IPWireless - Health Hazard?

I

Inkblot

Active Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Location
.
I've read that the Cape Town launch got delayed alledgedly due to complaints by "tree-huggers". This got me thinking about the validity of their arguments and the possible health hazards of using a wireless modem. Thus the reason for this post - not to create sensation (cellphones are frying our brains! [;)]) but rather to gather factual information so that I can form my own (informed) opinion. [:)]

I couldn't find any health warnings on the Sentech or IPWireless websites. Since they've been in this business for many years we <i>assume </i>that they know what they are doing.


However, I believe my concern is quite relevant. The attraction of these modems is the benefit of being "always-on". In my case that means that I now spend a lot more time behind my computer, with this modem perched close to my head.

Commons sense tells me that the modem, being a relatively powerful RF device (that can transmit up to 5km's), should generate a electromagnetic radiation field that, with prolonged exposure, might have possible harmful effects on the human body. Just like microwave ovens it can result in the heating of human tissue and an increase in body temperature.

Now for my questions:
- Does anybody know what the output of the modem is in milliWatt?
- Does anybody know of any scientific studies (preferably published) that has been done on the possible harmful effects of these modems?
 
I would not be worried about it. The TX power of the modems are less than 1 W. A quick search found some "high power" modems of 200 milliWatt. (I am not sure what the TX power of the Sentech ones are, but those who have a modem can probably find the specs on the net somewhere, do post if you find it.) Compare it to cell phones which at 1.8 GHz can transmit up to 1 W, but you hold it against your head and nevertheless no evidence has been found (yet) that this is unsafe.

We have done specific studies on this topic (radiation hazards), and have not found anything alarming (yet) with regards to heating of human tissue or SAR (Specific Absorbtion Ratio) as it is more correctly called at cellular frequencies.

If your modem is just beside you (say 50 cm), that distance is already large enought to result in (at least) a 100 times drop in the radiation your body is exposed to. The human eye is the most susceptible to radiation, so maximize the distance between your head and the modem if you are concerned about it.

I'd be more worried about talking on a cell phone than the wireless.

Ajax
 
The only health risk I can think of is P.T.S. When you start feeling angry at the wife, because you don't have Telkom to feel angry at.


<hr noshade size="1"><center>N<s>oo</s>ne needs to reply to everything</center>
 
Don't the delays have to do with regulations regarding the aesthetic appearance of towers? Seem to remember reading that somewhere.
 
re cell phones not proven to cause damage - well, thats not exactly true. A recent Swedish science report (in February) has clearly shown EM radiation causing damage and bleeding in rat brains..

and before anyone does the 'they're not the same as our brains' argument - yes they are, just smaller.
(Also the usual approach of 'questionable validity of testing on animals versus human' dont apply when you're dealing with radio signals which dont need to be ingested in any way by the animal.

(animals often exhibit abilities to eat and process chemicals which would kill humans, so they're not very good test subjects in terms of biology - but for radiation leakage tests, they're basically the same ahem 'kind of animal' as us..

Also there's so much invested now in the cellphone industries, that its cheaper to let people quietly fall sick and die from what they think is cancer/tumours.. (consider the widespread use of aspartame in most cold drinks, apsartame is also called 'nutrasweet'and is in everything from chips, through to that listerine 'mouthwash' etc - aspartame metabolises and breaks down into formaldehyde in the body, and is clearly indicated in causing brain damage similar to parkinsons disease - this is known and documented, but there's too much money to be made, so its not regulated or banned)

Its cheaper and more expedient for industry to let people die over time, there's always new consumers ready to eat the chemicals. Take a look at the things being advertised on childrens TV, then go look over the ingredients listed in the packaging of those sweets, biscuits, chips, cold drinks..
Anyway :) here's the cellphone report..

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/medicine/article/0%2C12543%2C573349%2C00.html

-snip-
Neuroscience: A Swedish study links mobile phones to brain damage. In rats, anyway.

by Elizabeth Svoboda February 2004

The safety of cellphones has been called into question, again. This time the scientific community is paying very close attention.

Last summer neurosurgeon Leif Salford and colleagues at Lund University in Sweden published data showing for the first time an unambiguous link between microwave radiation emitted by GSM mobile phones (the most common type worldwide) and brain damage in rats. If Salford's results are confirmed by follow-up studies in the works at research facilities worldwide, including one run by the U.S. Air Force, the data could have serious implications for the one billion?plus people glued to their cellphones.

The findings have re-ignited a longstanding debate among scientists and cellphone manufacturers over cellphone safety.

Many of the hundreds of studies performed during the past decade suggest cellphone use may cause a host of adverse effects, including headaches and memory loss. Other studies, however, have shown no such effects, and no scientific consensus exists about the effect of long-term, low-level radiation on the brain and other organs. A comprehensive $12 million federal investigation of cellphone safety is currently under way but will take at least five years to complete.

Meanwhile, the research world is scrambling to replicate Salford's surprising results. His team exposed 32 rats to 2 hours of microwave radiation from GSM cellphones. Researchers attached the phones to the sides of the rats' small cages using coaxial cables -- allowing for intermittent direct exposure -- and varied the intensity of radiation in each treatment group to reflect the range of exposures a human cellphone user might experience over the same time period. Fifty days after the 2-hour exposure, the rat brains showed significant blood vessel leakage, as well as areas of shrunken, damaged neurons. The higher the radiation exposure level, the more damage was apparent. The controls, by contrast, showed little to no damage. If human brains are similarly affected, Salford says, the damage could produce measurable, long-term mental deficits.

The cellphone industry so far has been quick to dismiss the data, saying emissions from current mobiles fall well within the range of radiation levels the FCC deems safe (body-tissue absorption rates of under 1.6 watts per kilogram). "Expert reviews of studies done over the past 30 years have found no reason to believe that there are any health hazards whatsoever," says Mays Swicord, scientific director of Motorola's Electromagnetic Energy Programs. Dr. Marvin Ziskin, chair of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' Committee on Man and Radiation, is similarly skeptical. "The levels of radiation they used seem way too low to be producing the kinds of effects they're claiming."

Salford is the first to admit that it's too early to draw any conclusions, but contends the unusual results deserve a closer look. "The cellphone is a marvelous invention; it has probably saved thousands of lives," he says. "But governments and suppliers should be supporting more autonomous research." Meanwhile, Salford advises users to invest in hands-free headsets to reduce radiation exposure to the brain.

-end article
 
in cases like this, it's best to have 2 independant labs get the same results before conclusions can be drawn.

surely the difference in between humans and rats have to be taken into account?
I'm pretty sure you'll get bleeding on the brain if a 50 ft cellphone is strapped to your house.

--
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">AJAX: Do you know the cause of "heating of human tissue "<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If the tissue is exposed to an electric field, a simplified why of looking at it is that the field causes current to flow in the body due to voltage differences it causes in the body. And since the body has a resistive component, the current through this resistive component causes the rise in temperature.
The microwave oven applies this principle.
 
I have not seen the latest report on the rats yet. Thanx LoneGunman.
I think we are going off topic, anyway, like I said, I am more worried about talking on cell phones merely because the source of radiation is RIGHT next to your head. Certainly this rat report gives rise to more worry.

Ajax
 
While we're at it, I do recall seeing a BBC documentary called 'Current Fears' - where they fairly clearly showed the corresponding rise in incidents of cancer alongside/beneath high voltage powerlines - as well as looking at a number of case studies where children developed forms of cancer due to the placing of their beds alongside electrical junction points and plugs within the walls of their bedrooms.. again, the problem is the vested interests and costs in actually making it 'safe' versus the widespread chaos and lawsuits that would erupt were the actual problem be acknowledged..

Also, I'm wary of what constitutes 'acceptable minimum dosages' - as these are pretty much thumbsucks, whether its x amounts of wattage, or roentgens per year from dental x rays, or the gentle frying from microwave towers, or hidden cabling alongside the head of your bed, or gradual decaying of the shielding in your microwave, or the EM bath of signal from TV's (or your neighbours TV, for that matter)on the other side of the wall you're sleeping against - its impossible to set a 'norm' with regard to how the individual human body will react to the wide cocktail of different forms of radiation society is bathed in.

Person A will be fine, while Person B, will start having their cells mutiply uncontrollably (which is what cancer is) - and technically ANY amount of radiation can be considered sufficient to kickstart cancer, but for the purposes of creating a vague structure from which to operate, its accepted as a general official illusion that 'minimum dosages' are somehow 'true' 'safe', and accurate.

But humans are quirky and individual in their reactions, something 'minimum doses' dont cater for at their upper and lower ends of scale.

(and no, Im not a tree hugger, I'm an anarchist vegetarian - so I figure ok, burn forests, kill everything in Nature, tough.
Its the horrid cost of so-called civilisation :P)
(I do use a non-fluoride toothpaste though, dont want cancer, and have done for about 20 years - go to http://www.nofluoride.com to see about yet another way you're quietly getting a cancer-causing substance in that fresh minty taste you always hear them advertise)
 
Ja, one can get quite paranoid hearing all these reports and rumours.
Just because no conclusive evidence exists that something is bad for you does not mean it isn't bad for you. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Nevertheless, on the rat report again, I just spoke to a few colleagues of mine. The rat report came out early last year already, and during the past year the person who conducted the study has lost a lot of credibility among the scientific community, mainly because no one has been able to reproduce the results and due to questionable methods that was used in the study.

By the way, if you look on the site where the report is, they advertise "radiation shields" for you cell phone. Those things are absolute rubbish.

Ajax
 
*Inkblot scratches his head and quietly ponders the <b>50+</b> <u>hours</u> he spends <i>per month</i> talking on his mobile phone*

Anybody figured out the milliWatts on the modem yet? That for me is the crucial tidbit of info. It's fine to compare the modem to a mobile phone.... but what if the modem transmits at 500 milliWatts?

I'm still amazed at the range of these little modems compared to two-way radios. Powerful little buggers... and that my friends is what is bothering me. [:)] Hmmm... now if I can find a way to turn my tin roof into an massive dish to improve my reception... maybe tap into Eskom lines to boost the transmitting power of the modem... would I do it? Of course! [:D] If it ain't fun, it ain't worth it. Who wants to live forever anyway. [8D] I feel the need... the need for speed! [;)]
 
Let's look at how many people die yearly in car accidents. They try to make the car occupant safer, yet it helps zero for pedestrians.
You don't even need a scientific study to point it out.

I don't see us stopping the manufacturing of cars or even putting law into place to prevent any cars on the road.

There are so many things nowadays that are detrimental to our health, yet the average life expectancy seems higher now than ever before.

Uhm, some Actuary will probably "kill" me for the above statement - oops, better test that theory on rats first, just in case.[:o)]


You don't know what you don't know.
Mux
 
Yes, our cars are now far more reliable than us. The majority of accidents are not caused by 'vehicle failures' but 'human failures' (speeding, driving drunk etc).
 
foils not a bad idea, :P do some sniffing about the use of cellphone masts to create 3D radar imagery which can 'see' through walls in a wide radius around the masts - called 'Celldar' - read UK Gov's Mobile Phone Spying Plan: http://64.55.181.130/news/geeknews/2002Oct/pda20021015016794.htm

re life expectancy - remember of course, that you're living in a country where - according to UN stats and predictions, 1 in 5 south africans will be dead by 2015 or so, because of AIDS. Thats around 10 000 000 (million) deaths minimum, so life expectancy is actually dropping locally, regardless of 'Drive Alive' success rates. This will also impact insurance companies and premiums, and I recall a figure from somewhere, of around 35 as the eventual standard local life expectancy, because of the mass deaths pulling down the stats.
(I've read reports from overseas about disused mine shafts being considered as makeshift burial vaults, as the cemetaries are already approaching capacity - dont know if this has been covered in local media, as it doesnt fit with the flag-waving rainbow nation stuff)

*goes back to his foil covered room, and assembling survival equipment in case whispers of something fun coming between June - September are true..*
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ajax</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">AJAX: Do you know the cause of "heating of human tissue "<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If the tissue is exposed to an electric field, a simplified why of looking at it is that the field causes current to flow in the body due to voltage differences it causes in the body. And since the body has a resistive component, the current through this resistive component causes the rise in temperature.
The microwave oven applies this principle.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actualy it does not. When a sinosoidal EM wave passes through a polorised molocule (like water) the molocule starts to rotate due to EM replusion and attraction (I'd have to draw a picture to explain it properly). Physics 101 when molocules vibrate fast they get hot, shorter the wavelength, the more something vibrates. A microwave however is 1000W of very direct exposure.

<hr noshade size="1">
"Since light travels faster than sound, people appear bright until you hear them speak."

NetLink Research
 
The radiation from my cellphone is going to kill me, mywireless will kill me when i get it... least i'll die happy!

Who knows maybe by the time they can actually prove the link between the GSM & WiFi rediation they'll have a cure for cancer...

or something better, cheaper and faster than GSM & WiFi...

"Nothin' ain't worth nothing, But it's FREE!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X