OT: can antennas for wireless Internet cause damage to health?

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 12 February 2007 06:03, jdow wrote:
>From: "Norm" <maillist at sios.ca>
>
>> jdow wrote:
>>> From: "Norm" <maillist at sios.ca>
>>>
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>> In the building where I live, the building administration is
>>>>>> intending to install at its top an antenna for irradiating the
>>>>>> signal for wireless Internet users. Can those antennas interfere
>>>>>> with the health of the people living in the building?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you climb onto the roof and eat it, then it might be bad for
>>>>> you.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you wanted a more serious answer then try a more relevant list.
>>>>> Some keywords that might help you are "ERP", "SAR", "NCRPM" and
>>>>> "FCC"
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> Having had a massive brain tumour removed I am a bit sensitive to
>>>> off the cuff ridicule of someone asking such a question.  Despite
>>>> the cries of many in the radio and near radio industry and others
>>>> there is considerable empirical evidence that there is a correlation
>>>> between brain tumours and emf in general.  Which side one lands on
>>>> is dependent on personal views.  The industry studies showing no
>>>> problem should be treated with suspicion.  We all know of industries
>>>> such as the tobacco industry that for years claimed their products
>>>> were not harmful. The effect of one wireless antenna on its own will
>>>> probably not harm most healthy people but, one more added to the mix
>>>> may cause an emf overload on someone.
>>>> In simple terms no one can say with assurance  the new antenna will
>>>> or will not cause a problem.
>>>
>>> Make that anecdotal evidence. Very large studies have not turned up a
>>> significant correlation between cell phone usage and tumors. The
>>> amount of energy radiated by wireless cards is less than cell phones.
>>>
>>> {^_^}
>>
>> The choice of the word empirical was intentional. Yes there are
>> studies pointing the other way on the subject but there are also 
>> studies from reputable scientist that indicate a reason for concern.
>> One concern is frequencies discussed are in the same area as the
>> frequency of DNA. Anything that interferes with DNA should be viewed
>> with suspicion. I feel that the words of Dr Wagner at the University
>> of Integrated Science California in
>> "March 2006
>> *Assessing the Harmful Effects of Manmade Electromagnetic and
>> Extremely-Low Frequency Fields
>> *By Professor David Wagner
>> .....
>> As alluded to previously, within the context of human history, the
>> advent of electricity is a relatively new development, and it is
>> blatantly obvious that the full implications of this technological
>> innovation have not yet been determined, particularly with regard to
>> the effects of ELF and EMF exposure upon biological systems. However,
>> taken as a whole, the wide array of correlative evidence that is
>> available in the extant published research literature on the subject
>> leave little doubt that these forces initiate or exacerbate a number
>> of disadvantageous biological responses in humans and animals, many of
>> which, like cancer, are strongly linked with negative health
>> outcomes."
>> Are sufficient to at least suggest caution when dealing with emf.
>> Turning back the clock with respect to emf is impractical but caution
>> as we move forward is prudent.
>
>University of WHAT? As best I can tell from their web page they are an
>Internet diploma mill. "Distant learning" indeed... Sheesh. You take his
>bullshit for fact and disregard the large studies out there? His babble
>about "frequency of DNA" didn't clue you in to his con? Sheesh!

Yeah, my bullshit detector really went into high gear on that one.

>Hey, guys, we're missing a chance here. We could REALLY mess with this
>Norm geek's mind. It'd be fun, I bet. Make him paranoid to get out of
>his aluminum foil suit then tell him that there's no way he can wear
>it and stay safe because it'll leak at the seams. The best he can do
>is live in as good a solid copper Faraday cage as he can afford.
>
>{+_+}

Chuckle, I thought of that too, Joanne, but sending him after a cannon 
report did seem to be a bit obvious.  So I tried to actually make sense.
Here of course, everybody is an expert even if they aren't carrying a 
briefcase and/or more than 50 miles from home.  Others cannot see and 
verify our 'credentials', having to take us at face value so to speak.  
One of the hazards of the nets annonimity(sp, I'm too lazy to look it up) 
I guess.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2007 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.