Wi-Fi sadness

Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love has it. Many in San Francisco want him…

Wireless broadband Internet access (wireless) It seems too good to be true. On
relatively low cost, anyone can connect to the Internet anywhere in a city. the whole city
need to do is install WiFi antennas.

One argument in favor of citywide Wi-Fi is that it will reduce digital divide:
the poorer you are, the more limited your access to the Internet and its information
resources. Cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco are actively trying to shut down the
digital divide. One option is Wi-Fi.

Yet, when weighing the options, you hear virtually nothing about the health potential.
risks Saturating an entire city with WiFi adds to the existing load of non-ionizing
radiation. That load, called electrosmog by some, consists of long-term
exposure to low-level concentrations of non-ionizing radiation from familiar sources
such as radio and television signals, electronic and electrical devices, and the ubiquitous cell phone
telephone.

Wireless Internet access

Local area networks (LAN) link computers, printers, modems, and other
devices. Traditional LANs make the links physically using wire cable. Publications
between the computers and the other devices on the network are managed by a device
called to router.

A wireless LAN eliminates the wire cable by using a router that transmits and
receives radio signals. To use a wired LAN, you must plug the computer or other
device into a wall socket. A cable runs from the socket to the router, which manages
signal traffic between network devices.

With a wireless LAN, each device on the network is designed so that it can send a signal
to the router and receive the signals back. Wireless routers typically have a range of
hundreds to several hundred feet. Range can be increased by adding a booster
which increases the signal strength.

As with all radio signals, the closer you are to the transmitter (the router), the more
the stronger the signal. Cell phones work on the same principle. the difference is that
cell phones operate at a different frequency and emit a stronger signal than cordless phones
LAN.

radio frequencies

Cell phones operate on frequencies in the 3 to 30 GHz range, similar to microwaves.
ovens. Wireless LANs operate at one-tenth of that range: 0.3 to 3 GHz, the range of
UHF television broadcasts. GHz stands for gigaHertz, a standard measurement
of radiofrequency radiation (RFR)–electromagnetic radiation created by
sending an alternating electrical current through an antenna. The higher the GHz,
the faster the current alternates.

Frequency alone does not measure the potential effect of RFR. how would you do it
I guess signal strength matters too. The strength of a signal is measured
on watts, a standard measure of electrical energy. For example, at 100 watts
The bulb is brighter because it puts out more energy than a 60-watt bulb.

Think of the effect of waves on the beach: small waves far apart (low force, low
frequency) versus very close large wave (high force, high frequency). Tea
The former is likely to have less effect than the latter.

RFR exposure is measured using the SAR Specific Absorption Rate. SAR is
expressed in milliwatts/kilogram (mW/kg) of body weight or in milliwatts/kilogram
centimeter (mW/cm2) of exposed body area: the size of the wave and the amount of
your body hits

health risks

WiFi enthusiasts dismiss concerns about health risks because the power output and SAR
the exposure is significantly below the minimum standard set for cell phones. but cell phone
telephone standards are established for the short-term exposure of a cell phone in depressed use
to your head In addition, the standards are set based on the thermal effect (heating)
of radiation.

Non-thermal effects of cell phones are documented at exposures below current.
American standards, including

– memory loss,

– sleep disruption,

– slow motor skills and reaction time,

– decreased immune function,

– spatial disorientation and dizziness,

– Headaches,

– reduced sperm count,

– increased blood pressure and pulse,

– DNA breakage and reduced DNA repair capacity, and

– cell proliferation.

A second problem is that cell phone exposure is intermittent, while WiFi
exposure is constant. A more accurate comparison is with the cell phone effect.
transmission antennas. These antennas send and receive radio frequency signals
constantly.

The signal strength of an antenna is comparable to that of a cell phone only at a very short distance.
tidy. The exposure is not the brief explosion of a cell phone, but a persistent bath of low
RFR force. In addition to the documented health effects of cell phone use,
exposure to mobile phone antennas includes

– increased blood pressure and pulse,

– sleep disruption,

– emotional effects such as increased depression and irritability,

– memory loss and brain fog,

– fatigue and dizziness, and

– increased risk of cancer.

Due to these effects, the International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO)
decided in 2004 that they will not allow cell phone antennas in fire stations.

RFR hypersensitivity

Much of the discussion about the health effects of RFR is framed as a concern with people
they are hypersensitive. hypersensitivity is the technical term for allergies
and similar overreactions of the immune system. But instead of pollen, RFR
Hypersensitivity is a reaction to non-ionizing agents.
radiation. It seems that the unlucky few are affected while the rest of us are out of the game.
hook.

Research by Olle Johansson and Örjan Halberg of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm
suggests the opposite. They looked at cancer incidence in Europe and the US.
and found a surprising association between the increase in certain types of cancer during the
20th century and RFR exposure measured by radio and television broadcasts.

What hypersensitives really represent is one extreme in a complex landscape of
effects and risks. Like any other environmental stressor, RFR will affect some
people more than others. And as with other environmental stressors, the greater the
general cargo, the greater the risk of becoming one of the “unlucky few”.

Wireless LANs add to the existing load of RFR. As well as burn more fossil fuels
adds more smog, adding more RFR adds more electrosmog. you do not have to do it
expose your home or your city to the increased load created by WiFi. There is a
viable alternative: a wired LAN. Exaggeration can make it seem less convenient and
more expensive. But what is a good night’s sleep worth? Or reduce your risk of
Cancer?

Resources

International Association of Firefighters. 2004. Position on the health effects of
Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation at Fire Department Facilities
Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for Conduction of Cellular Telephony
Transmissions. Access at http://www.iaff.org/safe/content/celltower/
towercellularfinal.htm.

Johansson, Olle, and Doug Loranger. 2005. Electrosmog. your own health and
Physical aptitude. Broadcast November 29, 2005. http://yourownhealthandfitness.org/
radiation.html.

You knew, Cindy. 2005. Comment on San Francisco TechConnect Community Wireless
broadband initiative. Sage Associates: September 2005.