[p2p-research] Health implications of wireless

Samuel Rose samuel.rose at gmail.com
Sun Feb 10 18:58:30 CET 2008 

On Feb 10, 2008 11:22 AM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp at lastrega.com> wrote:

> It appears that the IEEE research and evaluation may have been slanted in
> favor of higher standards than are innocuous for human and other life. There
> are some who say that the exposure threshold set is WAY too high.
> IEEE acknowledges that there ARE dangers to biological tissues, but says
> there are practically no effects below the threshold for exposure.
>
> This review says there are numerous studies that have shown effects even
> at extremely low levels of exposure. The author advises caution and further
> research...
>

That is good advice


>
> http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/henry_lai2.htm
>
> IEEE acknowledges that research is needed to* "determine the comparative
> biological effects of exposure to continuous wave and modulated (including
> pulsed) RFEM"* which is really what mobile phone and Wi-Fi technologies
> are all about. They are pulsed at low frequencies similar to biological
> signal frequencies. I believe the pulsing is a consequence of a technical
> choice: The Time Division Duplex or TDD protocol of data transmission.
>
> IEEE also says that "The IEEE recognizes that the perception of risk is an
> important aspect of the public's well being, because even the belief that a
> benign agent poses a danger may have an adverse effect on the believer."
>
> This does not sound very scientific to me. A person, according to the IEEE
> can get ill by *believing* that these EM waves can do harm. That is a very
> convenient way not to have to look at evidence of harm reported by people
> who use the technology or live close to transmission towers that irradiate
> them day in day out. It also means there is no way to prove harm, unless the
> industry and the IEEE decide to finance research that has a good chance of
> destroying their business, because individual cases are seen as merely
> "anecdotes".
>

Actually, without digging up a bunch of references, I think research has
shown that a person's beliefs/perceptions/ongoing state of mind can have a
HUGE affect on their actual health. One person who has done who has done a
huge amount of work in this areas is Bruce McEwen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_McEwen

So, taking this reality into account does seem scientific to me



>
> Sometimes cases do get into the press, especially when cancer clusters are
> found around an antenna that cannot be explained by anything else but the
> effects of the RF EM radiation. Here is a recent example.
>
>
> http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/2/7/the-cell-phone-quot-tower-of-doom-quot.aspx
>
> Quote: "*Orange mobile phone company agreed to remove its cell phone mast
> -- dubbed the "Tower of Doom" -- from the top of a five-story London
> apartment building after seven of its residents got cancer.*
> *
> *
> *The cancer rate among those living on the top floor, where residents from
> five of the eight flats were affected, is 20 percent -- 10 times the
> national average."*
>

I agree, the research of IEEE does not seem very conclusive, nor do the
standards it has generated seem to keep pace with new data and information
emerging.


> **
>
> Nevertheless, although the IEEE does point to the need for further
> studies, these studies are not being done. You might ask why. The studies
> would endanger a trillion dollar industry. If you follow the auctions of
> spectrum to mobile access providers, you will have seen how much money is
> being made by governments selling that spectrum. So with industry and
> government closely allied, tied together by huge common financial interest,
> we can not expect that the needed research will be done. It would be against
> those interests to allow such research to go ahead.
>

I think this is the most compelling argument you have. At least it is the
one that resonates the most with me. Having been employed in the
telecommunications industry in the US for over 8 years, it would not suprise
me at *all* if telecommunications companies were able to wield a huge
influence over these safety standards through the influence of money and
lobbies. Telecomms in the US have extremely powerful lobbies.


>
> On the other hand, there ARE people who are super-sensitive and who suffer
> badly from RF EM exposure. But those people, according to the IEEE are poor
> deluded idiots who "*believe that **a benign agent poses a danger"* and
> are therefore suffering ill effects. I am in contact with several of these
> people. They are desperate over the apparently callous refusal of industry
> to pay any heed.
>

Well, I think that at least someone at IEEE was trying to keep it real by
including the real factor that belief can beyond the shadow of a doubt, have
a huge effect. They simply need to have enough comparisons of people who
believe vs those that do not to eliminate this as a significant factor. Like
you said, that research is probably not being done.


>
> Now we have had radio frequency EM waves for quite some time, with little
> ill effect. What changed, in my view, in recent times came with the
> introduction of digital technologies that required pulsed transmission
> protocols (TDD), which, according to the article in *The Ecologist* may
> well be the thing that links these EM waves closely to biological organisms
> where such a link was not present with previous analog technology.
>
> So my question really was, whether there is any chance that with passage
> from TDD (Time Division Duplex) to FDD (Frequency Division Duplex) we could
> be serendipitously making a change for the better, i.e. towards a protocol
> that has less of a chance to be damaging to human and other life.
>


Most of the recent research I have come across seems to lean towards FDD
being safer.



> I am not assuming that the IEEE standards are capable of preventing ill
> health effects, in other words.
>

I brought up IEEE because:


   - There *is* a scientific consensus from many standards bodies who
   have done actual research around their numbers.
   - Their research is based upon close to 40 years worth of testing and
   research combined to make their findings, specifically about the W per kg,
   and W range.

I don't think that the IEEE work is the last word, and I think in a world
where people in power cared about safety, the IEEE findings I referenced
would probably have not been good enough to base a set of standards off of.

I have to disagree with you that the publication that I referenced has
inaccurate information. I can find absolutely nothing that is based on
actual research, that disputes or refutes the numbers referenced.

When I referenced that report, and those numbers, I said:

"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)."

I think if we are going to say that 4W/kg is inaccurate, we should have some
kind of evidence that refutes what that number is based on, which comes from
work from several international sources. all of which I do not believe are
on the payroll of telecomm companies.

Anyway, this is not a debate that I want to spend a lot of time on. And, it
is getting way of topic in it's present state for this list.

But, I think some real work needs to be done to establish a baseline that is
absolutely known not to be tainted by industry money. Then, you will have
something to judge FDD by. I think we both probably agree with that. So,
there really is not a conclusive answer to the actual question you are
asking at this time, from anyone :)


Sam




>
> Kind regards
> Sepp
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/feb/08, at 17:00, Samuel Rose wrote:
>
>
> *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 2.5times 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *The individual is supreme and finds its way through intuition.*
>
> *Sepp Hasslberger*
>
>
> *Health:* http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/   -
> http://www.laleva.org/
>
> *New energy:* http://blog.hasslberger.com/   -
> http://newenergycongress.org/
>
>
> *Media:* http://www.masternewmedia.org/   -
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
>
> *Turn off your TV:*
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3956361694476971154
>
>
>


-- 
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/20080210/6f2d1532/attachment-0001.html

More information about the p2presearch mailing list