[p2p-research] Health implications of wireless
Samuel Rose
samuel.rose at gmail.com
Sat Feb 9 17:00:37 CET 2008
*http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm
*
Quote:
*"A large body of data exists on the biological effects of exposure to RFEM
fields. Much of this literature describes experimental investigations with
laboratory animals, tissue preparations, or cells. There are also several
epidemiologic studies. Consequences of exposure to RFEM energy that have
been reported in the literature at various exposure levels include effects
on behavior, the central nervous system, blood parameters, the immune
response, the endocrine system, metabolism and thermoregulation,
reproduction, the auditory system and the eyes.*
*Several standard-setting organizations have evaluated the data on
biological effects and have determined that a threshold SAR of about 4 W/kg
averaged over the whole body is the level at or above which adverse health
effects may occur in human beings. This SAR is equivalent to about 2.5 times
the resting energy production rate of the human body. Organizations that
have used 4 W/kg as a basis for standard-setting include the ANSI (ANSI,
1982 <http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#ANSI-82>), the
IEEE (ANSI/IEEE,
1992 <http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#ANSI-92>), the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP,
1986<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#NCRP-86>),
the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH,
1993<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#ACGIH-93>),
the National Radiological Protection Board (NPRB,
1993<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#NRPB-93>),
and the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA,
1993<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#IRPA-93>).
However, in 1984 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Elder and Cahill,
1984 <http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#EPA-84>) concluded
that:*
*the review of the currently available literature on RF radiation provides
evidence that biological effects occur at an SAR of about 1 W/kg; some of
them may be significant under certain environmental conditions." Therefore,
although biological effects may occur at SARs in the range 1 to 4 W/kg, 4
W/kg is the consensus threshold level of potentially harmful effects.*
*Evaluation of the experimental data on biological effects in laboratory
animals does not provide convincing evidence that prolonged RFEM exposure at
low whole-body-averaged SARs (0.4 W/kg or less) can be harmful to human
health; further, the available evidence indicates that moderate absorption
rates (approximately 1 W/kg) can be tolerated by human beings. However,
unless properly supervised and controlled in a medical setting, prolonged
whole-body exposure at specific absorption rates high enough (e.g., greater
than 4 W/kg) to elevate the body's core temperature in excess of 1 degree C
should be avoided. The ANSI/IEEE
(1992)<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#ANSI-92>,
NCRP (1986) <http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#NCRP-86>IRPA
(1993) <http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#IRPA-93> standards
and recommendations are based on a SAR of 4 W/kg threshold. Each
incorporates safety factors to derive the recommendation that whole-body
average exposure levels not exceed 0.4 W/kg in environments designated
either occupational or "controlled", or 0.08 W/kg in environments designated
either general-public or "uncontrolled". Detailed definitions of controlled
and uncontrolled environments can be found in the ANSI/IEEE
C95.1<http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/embs/comar/rf_mw.htm#ANSI-92>guidelines
(1992).
* and
*Although individual standards may differ somewhat in the specifics, they
generally all converge on similar threshold values of SAR. Some standards
also provide data on maximum allowable partial body exposures and criteria
for avoiding RF shocks and burns. It should be noted that SAR criteria do
not apply to exposures at low frequencies (less than 100 kHz) for which
nerve stimulation (shock) occurs, or at frequencies higher than 6 GHz for
which surface heating prevails."*
----
That is as of 1995, and this combined research has generated the standards
that we are currently operating under. Although, there probably is ongoing
research, I am not aware of a new standards-altering review (I can't find
one, anyway).
I interpret the above IEEE publication as saying that ther definitely are
known health concerns, and there are known thresholds upon which a consensus
has been reached from several independent sources, that known health
risks/biological damage can occur.
So, what is the usual mW output, and exposure of Frequency Division Duplex,
and what is the amount of time exposure normally experienced? I think this
will give us a better idea of the danger/non-danger of FDD-based WiFi, and
other technologies (if you accept IEEE and other findings, which is agreed
upon to be at 4W/kg average exposure being the threshold for damage).
On Feb 9, 2008 12:20 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone on this list have special knowledge on the following topic?
>
> see:
>
>
> 1. Sepp Hasslberger <http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/> Says:
> February 8th, 2008 at 4:33 pm<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ecomm-2008-conference-will-report-on-wireless-revolution-in-the-making/2008/02/08#comment-185278>
> e<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/wp-admin/post.php?action=editcomment&comment=185278>
>
> Hi Michel,
>
> I won't be able to participate in this conference, but would like to
> ask you to bring up, either in your talk or perhaps better in your informal
> contacts, a question that is running around in my mind.
>
> You may have heard that apparently, wireless technologies,
> especially the mobile phone tech but also wifi seem to come with health
> problems. Tumors in heavy users of mobile phones and in people who live
> close to repeater antennas, headaches, an other less noticeable health
> effects cannot really be denied any longer. Two articles on my site
> detailing such health effects are:
>
> Mobile And Wireless - Largest Biological Experiment<http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/04/20/mobile_and_wireless_largest_biological_experiment.htm>
>
> The Cell Phone Experiment: Is Mobile Communication Worth The Risk?<http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/12/14/the_cell_phone_experiment_is_mobile_communication_worth_the_risk.htm>
>
> A recent article in *The Ecologist* narrows down the mechanism by
> which these EM waves may be affecting biological organisms:
>
> "There are many different theories on how electromagnetic radiation
> interacts with our bodies, but pulsed microwave radiation, such as that used
> by Wi-Fi and mobile phones, is thought to affect the body's cells in a
> unique way.
>
> Although microwaves oscillate (change direction) many thousands of
> times each second, the carrier pulses which convey your voice or emails
> along the signal actually oscillate at a much slower rate, only hundreds of
> times a second. This slower rate allows the pulses to interact with protein
> vibrational receptors, like microscopic hairs, on the membranes of our
> cells. The cells interpret this unusual stimulation as a foreign invader and
> react as any organism would - by closing down the cell membrane. This
> impairs the flow of nutrients into the cell or waste products on their way
> out. It also disrupts inter-cellular communication, meaning that clusters of
> cells that form tissues can no longer work as effectively together.
>
> The increase of trapped waste products can lead to an increase in
> the number of cancer-causing 'free radicals'. Worse still, a chemical known
> as 'messenger RNA' inside the cell passes on this 'learned response' to
> daughter cells, meaning that the cell's offspring also learn to interpret
> microwaves as an external threat and react in the same way.
>
> The disruption in cellular processes is thought to lead to the many
> and various symptoms of electrosensitivity, and the build-up of free
> radicals released when the cell dies could be connected with the increase in
> tumors seen in those exposed to frequent doses of microwave radiation."
>
> and also
>
> "Both systems [Wi-Fi devices and mobile phones] use high-frequency
> microwaves that are 'pulsed' rapidly on and off to transmit data. This
> pulsed aspect of data transmission is important, because it means that,
> although a signal might appear to be low-powered when measured over a period
> of time, it could reach 'spikes' of much higher levels when data is actually
> being transmitted."
>
> So it doesn't seem to be necessarily be the microwaves that are bad
> for us, at least at low levels of strength, but the pulsing (the on-off
> between data packets) which links them to biological processes.
>
> Now recently, I have read that there may be different protocols of
> data transmission, that use different methods of separating the packets of
> data. One is time division duplex (TDD) and the other frequency division
> duplex (FDD).
>
> Could a passage of the technology of wireless communication from
> time division duplex to frequency division duplex eliminate what appears to
> be the major cause of 'linking' microwave radiation to biological tissues,
> that is, the low frequency division of transmitted data into time-detached
> 'packets'?
>
> I realize that you may not have the answer to this, but as you are
> going to the conference with the wireless strategy planners, could you put
> that question to one or more of them? I would be very happy if you did.
>
> Perhaps passing from TDD to FDD (or some other change of that
> nature) could resolve many of the health problems we see today around the
> application of wireless technologies.
>
>
>
> --
> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
> alternatives.
>
> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>
> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
>
> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
--
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
AIM: Str9960
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samrose
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com/services
http://blog.socialsynergyweb.com
Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:
OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPage
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
http://www.cooperationcommons.com
http://barcampbank.org
http://bfwatch.barcampbank.org
http://communitywiki.org
http://extinctionlevelevent.com
Information Filtering:
http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarks
http://del.icio.us/srose
http://twitter.com/SamRose
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080209/41b147ba/attachment.html
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list