Of course, they don't measure the freak waves in the multiplexed, bounced,resonated, and poorly matched/poorly implemented leaky Wi-fi systems (with digital thresholds so that distortion is rendered meaningless, but still exists in the analog real world of radiation)..... they are not expecting them, they are not understanding that they are there, they are not looking for them... and the pulses are short and out of the bands they are analyzing.

They absolutely do take into consideration constructive and destructive interference (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Interference-of-Waves) (aka freak waves, or their opposite dead spots); the antenna used now are very extensively researched and constructed for control & best propagation.
http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-antennas-accessories/prod_white_paper0900aecd806a1a3e.doc/_jcr_content/renditions/0900aecd806a1a3e_null_null_null_08_07_07-12.jpg
We aren't just laying out wires and letting EM bleed everywhere, there's a lot of work that goes into these systems. (http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-antennas-accessories/prod_white_paper0900aecd806a1a3e.html)

My router runs 3 bands (send and receive) and all of the antenna are with in a 12" circle.. you gotta know what your doing to get that to work.


Of course, when there is in excess of two trillion dollars worth of business and infrastructure and money all hammered into wireless technology...all of that on the table..... such a thing....does not want anything to do with this reality.

A thing sitting at two trillion dollars, and growing..will crush anything in it's way, no matter how real or logical the thing getting in it's way - may be.

And then, at two trillion dollars and growing, Target, where did your double blind studies come from? Who funded them? How independent are they? What is their background and prior associations? Who are they connected to? Who funds the people who funded them?

I'm not sure that you can attribute WIFI to any one organization.. I'm sure there's kenetic energy there due to it's wide acceptance but I doubt there's any guided effort to crush other things (not that a guided effort is needed, we usually stick with one thing until it's far past being the best option.. )

however those are all good questions & the reason why I have to couch my statements with "the best option we have"...

[Mike]

The mind is indeed powerful, and the placebo effect a definite reality
My little study was quite simple. Theres really no room for imaginings there. At some point in time, you gotta realize 1+1=2.


Here's the problem with your experiment.. at some level (well all levels) you KNEW it would be off, and you KNEW it would be on; this has to be eliminated in order to rule out the "mind" factor.
Your experiment was the physical version of the logical fallacy "correlation does not equal causation" ie: just because two things can correlate (you turning wifi off & feelinig better) does not mean that one was the cause of the other.

Now that observation (wifi off = feel better) is a good starting point for some empirical testing (double or triple blind (I can go into the profound effects an observer has on experiments (just the fact that you are observing) but suffice it to say: a double blind test is the best we have for determining issues like this.) mandatory for validity)
I can go into the profound effects an observer has on experiments (just the fact that you are observing) but suffice it to say: a double blind test is the best we have for determining issues like this.

On the topic of harmful WIFI, all the double blind tests have failed to show significant results (results other than expected); that's why you see so many OTHER articles saying WIFI is safe. (putting a plant in a room with wifi and one in a room with out wifi then saying "plant a didn't grow and plant b did!" is not the correct method).

I'm very open to the idea that there are some latent effects there & maybe something like the length of your hair is a factor... But I need to see at least something that can be repeated & pass a double blind before I take any solid stance on it...

as of now, the double blind experiments support my view (and so does physics, my own personal experiments etc..) but I'm not omnipotent & I certainly could have missed something here.



And ALL of that aside, I've worked with electronics for years.. I understand radio wave propagation and attenuation... signal strength management...

This is a fact most people ignore: The radiation exposure from a WiFi network for a year is equivalent to that from talking on a cell phone for 20 minutes (phone to head, typical way people talk) & the wavelength of Wi-Fi signals is the same as the cosmic background radiation: 12cm. These two things alone (aside from the rest of this post) are very hard to ignore.




i should have pointed out that before i even did my experiment, before i developed any opinions on the matter, i noticed undeniable symptoms from exposure to wifi devices (i did the experiment to confirm this). this might be important: i don't experience the symptoms when i'm near routers and so forth, only when i'm using the device..a phone, laptop etc..

i was actually in denial about these symptoms for some time. i DIDN'T want to believe it was true, so if there was some sort of placebo thing going on, it likely would have worked the other way.

i vaguely recall the concept of 'correlation not equaling causation' from a statistics class i took eons ago. to me, it's applicable in more complex experiments with numerous variables. but it breaks down when applied to the most basic levels of cause and effect. if there is a 'logical fallacy' here its taking the concept to such a bizarre extreme so as to apply it to very simple things like my very basic experiment, touching a hot stove and getting burnt, banging your head into a wall and getting a headache etc. in these instances, correlation does imply causation. thats very clear.


well, i know i'm not going to sway you my defiant friend, but it won't stop me from trying.:). here's another:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cellphone-emf-wifi-health-risks-scientists-letter

[TargeT]

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cellphone-emf-wifi-health-risks-scientists-letter

I definitely agree that cellphone use is problematic.. especially when you hold the phone to your head; that's some serious exposure at really high levels... And new smartphones are constantly pushing data while your NOT on the phone so you are getting high level exposure at the place you store your cellphone (front pocket, back pocket.. the closer you are the exponentially stronger the exposure..)

[Ewan]

Hi TargeT,

Do you have an opinion on Barrie Trower's WiFi reports Here (http://rense.com/general96/trower.html) ~Rense.com

and Here (http://www.rense.com/general60/tetra.htm)

Ctrl C text follows.


There are unknown phenomena concerning low level radiation that is not generally understood by the users of communication instruments. Following the Chernobyl incident it was found that long-term continuous low level radiation of all types was as dangerous as high level doses of radiation. With high level doses of radiation the anti-oxidants in the body (Vitamins A, C, E etc) rush to defend and repair the area of the body being damaged. However with low level radiation the anti-oxidants are not activated and because the dose is accumulative the problems can build up and are usually present before the body realises that there is trouble. So, low level does not necessarily mean safer. Also the smaller you are the more you tend to absorb. Wavelengths for TETRA and mobile phones are relatively short and the nearer the part of the body or the infant to the wavelength the more similarity they have to an aerial and the more they absorb. With ordinary mobiles the wavelength is around the size of a foetus and with TETRA you are looking at a 3-6 year old child. I mention this because TETRA may be used in areas where children are running around and there are very well known and documented cases of pulse radiation affecting epileptic children.

Pulse radiation from TETRA at 17.6 Hz (waves per second) is known to interfere with our natural brains rhythm. Our brains generate their own waves within our head. One of these waves, called beta waves is on a very similar frequency to the TETRA handsets. What happens is: If you could imagine yourself jumping on a trampoline and somebody larger and heavier jumps on and dances at a slightly different speed you will bounce at their pace rather than yours. When they jump off you will still bounce at their speed. The jumping on of the person onto the trampoline is known as entrainment and this occurs when the TETRA is used in close proximity to an officer's brain. Because TETRA affects the beta rhythm of the brain it will affect what the beta rhythm is responsible for; namely sounds judgement in emergency situations. Entrainment is always followed by a phenomena called long-term potentiation. This is an analogous to the person getting off the trampoline leaving you dancing. Long-term potentiation has been known to last several weeks after the initial source has died down. The implications for this are that the officers' brain waves would continue to suffer entrainment even after the sets have been switched off, which would be reinforced everytime the sets are switched on again.

The first paper written on this subject was by a scientist called Ptolomy who was a Greek living in Egypt in 64BC. Ptolomy found that when he spun a wheel with holes in up against the sun at different rotational speeds he could induce different effects on the brains of his subjects. To get an idea of the complexity of the brain, if you imagine every single person in every single city in the world picking up their telephone and dialling everybody in their phonebooks, that is roughly how many connections we have in the brain. I will show later that even the Stewart Committee advised against using any communication instruments that pulsed above 16 waves per second. TETRA is of course 17.6 waves per second.

[TargeT]

Hi TargeT,

Do you have an opinion on Barrie Trower's WiFi reports Here (http://rense.com/general96/trower.html) ~Rense.com

Imagine you are five years old, in school and sitting with a wi-fi laptop near your abdomen. Theoretically, your ovaries can become irradiated until you leave school at aged 16-18 years old.

I read the language of that study and see that every sentence includes the word "can" or "theoretically".......... I agree that the sentiment of the study is valid, but the execution is not valid.

the study continues with this statement:


When you become pregnant, every one of your follicles (to become eggs) will have been microwaved. Hence, you may or may not deliver a healthy child
But that is not true at all, microwave (wifi) does not penetrate the skin very well.Shown in this study (http://www.academia.edu/5351815/Numerical_Evaluation_of_Specific_Absorption_Rate_and_Skin_Depth_on_Human_Body_Tissue_Due_To_Electrom agnetic_Field_Emitted_From_Mobile_Phone_Antenna) (due to the high frequency of wifi/microwave, lower frequencies penetrate much better).

[Noelle]

About two weeks ago, I figured out the cause of the hot flashes that I have suffered with for about a decade. The ah-ha moment came while sitting at my laptop one night. I was typing away and suddenly felt a wave of heat emerge in my stomach area and began to move upward. I was so hot -- felt like my insides were being cooked, which is normally what my hot flashes feel like. I was so hot that I slammed the laptop closed and walked away. As soon as I walked away, the hot flash stopped.

It's hard to find EMF meters at local stores, so I settled for a cheap portable AM/FM radio, which I learned can be used to detect EMF. I got one and set the tuner on a station-less spot on AM. I then went to the modem to get a baseline of what to expect noise wise. It modem EMF sounded like rapid, thudding pulse.

Knowing what to listen for, I placed the radio next to my laptop. When the next hot flash came, I took the radio and started running it along the stomach region, where I heated up first; and sure enough, I heard a faint high-pitched pulsing sound. I then ran the radio along the power cord that was plugged in a few inches behind me, and the pulsing noise was much louder.

I ended up buying a digital EMF meter with an alarm. I walked around my house with it to find all the trouble spots -- husband's Xbox system, microwave oven (when it's on and off), bathroom lights, my iPhone (when it's in use), my laptop keyboard and power cord, husband's Bluetooth headset, and a few other things. All of these set off the alarm.

I have made many adjustments, like not charging the laptop while working on it, which has reduced the hot flashes But I still get them while on my laptop, no doubt because of the keyboard.

Here's a recent article on the "the invisible web of radiation all around us."

Wireless connectivity silently creating medical problems (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/miscellaneous/wireless-connectivity-silently-creating-medical-problems-expert/articleshow/61320362.cms)

[ThePythonicCow]

a cheap portable AM/FM radio, which I learned can be used to detect EMF. I got one and set the tuner on a station-less spot on AM. I then went to the modem to get a baseline of what to expect noise wise. It modem EMF sounded like rapid, thudding pulse.
Well done.

I got rid of a clock radio on my bedside stand and my fine Sennheiser wireless headphones this way, by noticing how much noise they made on an AM radio.

I replaced the clock radio with a kitchen timer, and replaced the wireless headphones with a C.Crane FM Transmitter 2 and an old fashioned FM pocket radio (so nothing on my body transmits back to the base station, and it works at a lower FM radio frequency).

I had already gotten rid of my microwave oven long ago. I almost never use a laptop, almost always keep the battery -removed- from my cell phone, always have my computer's bluetooth turned off, and usually have my wi-fi turned off.

===

What EMF meter did you get? Would you recommend it?

[Hazelfern]

Really? If you do all of that surely I am doomed.

[Nick Matkin]

A portable AM radio is just about all you need to check for this sort of issue. Good thinking LadyM - where did you get that idea I wonder?

The cheap EMF meters are not calibrated in any meaningful way, so the level at which they sound an alarm is arbitrary - and on some models actually adjustable!

The frequency range of most cheap EMF meters is not stated, and if it is, the field strengths at both ends of the scale are rarely mentioned. It's also worth determining if they react to DC or AC fields - and familiarizing yourself with what that means.

So the AM radio is useful, but of course it only reacts to noise/interference in the 550 to 1650 kHz range. Theoretically it shouldn't react to your microwave oven or wi-fi which both work in the GHz range (two to three orders of magnitude higher in frequency). But the nasty switched-mode power supplies are what is causing the noise on the radio, as are those in the lighting, and many other modern electronic devices.

This electrical noise is injected into the mains wiring by these power supplies, and if you believe all the woo about 'dirty mains' this is a significant way of how it's generated. In practice it's undesirable because it radiates interference to legitimate users of the radio spectrum, because the manufacturers saved money by not adding a few filter components.

Then you also might have neighbours using the unbalanced mains wiring to distribute internet and TV from one room to another. Injecting high-frequency square-wave data pulses into the mains wiring that is designed for 50/60 Hz sine waves is asking for trouble!

[MorningFox]

I would suggest the worrying about one single WiFi router nearby would be more harmful to your health than the actual router itself

[Spiral]

The truth of the dangers about micro waves may never be known, but cancer rates have gone up massively in recent times, so it stands to reason this surge is caused by things that have been introduced in only the last few decades or so.

It could well be a combination of factors, new types of "food" such as aspartame, trans fats & glucose-fructose syrup combined with wifi, IMO it's better to avoid these things if possible, and with ethernet cables only being a few bucks / quid / euros it's not hard to do !

If I use wifi on my laptop I can feel it in whatever hand & wrist is over the transmitter, it's a strange "hot" tingling sensation, so I can't believe it can't or doesn't have an effect of some type.

It's amazing how many things we've all used for ages only to find out it causes cancer, look at asbestos & talcum powder for example !

[Nick Matkin]

...but cancer rates have gone up massively in recent times, so it stands to reason this surge is caused by things that have been introduced in only the last few decades or so.


It could also be because people are living longer and cancer is generally a disease of old age? I know more people with dementia, arthritis, etc. But then I know more people over 70 than I did 40 years ago.

We need to be very careful when using numbers and suggesting they are statistics when trying to prove of this or that.

[Noelle]

a cheap portable AM/FM radio, which I learned can be used to detect EMF. I got one and set the tuner on a station-less spot on AM. I then went to the modem to get a baseline of what to expect noise wise. It modem EMF sounded like rapid, thudding pulse.
Well done.

I got rid of a clock radio on my bedside stand and my fine Sennheiser wireless headphones this way, by noticing how much noise they made on an AM radio.

I replaced the clock radio with a kitchen timer, and replaced the wireless headphones with a C.Crane FM Transmitter 2 and an old fashioned FM pocket radio (so nothing on my body transmits back to the base station, and it works at a lower FM radio frequency).

I had already gotten rid of my microwave oven long ago. I almost never use a laptop, almost always keep the battery -removed- from my cell phone, always have my computer's bluetooth turned off, and usually have my wi-fi turned off.

===

What EMF meter did you get? Would you recommend it?

Thanks, Paul. Yes, I learned about digital clock radios and EMF. Two other areas that trigger the alarm are my car's interior, while driving, specifically the dash area, and the grocery store that I usually shop at (Publix). I've read that a car's interior can magnify the EMF coming off a phone, too.

I bought a Meterk EMF meter. I would recommend it because of the alarm and its ease of use.

[Noelle]

A portable AM radio is just about all you need to check for this sort of issue. Good thinking LadyM - where did you get that idea I wonder?

The cheap EMF meters are not calibrated in any meaningful way, so the level at which they sound an alarm is arbitrary - and on some models actually adjustable!

The frequency range of most cheap EMF meters is not stated, and if it is, the field strengths at both ends of the scale are rarely mentioned. It's also worth determining if they react to DC or AC fields - and familiarizing yourself with what that means.

So the AM radio is useful, but of course it only reacts to noise/interference in the 550 to 1650 kHz range. Theoretically it shouldn't react to your microwave oven or wi-fi which both work in the GHz range (two to three orders of magnitude higher in frequency). But the nasty switched-mode power supplies are what is causing the noise on the radio, as are those in the lighting, and many other modern electronic devices.

This electrical noise is injected into the mains wiring by these power supplies, and if you believe all the woo about 'dirty mains' this is a significant way of how it's generated. In practice it's undesirable because it radiates interference to legitimate users of the radio spectrum, because the manufacturers saved money by not adding a few filter components.

Then you also might have neighbours using the unbalanced mains wiring to distribute internet and TV from one room to another. Injecting high-frequency square-wave data pulses into the mains wiring that is designed for 50/60 Hz sine waves is asking for trouble!

Thanks! I was researching EMF and found a video on how to use a portable AM/FM radio as a meter.

You are correct on the radio not picking up noticeable noise from the microwave oven; the EMF meter alarm went off, while the oven was off, when standing within 3 to 4 inches of it and within 5 or so feet while the oven was on. The radio, however, definitely picked up a loud pulsing noise when I placed it next to the modem.

As far as the AC/DC fields go, I am not that familiar with them yet. Would you say that whatever EMF radiation is coming from the laptop power cord is intermittent?

[ThePythonicCow]

I got the idea of using a portable AM radio by accident - I noticed lots of static from a portable AM radio that I had, when I happened to put it near my bedside clock radio.

[Nick Matkin]

...The frequency range of most cheap EMF meters is not stated, and if it is, the field strengths at both ends of the scale are rarely mentioned. It's also worth determining if they react to DC or AC fields - and familiarizing yourself with what that means...



...As far as the AC/DC fields go, I am not that familiar with them yet. Would you say that whatever EMF radiation is coming from the laptop power cord is intermittent?

Most fields will be AC, anything from 50 or 60 Hz mains, up to the GHz of wi-fi and mobile/cell phones. DC is a field that stays constant, be that negative or positive and popular with ghost hunting - apparently!

The other matter to consider is whether the EMF meter is measuring magnetic fields or electrostatic fields or both. My informed opinion (having worked in broadcasting for 40 years) is that neither field is dangerous in the intensities the general public will ever encounter at home or outside. Anything approaching danger (like a high-power radio or TV transmitter) will be well fenced off. Don't forget people work at these sites (I did) and we're not dropping like flies, although the field strengths were orders of magnitude higher than the public will ever encounter. In fact there is no evidence amongst all my many colleagues over the decades that we are any unhealthier than the rest of the population. So a bit of signal from sensible use of your phone, or domestic proximity to wi-fi equipment isn't going to expose you to dangerous levels anyway.

This goes against the grain for many on this forum, but they're usually referring to various 'papers' often published in pay-to-publish magazines, rather than serious scientific journals. Trouble is there is a lot of nocebo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo)effect going on which needs to be unpicked from any real effects.

BTW, don't bother paying for man-made or natural crystals that are supposed to 'shield' people from the 'radiation'. It is all nonsense and no evidence is ever presented. The only way to create a shield is to put the device or yourself into a Faraday cage. Not practical...

[Noelle]

The truth of the dangers about micro waves may never be known, but cancer rates have gone up massively in recent times, so it stands to reason this surge is caused by things that have been introduced in only the last few decades or so.

It could well be a combination of factors, new types of "food" such as aspartame, trans fats & glucose-fructose syrup combined with wifi, IMO it's better to avoid these things if possible, and with ethernet cables only being a few bucks / quid / euros it's not hard to do !

If I use wifi on my laptop I can feel it in whatever hand & wrist is over the transmitter, it's a strange "hot" tingling sensation, so I can't believe it can't or doesn't have an effect of some type.

It's amazing how many things we've all used for ages only to find out it causes cancer, look at asbestos & talcum powder for example !

Right. There are a lot of things that we were told were ok to use or even good for us, and it turned out they were killing us.

[Nick Matkin]

The truth of the dangers about micro waves may never be known, but cancer rates have gone up massively in recent times, so it stands to reason this surge is caused by things that have been introduced in only the last few decades or so.

It could well be a combination of factors, new types of "food" such as aspartame, trans fats & glucose-fructose syrup combined with wifi, IMO it's better to avoid these things if possible, and with ethernet cables only being a few bucks / quid / euros it's not hard to do !

If I use wifi on my laptop I can feel it in whatever hand & wrist is over the transmitter, it's a strange "hot" tingling sensation, so I can't believe it can't or doesn't have an effect of some type.

It's amazing how many things we've all used for ages only to find out it causes cancer, look at asbestos & talcum powder for example !

Right. There are a lot of things that we were told were ok to use or even good for us, and it turned out they were killing us.

Smoking is a good example. Based on an accumulation of sound scientific evidence, not heresy. People using and working with radio signals has been going on for over a hundred years. Microwave signals (radar for example) over 70 years. Plenty of time to accumulate sound scientific evidence.

[Noelle]

...The frequency range of most cheap EMF meters is not stated, and if it is, the field strengths at both ends of the scale are rarely mentioned. It's also worth determining if they react to DC or AC fields - and familiarizing yourself with what that means...



...As far as the AC/DC fields go, I am not that familiar with them yet. Would you say that whatever EMF radiation is coming from the laptop power cord is intermittent?

Most fields will be AC, anything from 50 or 60 Hz mains, up to the GHz of wi-fi and mobile/cell phones. DC is a field that stays constant, be that negative or positive and popular with ghost hunting - apparently!

The other matter to consider is whether the EMF meter is measuring magnetic fields or electrostatic fields or both. My informed opinion (having worked in broadcasting for 40 years) is that neither field is dangerous in the intensities the general public will ever encounter at home or outside. Anything approaching danger (like a high-power radio or TV transmitter) will be well fenced off. Don't forget people work at these sites (I did) and we're not dropping like flies, although the field strengths were orders of magnitude higher than the public will ever encounter. In fact there is no evidence amongst all my many colleagues over the decades that we are any unhealthier than the rest of the population. So a bit of signal from sensible use of your phone, or domestic proximity to wi-fi equipment isn't going to expose you to dangerous levels anyway.

This goes against the grain for many on this forum, but they're usually referring to various 'papers' often published in pay-to-publish magazines, rather than serious scientific journals. Trouble is there is a lot of nocebo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo)effect going on which needs to be unpicked from any real effects.

BTW, don't bother paying for man-made or natural crystals that are supposed to 'shield' people from the 'radiation'. It is all nonsense and no evidence is ever presented. The only way to create a shield is to put the device or yourself into a Faraday cage. Not practical...

Thanks for the response. The meter that I have measures the electric and magnetic fields. There is what seems to be an emerging condition called "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity." Maybe I am sensitive to it, hence the heat flashes.

I saw some EMF protection items while researching this, and no, no Faraday cage for me. I think monitoring the heat flashes and adjusting my distances to radiation sources makes more sense.

[TargeT]

I've gotten to do some self experimenting recently due to circumstances.

I wen't about a solid month with out power at night, I did have a small battery operated fan, so there certainly was SOME EMF emissions, but my house is concrete, cell signals don't work inside my rooms (when the towers were working, they only recently started somewhat working again) and my phone was dead or in the car at the time.

I used to sleep around high powered tri-band (wide range of EMF's) router/access point (WIFI) (https://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/wifi-routers/r8000.aspx). I now have power, and usually a laptop around (for the last 10 days or so).

at no point did I notice the lack of EMF saturation that I had lived with previously.

anecdotal, but how much of this do you suppose is placebo? the mind is a powerful thing.

[Michelle Marie]

I recently attended a lecture with Dr. Pall. Indeed the harmful effects of EMF (wifi) has been researched and recorded.

Thank you, cccme, for noting the disinformation on this thread.

Here is one link that may lead to others (when you follow the embedded YouTube link):
https://www.emfacts.com/2017/08/dr-martin-palls-lecture-on-the-biological-effects-of-wireless-radiation/

I also believe we build up tolerance and inner radiance that repels and neutralizes this radiation. This is just a personal theory and practice, but further research may provide some scientific backing. We will see...

I'm also applying the proximity information and keeping a distance whenever possible.

Thanks to all,
MM

[Noelle]

I've gotten to do some self experimenting recently due to circumstances.

I wen't about a solid month with out power at night, I did have a small battery operated fan, so there certainly was SOME EMF emissions, but my house is concrete, cell signals don't work inside my rooms (when the towers were working, they only recently started somewhat working again) and my phone was dead or in the car at the time.

I used to sleep around high powered tri-band (wide range of EMF's) router/access point (WIFI) (https://www.netgear.com/home/products/networking/wifi-routers/r8000.aspx). I now have power, and usually a laptop around (for the last 10 days or so).

at no point did I notice the lack of EMF saturation that I had lived with previously.

anecdotal, but how much of this do you suppose is placebo? the mind is a powerful thing.

It could be in the mind, but I had virtually zero knowledge of EMF until a few weeks ago -- and I've had the heat flashes for about 10 years. Within that time, I have moved to wireless modems, going through all the Gs; started using iPhones; and purchased cars with Bluetooth.

[Noelle]

I recently attended a lecture with Dr. Pall. Indeed the harmful effects of EMF (wifi) has been researched and recorded.

Thank you, cccme, for noting the disinformation on this thread.

Here is one link that may lead to others (when you follow the embedded YouTube link):
https://www.emfacts.com/2017/08/dr-martin-palls-lecture-on-the-biological-effects-of-wireless-radiation/

I also believe we build up tolerance and inner radiance that repels and neutralizes this radiation. This is just a personal theory and practice, but further research may provide some scientific backing. We will see...

I'm also applying the proximity information and keeping a distance whenever possible.

Thanks to all,
MM

You could be on to something with the building up of a tolerance to EMF. These technologies are evolving so fast, and I'm not seeing the scientific health studies keeping pace with it. In fact, a lot of scientific health literature on EMF suggests that more research needs to be done.

[ThePythonicCow]

My informed opinion (having worked in broadcasting for 40 years) is that neither field is dangerous in the intensities the general public will ever encounter at home or outside.
What frequencies were you often exposed to?

My working assumption is that selective higher frequencies, such as tens of Gigahertz (sub centimeter wavelength) or higher frequencies are likely to more biologically active than for example FM Radio signals (100 MHz, three meter lengths).

How much power were you often exposed to, directly, at the point of entry into your body?

The power actually one is actually exposed to matters. A ten thousand watt transmitter in the next room matters little, if it's power is sent out over an antenna pointed elsewhere, not at one's vital organs.

A key problem with "noisey" consumer grade electronics, such as microwave ovens, might be that they leak higher frequency overtones of their primary operating frequency. Such devices are "full spectrum" EMF noise radiators, not laboratory or even broadcast quality clean signal generators. The harm comes, I would presume, when a particular frequency happens to resonate with a particular electro-magnetic activity in the body, such as in a particular chemical or genetic process, and is at sufficient power to alter that process at a higher rate than the body can adapt and repair. That harm might come, not from the primary operating frequency of the device, but from some significantly lower powered, higher frequency, overtone.


The only way to create a shield is to put the device or yourself into a Faraday cage. Not practical...

Well, not the only way. One can also actively cancel a given signal, as received at a given point, by transmitting the opposite signal at the same power, at that point.

But, more importantly, the goal of those of us concerned with this is not so much to provide a high level (multiple nines, such as in 99.9% reduced) shielding. Rather the goal is to reduce the harmful biological effects below the level that one's body can easily tolerate. Simply adding some distance between the body and the source can help quite a bit.

===

Apparently we both agree that there can be harmful biological effects; the question is just what frequencies and power, for a given human body, are harmful.

When I operated a satellite tracking radar (perhaps at a 1 GHz frequency; I forget now) in Thailand, for the US Air Force, in the 1970's, we automatically turned off the transmitter when the antenna was pointed at our barracks, in hopes that we would not sterilize ourselves while we slept.

===

Such loaded comments as "various 'papers' often published in pay-to-publish magazines, rather than serious scientific journals" don't help answer such questions as just what frequencies or power are harmful to a given person.

Regarding that comment in particular, many of us here have concluded that "serious scientific journals" are quite capable of publishing "research" that will later be (or should later be) discredited. There is a long history of journals selectively choosing which articles to publish, based on agendas or biases that can (sometimes even deliberately) distort or obscure the truth,
of the abstracts of such articles as do get published over stating the claimed results and understating the limitations, and then
of the popularized articles about that research further sensationalizing (and falsifying) the already over stated claims in the abstract.
===

As I do with my food, water, air and with what influence I have on this forum, I do what I reasonably can to improve the quality, to "get more good stuff and reduce the bad stuff." The border between what's easily tolerated and what's too much and too toxic is seldom well defined, and varies by person. We each do what we can, and when one of us notices a particular harmful effect, as LadyM did noticing reactions in her own body, that can provide useful feedback to help focus our efforts to improve our environment and well being.

[Nick Matkin]

Dr. M Pall also blames EMF on autism. And there we all were blaming vaccines...

[ThePythonicCow]

Dr. M Pall also blames EMF on autism. And there we all were blaming vaccines...

False dichotomy ... the rise in autism likely has multiple causes.

False implied inference ... that Dr. M Pall might have gone too far claiming that EMF causes autism doesn't discredit all claims that EMF can be harmful.

[ThePythonicCow]

anecdotal, but how much of this do you suppose is placebo? the mind is a powerful thing.
Indeed - the mind is powerful indeed.

On the other hand, the ability of robust men in their prime to withstand poisons, trauma and saber tooth tiger attacks is often at a peak.

My body could easily tolerate a "Standard American Junk Food" diet when I was half my current age, that would leave (and has left) me literally sick-a-bed and unable to tend to basic bodily functions at my current age.

[Nick Matkin]

My informed opinion (having worked in broadcasting for 40 years) is that neither field is dangerous in the intensities the general public will ever encounter at home or outside.
What frequencies were you often exposed to?

My working assumption is that selective higher frequencies, such as tens of Gigahertz (sub centimeter wavelength) or higher frequencies are likely to more biologically active than for example FM Radio signals (100 MHz, three meter lengths).

How much power were you often exposed to, directly, at the point of entry into your body?

The power actually one is actually exposed to matters. A ten thousand watt transmitter in the next room matters little, if it's power is sent out over an antenna pointed elsewhere, not at one's vital organs.

A key problem with "noisey" consumer grade electronics, such as microwave ovens, might be that they leak higher frequency overtones of their primary operating frequency. Such devices are "full spectrum" EMF noise radiators, not laboratory or even broadcast quality clean signal generators. The harm comes, I would presume, when a particular frequency happens to resonate with a particular electro-magnetic activity in the body, such as in a particular chemical or genetic process, and is at sufficient power to alter that process at a higher rate than the body can adapt and repair. That harm might come, not from the primary operating frequency of the device, but from some significantly lower powered, higher frequency, overtone.


The only way to create a shield is to put the device or yourself into a Faraday cage. Not practical...

Well, not the only way. One can also actively cancel a given signal, as received at a given point, by transmitting the opposite signal at the same power, at that point.

But, more importantly, the goal of those of us concerned with this is not so much to provide a high level (multiple nines, such as in 99.9% reduced) shielding. Rather the goal is to reduce the harmful biological effects below the level that one's body can easily tolerate. Simply adding some distance between the body and the source can help quite a bit.

===

Apparently we both agree that there can be harmful biological effects; the question is just what frequencies and power, for a given human body, are harmful.

When I operated a satellite tracking radar (perhaps at a 1 GHz frequency; I forget now) in Thailand, for the US Air Force, in the 1970's, we automatically turned off the transmitter when the antenna was pointed at our barracks, in hopes that we would not sterilize ourselves while we slept.

===

Such loaded comments as "various 'papers' often published in pay-to-publish magazines, rather than serious scientific journals" don't help answer such questions as just what frequencies or power are harmful to a given person.

Regarding that comment in particular, many of us here have concluded that "serious scientific journals" are quite capable of publishing "research" that will later be (or should later be) discredited. There is a long history of journals selectively choosing which articles to publish, based on agendas or biases that can (sometimes even deliberately) distort or obscure the truth,
of the abstracts of such articles as do get published over stating the claimed results and understating the limitations, and then
of the popularized articles about that research further sensationalizing (and falsifying) the already over stated claims in the abstract.
===

As I do with my food, water, air and with what influence I have on this forum, I do what I reasonably can to improve the quality, to "get more good stuff and reduce the bad stuff." The border between what's easily tolerated and what's too much and too toxic is seldom well defined, and varies by person. We each do what we can, and when one of us notices a particular harmful effect, as LadyM did noticing reactions in her own body, that can provide useful feedback to help focus our efforts to improve our environment and well being.

Some reasonable points there Paul. Most of my exposure was below 100 MHz, but you'll know the field strengths allowable for people to work in drops as frequency rises, for the reasons you suggest; resonances within the body. But oddly there seems to be no internationally agreed figures relating to maximum permissible field strengths at various frequencies.

It's also true that working next to a shielded 100kW transmitter isn't dangerous, but the antennas maybe only 50 yards away and even at 26 MHz they are not very directional, so all staff working at the station receive high field strengths. Working near a UHF TV transmitter antenna of the same power is much more dangerous. Radar even more so, and it's been known from early experiments of the heating effects of the microwaves (hence the development of the microwave oven). I did work on Marconi Marine radar in the late 70s. We had a crude device to detect microwave radiation leakage from the magnetron and waveguide - a neon bulb on a stick FFS! By the time that's glowing, so too are your gonads!

Radio signals can indeed be be cancelled by equal amplitude but opposite phase (the basics causing VHF aircraft flutter and HF fading), but in a real environment difficult to control I suspect.

As far as I can remember, field strength limits were based on heating effects on the body (particularly the eye which has no circulation to move heat away), but I've read suggestions that the biological effects can occur well below that. All I can claim is that of the many retired RF engineers in the UK and around the world, I have seen no evidence that we develop sicknesses rare in the general population, or die younger than anyone else. This is surely worthy of including in research.

[Noelle]

The following comes from an FCC web page on RF radiation (https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety):

WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RF ENERGY?

Biological effects can result from exposure to RF energy. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excess heat load.

At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects, if they exist, have been referred to as "non-thermal" effects. A number of reports have appeared in the scientific literature describing the observation of a range of biological effects resulting from exposure to low levels of RF energy. However, in most cases, further experimental research has been unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, since much of the research is not done on whole bodies (in vivo), there has been no determination that such effects constitute a human health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards-setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether changes in safety limits are needed to protect human health.

[Nick Matkin]

The following comes from an FCC web page on RF radiation (https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety):

WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RF ENERGY?

Biological effects can result from exposure to RF energy. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to as "thermal" effects. It has been known for many years that exposure to very high levels of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat that could be generated. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the excess heat load.

At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects, if they exist, have been referred to as "non-thermal" effects. A number of reports have appeared in the scientific literature describing the observation of a range of biological effects resulting from exposure to low levels of RF energy. However, in most cases, further experimental research has been unable to reproduce these effects. Furthermore, since much of the research is not done on whole bodies (in vivo), there has been no determination that such effects constitute a human health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards-setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether changes in safety limits are needed to protect human health.

A reliable source in my opinion and I wouldn't argue with any of that. But no doubt someone can find some EMF fear porn from any number of the New Age 'health' websites. Disclose.tv, NaturalNews.com and DoctorOz.com amongst others spring to mind.

[Foxie Loxie]

Interesting discussion, everyone! LadyM, sounds like you might be highly sensitive, for some reason. Each person is different. :Angel: