5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too?
in [Repair]
|
From: isw on 25 May 2010 00:33 In article <9tdmv5p57ju8vcl73mjj3o89hjglivaacb(a)4ax.com>, Paul G. <paulguy(a)eastlink.ca> wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:24:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> > wrote: > > >On Sun, 23 May 2010 18:55:06 -0700 (PDT), "takveen(a)gmail.com" > ><takveen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too? > >(...) > >>http://www.progneer.com/wp/information_more_public.aspx?search_fd0=72216 > > > >I have a WRT600N at home which I used for testing. Nice router. I > >only have one laptop that uses 802.11a so I can't claim much exposure. > >To the best of my knowledge, I haven't become ill when using it. > > > >> It was written on the box to keep it 1 meter away from the body. > > > >That's not going to work because the extra dim LED's are impossible to > >see unless you shove your face into the front panel. > > > >> If you are having 5 Ghz band ON > >> for video streaming and even if you are sitting 1 meter away from the > >> device, after 4 hours I think you will feel dizziness and after 8 > >> hours nausea. > > > >If I wasted 8 hours in one sitting watching TV, I'm sure I would > >experience adverse physical effects. Have you considered climbing out > >of your overstuffed sofa, and getting some casual exercise, such as > >crushing the beer cans? I solved two problems simultaneously by > >installing my bicycle on an exercise stand, and pedaling furiously > >while watching TV. I had some initial problems with hyperventilation, > >which did cause some dizziness, but that went away as I adapted to the > >effort. The only change from standard was to place the TV on the > >floor, where it was easier to see from the bicycle. > > > >There are also physiological causes of nausea and dizziness. > ><http://www.dizzinessandnausea.com> > > > If you stay within the 1 meter range, and assuming the transmitter > output several hundred milliwatts, and you do this for extended > periods of time, you are probably going to have similiar issues to > those people who use cell phones with badly designed antennae. There > are known side effects.... but they are down in the statistical noise. > Although the power levels are similiar, you don't have your head right > up against the antenna as in a cell phone. Given the fairly weak > correlation between side effects of cell phones (and they are long > term effects), and your much greater distance from the antenna, I'd > say your risk is very small. > The cell phone issue relates to brain cancer and leukemia for very > heavy cell phone users, and for specific (older) models. There are a > number of peer reviewed papers on this subject. I think you forgot to mention that not a single one of those papers showed a significant connection. Isaac
From: Jeff Liebermann on 25 May 2010 00:36 On Tue, 25 May 2010 03:12:18 GMT, Paul G. <paulguy(a)eastlink.ca> wrote: > The cell phone issue relates to brain cancer and leukemia for very >heavy cell phone users, and for specific (older) models. There are a >number of peer reviewed papers on this subject. Thank you for changing the subject from wi-fi exposure to cellular exposure. You might be interested in the following graph of the incidence of new brain and central nervous system cancers in 5 major metro hospitals: <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer.jpg> Please note that it's almost constant from 1975 to 2006. During the same time period, use of cell phones increased rather dramatically. The cell phone was invented in 1973, but didn't really "take off" until the early 1990's. If there was a correlation between cell phone use/exposure, it should have shown up as an increase in brain and CNS cancers. Also see: <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer-by-age-1992-2006.jpg> which shows the incidence of brain and CNS cancer versus age aggregated from 1992 to 2006. Note that the bulk of the incidence is for age 55 and up. From personal observation, most teenagers have their cell phones glued to their ears. If RF exposure was involved, I would expect a larger incidence among the younger cell phone users. If you have any information that contradicts any of this, or somehow connects 5.7GHz wi-fi exposure to any of this, I would be interested. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: Jeff Liebermann on 25 May 2010 01:06 On Tue, 25 May 2010 03:12:18 GMT, Paul G. <paulguy(a)eastlink.ca> wrote: > If you are that certain of the effects, have someone turn the >offending unit on or off so that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT STATE IT IS IN >DURING THE TEST. Do a reasonable number of tests (>20) and see if you >sense better than 50/50. Your tester should also not know what state >the unit is in (double-blind) during your "sensing" period. That >requires some form of random on/off switch (10-20 pos rotary sw. with >no stops), covering all LEDs, etc. Be aware that the human mind is >easily influenced by stimulii that you might think are unrelated to >your experiment! For example, if the unit emits the slightest hum, it >will probably ruin your experiment, because you would consciously or >unconsciously associate it with your symptoms. > If you can correlate your experience with the unit being on, then >you have something to go on, and it will silence the naysayers. Then >it will be an interesting case. You reminded me of a consulting job I had about 15 years ago. A research lab was exposing lab rats to 900MHz RF, and looking for physiological changes, including cancers. They were getting positive results and were preparing to publish. However, the reviewers were worried about how evenly distributed the RF was inside the test box. So, I was dragged in to do the necessary measurements. I shoved a borrowed Narda RF exposure meter into the box, and got nothing. After some tinkering, I determined that the RF connector entering the box was badly assembled and was shorted. There was no RF at all in the box. All the data and positive results were worthless. Needless to say, I was not very popular around the lab after that. Adding more topic drift, I had a customer that claimed that she could "feel" the radiation coming from her new computah. I did a single blind experiment to see if she could tell if it was turned on and found that she really could. I had no clue, so I walked down the road, injested an ice cream (favorite brain booster), and did some thinking. I used an ultrasonic pipe leak detector to find that the desktop power supply was belching considerable audible ultrasonic noise. I tested every PC power supply I had in stock, found the least disgusting, and replaced her power supply. She claimed she could still "feel" it, but that it was much better. I eventually buried the xformers and inductors in RTV, which solved the noise problem. She was one of the rare adults that did not lose their childhood high frequency hearing. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: Gerard Bok on 25 May 2010 06:33 On Tue, 25 May 2010 03:12:18 GMT, Paul G. <paulguy(a)eastlink.ca> wrote: >On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:24:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> >wrote: > >>On Sun, 23 May 2010 18:55:06 -0700 (PDT), "takveen(a)gmail.com" >><takveen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too? >>(...) >>>http://www.progneer.com/wp/information_more_public.aspx?search_fd0=72216 >> >>I have a WRT600N at home which I used for testing. Nice router. I >>only have one laptop that uses 802.11a so I can't claim much exposure. > If you are that certain of the effects, have someone turn the >offending unit on or off so that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT STATE IT IS IN >DURING THE TEST. Do a reasonable number of tests (>20) and see if you >sense better than 50/50. Your tester should also not know what state > If you can correlate your experience with the unit being on, then >you have something to go on, and it will silence the naysayers. Then >it will be an interesting case. Actually, that has been done. By TNO in the Netherlands. The results have been confirmed by a study in Switserland. In short: Some people are capable of knowing whether a transmitter is on or off. TNO: Effects of global communication system radio-frequency fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects with and without subjective complaints. TNO-report FEL-03-C148, 2003. Swiss: Regel SJ, Negovetic S, R??sli M, Berdi?as V, Schuderer J, Huss A, Lott U, Kuster N, and Achermann P. 2006. UMTS Base Station-Like Exposure, Well Being and Cognitive Performance Environ Health Perspect: doi:10.1289/ehp.8934. [Online 6 June 2006] On the dim side: this is 'beyond repair' ;-) -- met vriendelijke groet, Gerard Bok
From: Jeff Liebermann on 25 May 2010 11:38 On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:33:49 GMT, bok118(a)zonnet.nl (Gerard Bok) wrote: >Actually, that has been done. By TNO in the Netherlands. >The results have been confirmed by a study in Switserland. >In short: Some people are capable of knowing whether a >transmitter is on or off. > >TNO: Effects of global communication system radio-frequency >fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects >with and without subjective complaints. >TNO-report FEL-03-C148, 2003. The full report is not available for free (few such reports are free). Abstract is free: <http://oem.bmj.com/content/63/5/307> Conclusion: Despite very low exposure to HF-EMF, effects on wellbeing and performance cannot be ruled out, as shown by recently obtained experimental results; however, mechanisms of action at these low levels are unknown. Ummm... that's not exactly definitive. It's more like a solicitation for more research. "Cannot be ruled out" is a phrase often used when "cannot be proven" is more appropriate. Commentary on the report: <http://oem.bmj.com/content/63/5/298.full.pdf> Evidence is emerging that prior beliefs about the risks from modern technology are an important predictor of symptoms from perceived exposures. Thus, by distorting perceptions of risk, disproportionate precaution might paradoxically lead to illness that would not otherwise occur. In other words, there are some holes in the procedures that need to be fixed before anything conclusive can be claimed. Most such studies are epidemiological meaning that a wide spectrum of environmental, symptomatic, and psychological problems need to be ruled out before the blame can be definitively assigned to RF exposure. As near as I can determine by reading bits and pieces of the original report, the researchers measured the RF intensity (at what frequencies?) in the bedrooms of 365 subjects, and gave them a survey to fill out to determine their health. Since the 365 subjects were randomly selected, it's conceivable that there were some prior medical conditions and prior opinions on the RF exposure issue, which would certainly appear on the survey. This is hardly a double blind study as all the participants were deemed to have been exposed. >Swiss: Regel SJ, Negovetic S, R??sli M, Berdi?as V, Schuderer J, >Huss A, Lott U, Kuster N, and Achermann P. 2006. UMTS Base >Station-Like Exposure, Well Being and Cognitive Performance >Environ Health Perspect: doi:10.1289/ehp.8934. [Online 6 June >2006] <http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.8934> In both groups, well-being and perceived field strength were not associated with actual exposure levels. In contrast to a recent Dutch study, we could not confirm a short-term effect of UMTS base station-like exposure on well-being. In other words, there was no effects to RF exposure. I find the procedure a bit amusing, in that subjects were asked to refrain from taking any medications for 24 hours prior to the test exposure. I'm one various heart meds. If I did that, my BP and pulse would climb, resulting in some minor anxiety effects. No RF required. 3 sessions, of 45 minutes exposure each, is hardly sufficient exposure. However, 10 V/m is not a strong RF field, where 41 V/m at 900MHz is the recommended US max exposure for the general public. <http://www.atdi-us.com/docs/wp_%20health%20safety%20and%20field%20strenght%20exposure%20in%20ics%20telecom.pdf> >On the dim side: this is 'beyond repair' ;-) Brain washing might work. Education through advertising perhaps. Maybe throw some public relations money at the problem. In any case "more re$earch is nece$$ary". -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: instructor[SLAP] Next: Speaker - terminal connected to the AC line? |