5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness

Prev: instructor[SLAP]
Next: Speaker - terminal connected to the AC line?

From: Paul G. on 25 May 2010 11:55

From: Gerard Bok on 25 May 2010 13:36

On Tue, 25 May 2010 08:38:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote:

>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.

Imho the most important finding by this study is, that there is a
major flaw in common thinking about HF-RF to human influence.
The common story goes: "if there is an effect, it can only be
thermal by nature". So, once you prove that there is not enough
energy to cause any extra heath, you have proven that HF-RF is
harmless.

The study shows, that there is a) not enough energy transferred
into the study subjects to cause measurable themperature rise.
And b) that with statistical significance, some people are able
to tell whether a transmitter is on or off.
That being the case, there is at least a need for the
'it's-all-harmless-gang' to provide a credible hypothesis for the
mechanisme that enables some people to 'sense' whether the
transmitter is on or off.

>>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.

No ! There was no proven harm associated !
That's a totally different matter. This study reproduced the
dutch finding: "they know and we cannot explain why" ;-)

>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 fully agree here. I would have been excluded as a test subject
because I drink 4 cups of coffee a day.
Also, people with existing RF induced complaints were excluded.
That's rather odd as as a layman I would expect some hits,
especially within this group :-)
(And on a medical note: on one side I can see why they wouldn't
accept schizophrenics in this test. On the other hand, I wouldn't
at all be surprized if one day they'll find, that the same
mechanism gets triggered in humans, by radio waves for some, by
hormones or proteines or even spontanious by others.)

>>On the dim side: this is 'beyond repair' ;-)
>
>Brain washing might work.

Actually, I was referring to the fact that this discussion has
nothing to do with sci.electronics.repair :-)
Altough a sloppy microwave repairman may think otherwise.
(If still able to think at all, that is.)

--
met vriendelijke groet,
Gerard Bok

From: takveen on 26 May 2010 00:32

I think the safest approach is to avoid wireless as much as possible.
You know what I did, I made my home network from wireless to wired by
running Cat5e cable using a Gigabit Router. We still have 2.4 Ghz but
not for video streaming. But no 5 Ghz. I heard from others as well
regarding the havocs of 5 ghz band.

From: Jeff Liebermann on 26 May 2010 12:30

On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:55:38 GMT, Paul G. <paulguy(a)eastlink.ca> wrote:

>www.antennebureau.nl/fileadmin/pdfs/TNO_COFAM_rapport_2003.pdf
>
>Interesting report ....
>Paul G.

Sorry for the delay. Paying work comes first. 89 Pages before my
morning coffee. Ugh. Document is locked and cannot be copied, which
means I can't cut and paste quotes. Why make it easy? I'm lazy, so
I'll paraphrase.

1.1.1 selection of subjects. Half the subjects came from the
"Monitoring Network for Environmental Health" database of what appears
to be chronic complainers. Lovely. That's like using cancer prone
rats for cancer research. It improves the odds of a positive result.

1.1.1 selection of subjects. Subjects with coronary disease and
psychiatric illness have been excluded but they didn't measure the
blood pressure or heart rate leaving the results to be totally
subjective.

1.1.2 Experimental Setup. Oh, this is cute. Since none of the
subjects in the non-complaining group B experience any symptoms when
exposed to GSM, in order to manufacture valid results, the researchers
used the RELATIVE level of complaints between the two groups
(A=complainers, B=non-complainers). So, if everyone that isn't
hypersensitive feels nothing, the report can still claim a positive
result. Nice.

Pg 14 Figure 3.3 shows the antenna arrangement. Note that the
monitoring antenna (black blob on the end of a stick) is very close to
the antenna. That's wrong. This experiment is suppose to simulate
exposure from base stations, not handsets and is therefore using the
far field. however, the measuring device is in the near field. It
needs to be at least 10 wavelengths away from the antenna in order to
get accurate results. At 900Mhz, that would be about 30cm. At
1800Mhz, that would be about 15cm. From the photo, my guess is about
10 cm. A more logical monitoring location would be near the subjects.

Pg 23 is in the middle of a nice review of SAR heating research and
methodology. I like this quote:
Interestingly, a study by Bernardi[34] showed that the mere
presence of a non-transmitting GSM phone made a greater
contribution to the temperature increase that occurred than
the electromagnetic field.
Well yes. Also, locking the subjects inside an anechoic chamber, with
a mess of menacing looking antennas, and being asked dumb questions,
might also have a similar effect.

Also, SAR measurements were intended to be used for near field handset
exposure, not far field cell site exposure. Little of the cranial
exposure calculations shown in section 5 are valid for far field
exposure.

The procedures, selection criteria, and double bind exposure details
appear to be valid and well considered. I have some minor issues with
the types of tests and questions asked, but nothing worth detailing.

As near as I can decode the results in 11.5 Pg 59, there was a
statistically significant effect with UMTS (2100MHz) exposure with
both groups, and nothing else. Oddly, the report complains about the
"inadequate" RF exposure procedures employed by other researchers,
while I find their monitoring and measuring procedure to be equally
poor.

The Conclusions in Section 12 Pg 61 is weird. They found an effect at
2100 Mhz with 'well being' from group A (complainers) and what appears
to be me to be inconsistent effects with 900 and 1800 MHz. More
simply, they found a correlation at one frequency and both groups, but
everything else was just noise. Interestingly, they did NOT find any
increase in sensitivity among group A (complainers) as compared to
group B (non-complainers). My conclusion is roughly the same as
theirs. There MAY BE some correlation, but the results are far from
definitive.

Also, since the results were not conclusive and haven't been verified,
the "more research is necessary" catch phrase was invoked on Pg 62.

Drivel: I once proposed an experiment for RF exposure. Drag in the
usual collection of random bored volunteers and set them up for an RF
exposure test. Also, wire them up for an assortment of real time
physiological measurements. Have them answer some verbal wellness
questions to keep them occupied. After the test, correlate the
measurements with the questions and RF exposure. Yes, it's a lie
detector test. I did a crude dry run with two friends and found that
they were probably lying on about 25% the wellness questions. Since
there was no political or financial interest in validating subjective
RF exposure test methods, the full test was never performed. For a
list of projects that were funded, see:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners>

--
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: David Nebenzahl on 26 May 2010 17:17

On 5/24/2010 10:06 PM Jeff Liebermann spake thus:

> 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.

In my youngah days, I could sometimes hear the high-pitched whine of
television receivers (horizontal scan, right? ~15kHz?). Not any more.

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: instructor[SLAP]
Next: Speaker - terminal connected to the AC line?

5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too?