EMF|p13

WiFi

Why Wireless fidelity computer network is a danger to health

Hundreds of studies have already demonstrated the severely deleterious health effects of living near radio and microwave broadcast towers. (See Research)

Also, review the information on irrelevance of present SAR standards.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself acknowledges that current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) radiation protection standards are inadequate and do not account for all possible harmful effects of RFR, in particular the non-thermal effects that are of particular relevance to the radiation utilized by WiFi. In a July 16, 2002 letter from Norbert Hankin of the EPA’s Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division to Janet Newton, President of The EMR Network, Mr. Hankin writes : “The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, are thermally based, and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure situations.”

WiFi creates a chronic, non-thermal exposure situation.

Swedish doctor Leif Salford has shown that “low power broadcasts can be more damaging than higher power ones, depending on frequency, modulation, coherence, bandwidth and other properties of microwave radiation.” Therefore, WiFi broadcasts, which are lower power than cell phone broadcasts, may actually be MORE damaging.

“Another familiar piece of misinformation that needs to be addressed is the assertion that the emissions of a Base-station are comparable 16 to that of only a 60W light bulb, and thus equally harmless. Quite apart from the fact that a 60W light bulb can be harmful to a person with photo-sensitive epilepsy, if it is flashed at an appropriate rate, the comparison is solely based on intensities, and neglects three important points:

( i ) The fact that more than one carrier is always emitted. Thus, the figure of 60W must be multiplied by the number of carriers that are actually transmitted in any particular case; in order to minimize inter-carrier interference, however, this number is restricted typically to 4 at the most, whence the total output wattage can be a high as 240W.

( ii ) The beams, however, are not emitted uniformly in all directions, but are instead concentrated in specific directions, the degree of directional focusing being quantified through the so-called ‘gain’ (G) of the antenna, typical values of which, in the case of GSM, range from about 40 to 60 [ 2 ]. (This applies even in the case of so-called ‘omni-directional’ antennae, which emit beams that are omni-directional only in the horizontal plane; in the vertical plane, the beam is directionally orientated by an amount that is determined by its vertical (angular) width – typically, about 10 degrees.) Accordingly, to calculate the power density (intensity) at a distance d from the mast using the familiar ‘inverse square law’, the power, P , delivered by the antenna must be multiplied by the gain, G, whence the intensity is given by the formula: PG/4ðd2; ; thus in the above example with P = 60W and G = 30, the effective directionally focused power (per single carrier)

– the so-called ‘isotropic radiated power’ (EIRP), given by the product PG – is 1800W, which is further increased to 7.2kW if 4 carriers are transmitted – a value that is 120 times higher than the 60W cited! The maximum EIRP value permitted by law is 1500W per carrier , whilst the maximum number of carriers is 16 (at 1800MHz) and 10 (at 900MHz); in practice, however, the number of carriers is usually restricted to 4 at the most, for the reason mentioned above.

( iii ) The comparison neglects the all important frequency dimension, in particular the difference in the frequency that characterizes the visible light from the light bulb from that which defines the radiation to be (invisible) microwave radiation. For whilst the output from such a bulb is, during the day 17 , completely negligible in comparison with visible light of natural origin – i.e. that from the Sun – this is not so in the case of the microwave radiation emitted by a Base-station antenna day and night, which, several hundred of metres away, is typically 10 billion (109) times higher than the microwave radiation that is emitted by the Sun at the same frequency. Accordingly, the emissions of telecommunication Base-stations have caused an enormous (and relatively sudden) alteration in the natural environment (at this frequency) from that in which life on Earth has, over a very much longer time, evolved. The impact of this altered environment on biology is further enhanced by the high coherence of the Base-station radiation, as already noted in Para.2.” ( How Exposure to GSM & TETRA Base-station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans, by G J Hyland, Associate Fellow Executive Member, Department of Physics, International Institute of Biophysics, University of Warwick, UK Neuss-Holzheim, Germany)

[…

Stress-response proteins produced by the body to repair cellular damage have been detected after .001W/kg SAR exposure (dePomerai et. Al. 2000)

Calcium ion efflux is detected at .005 W/kg SAR. (Dutta et al, 1989)

DNA damage has been detected at .006 W/kg. (Phillips et al 1998)

The blood brain barrier of mice leaked at .004 W/kg. (Persson et al 1997)

However, United States ‘ RF radiation exposure guideline for the public is .08 W/kg., the ICNIRP standard is 2 W/kg, and the FCC SAR level set for cellphones is 1.6W/kg.

What will the SARs created by the WiFi system be? What will local SARs be after the WiFi radiation is added to the radiation already present from RF/MW towers, radar, etcetera? Has this been mapped?

An independent licensed RF engineer can make power density predictions which would then have to been followed up by actual field testing using full-spectrum RF meters, also done by licensed RF engineers.

The mapping must consider the overlapping radiation from all present RF/MW towers, radar, etc. Present SARs can only be determined by taking actual readings in every area to be affected, perhaps at 300 foot intervals throughout the entire area. —Shivani]

Information that is generally required to conduct RFR (radiofrequency radiation) Assessments includes

  • antenna transmitter location
  • the number of transmitters operating simultaneously
  • the frequency of each transmitting antenna
  • the number of channels (radios) per antenna
  • the effective maximum radiated power (ERP) for each channel and the expected radiated power for each channel
  • the direction of each antenna (show vertical plane pattern)
  • downtilt of antennas should be taken into account in calculations
  • operational characteristics (communication? Wireless data?)
  • a topographic map showing location of the site and of surrounding buildings
  • the number of occupied stories and heights of each floor of buildings
  • RFR contours should plot ERP at one meter and three meters above ground level, and establish AGL reference points to take ground elevation changes into account
  • RFR contours depicting the maximum power density, and contours showing the 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, 2, 1 0.1 and 0.01 µW/cm2 should be calculated and mapped for the proposed project installation
  • RFR contours depicting the maximum power density, and contours showing the 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, 2, 1 0.1 and 0.01 µW/cm2 should be calculated and mapped for cumulative power density from all co-located transmitting antennas.

Information should be overlain on a land use map showing nearest uncontrolled public access, distance to occupied buildings and designated land use for each building (home, school, daycare, pre-school, hospital, convalescent hospital or home, commercial office, shopping mall, etc)” (“Radiofrequency Radiation Information: What the Public Needs to Know for Wise Decision-making in Cell Siting” , Cindy Sage of Sage Associates)

The Naila Study, Germany (November 2004) – This study, conducted over 10 years was released by The Federal Agency for Radiation Protection, Germany. Medical doctors compiled case histories since 1994 – 2004, looking at heightened risk of taking ill with malignant tumours. They discovered a threefold increase after five years exposure to microwave radiation from a mobile phone mast transmitter for up to 400 metres distance, compared to those patients living further away.

“The citywide WiFi system now planned for Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA would provide approximately 3,000 such broadcasting antennae. As Arthur Firstenburg has calculated, the maximum distance of anyone in the area from a tower would be about 700 feet, and an individual’s “best-case” scenario would be to have 4 towers each about 700 feet away. Athur points out that of course some people would just happen to have a broadcaster right outside their home, and that a WiFi broadcaster 20 feet from a home is about the equivalent of a microwave tower 600 feet away, roughly 200 meters.” [Please reread the statistic immediately above!] –Arthur Firstenburg

[The planned system is Broadband, with frequency hopping. This means that the frequencies the residents will be exposed to will be multitudinous, and changing at a rate of perhaps 150 times a second. Given the extreme electro-sensitivity of living organisms, the effects of this may prove horrendous. Residents will be unwilling guinea pigs in a very high-risk experiment.

The proposed WiFi broadband initiative is not subject to federal preemption of consideration of health and environmental issues, as WiFi operates in an area of the electromagnetic spectrum currently unlicensed by the FCC and not subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

A City’s duty is to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, including protection from the potential health and environmental impacts of pervasive, low-level modulated microwave radiation. If the City has adapted the Precautionary Principle, this virtually mandates that such considerations be taken into account.

It has been found in populations studied to date that 30 to 50% of individuals have electrical sensitivity resulting in symptoms, while 3% have electrical hypersensitivity, causing disabling symptoms resulting in inability to work. Presuming that half of Milwaukee’s population of 600,000 is adult, 3% translates to 18,000 people with disabling symptoms resulting in inability to work.

It has also been noted that as a population’s exposure to electromagnetic radiation accumulates and increases, sensitivity increases and begins at ever-lower levels of exposure.

Electromagnetic exposure in Milwaukee is already at strong stress levels. Those making the decisions would do well to pause for education and compassionate contemplation before adding the all-encompassing blanket of WiFi electrosmog to residents’ stress.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) itself acknowledges that current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) radiation protection standards are inadequate and do not account for all possible harmful effects of RFR, in particular the non-thermal effects that are of particular relevance to the radiation utilized by the WiFi network proposed. —Shivani]

“Launching a virus into the wild has never been easier and more anonymous than it is today. . . . Even a robustly secured wireless access point can be cracked in a matter of hours.

Given how easy, anonymous and financially rewarding hacking and Internet theft have become, how many security personnel are you prepared to pay for to ensure that your WiFi network does not become a magnet for every industrious criminal enterprise across the country or around the world? In short, to truly secure a wireless network is an extremely expensive and complex task.” ( From the 9/28/05 letter to San Francisco mayor Newsom, written by Doug Loranger on behalf of the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU), a grass-roots, city-wide coalition of community organizations and individual residents, to express strong, unequivocal opposition to a San Francisco wireless fidelity (“WiFi”) broadband initiative.)

[Milwaukee, San Francisco and other cities considering citywide WiFi would do well to consider the possibility of being remembered as having thoughtlessly jumped on the WiFi bandwagon at the expense of both the security and well-being of the city’s residents. — Shivani]

“I have no doubt that at the present time the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields.”
Robert O. Becker, M. D., Author of “Cross Currents and The Body Electric”

[back to INDEX page]