<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div>Thanks for the numbers, Jason. Much appreciated.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I carry a cell phone, but keep the cell radio turned off unless I am using it. I discourage incoming cell calls (it's a lifestyle choice, I don't give most people the right to interrupt me at will in real time). I use speakerphone when possible so I can avoid pressing the thing against my head when it isn't necessary. I have home wifi and don't worry about it. I wasn't sure if my lack of wifi precautions were justified, but your measurements are reassuring (even if not definitive).<br></div><div><br></div><div>Some things I have read on the internet suggest that a small subset of people are far more sensitive to EMR than the average person, but I don't have enough data to have an opinion. I do know that cell phone cancer has occurred (it's rare), and I do know that a few people are negatively affected by infrasound from wind mills; I have data for this.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I have checked out the levels of radiation on Mars, and radiation exposure during interplanetary travel, and I will not be participating in Elon's Mars colonization project. Really, there are multiple reasons for this decision.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Doug.<br></div><div><br></div><div>On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 4:49 PM, Jason Eckert wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style=""><div dir="ltr"><div>Since it's on topic (somewhat), I thought it'd be fun to share the small fun (but crude) Wi-Fi and cellular radiation experiment we do as an extra in our Wireless Infrastructure Administration & Design course.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Basically, I introduce that radiation is energy that travels. All radiation will pass through various materials. Nonionizing radiation doesn’t affect the materials that it passes through (light & radio waves). Ionizing radiation DOES affect the material that it passes through by creating charged particles in the materials called ions (x‐rays, gamma rays, lasers). All high-voltage devices create at least a small amount of ionizing radiation, and we even have background ionizing radiation due to cosmic rays & rock (e.g. Colorado and the Canadian Shield).<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>Today, it is considered bad if you absorb more than 20000 uSv of ionizing radiation per year<br></div><div>1 year = 8 765.81277 hours<br></div><div>20000 uSv per year / 8765.81277 hours year = 2.28159105 uSv per hour<br></div><div><br></div><div>Background radiation is well known for all parts of the world (Kitchener is 0.15 uSv per hour)<br></div><div>2.28159105 uSv per hour / 0.15 uSv per hour = 15.210607<br></div><div>So, 15X background radiation in Kitchener would be bad.<br></div></div><div><br></div><div><div>So let’s do an experiment:<br></div><div>1. Get a cheap ($15) radiation dosimeter <br></div><div>2. Measure the background radiation (e.g. ticks/minute if it doesn't have an LED readout)<br></div><div>3. Put it next to a cell phone playing a video across cellular data (4G/5G LTE) & measure the ticks/minute<br></div><div>4. Put it next to a cell phone playing a video across WiFi (802.11n/ac/ax) & measure the ticks per minute<br></div><div>5. See whether 4G/5G LTE and/or 802.11n/ac/ax generate more than 15 times background radiation.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Results? They’ve been pretty consistent:<br></div><div>Background radiation = 13 ticks/minute (baseline)<br></div></div><div><div>Playing YouTube video on cellular data (4GLTE/5G) = 140-150 ticks/minute (>10 times the background radiation)<br></div><div>*5G was a bit less! (lower power than 4G)<br></div><div>Playing YouTube video on Wi-Fi 802.11n connection = 13 ticks/minute (= background radiation)<br></div></div><div><div>Playing YouTube video on Wi-Fi 802.11ac connection = 14 ticks/minute (= background radiation)<br></div><div>Playing YouTube video on Wi-Fi 802.11ax connection = 13 ticks/minute (= background radiation)<br></div><div><br></div><div>So cellular is definitely worse than Wi-Fi, but you'd probably have to be on a cellular connection all the time to get close to the recommended bad dosage per year.<br></div></div></div><div><br></div><div class="qt-gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="qt-gmail_attr">On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 16:06, Doug Moen <<a href="mailto:doug@moens.org">doug@moens.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="qt-gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1px;padding-left:1ex;"><div>I know somebody who got brain cancer from a RIM cell phone, and who received hush money from RIM.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Whether cell phone radio wave frequencies are "safe" is not a yes or no question, in the sense that either the frequency is ionizing or non ionizing. What matters is intensity and duration. In the case I mention above, the design of the phone and its antenna, the frequency and duration of use, and the way it was held, were all relevant factors.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Drinking water is not "safe" in an absolute sense: an overdose will kill you. Magnetic fields are not "safe": a high enough intensity will kill you. Black pepper and cloves are known carcinogens (I still use them). There was a case last year of someone dying from an overdose of licorice candy (which I occasionally eat).<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Some people are more sensitive to environmental stressors than others. If your immune system is compromised, for example, then minor cellular damage that would be cleaned up and repaired in a healthy person could turn into cancer. This is just one way you could be sensitive to environmental stressors, there are many others.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> So don't be making absolute statements about the safety of something and calling it "science".<br></div><div> <br></div><div> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 1:51 PM, Steve Izma wrote:<br></div><div> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 12:26:19PM -0400, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:<br></div><div> >> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] To WIFI or not to WIFI<br></div><div> >> <br></div><div> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 10:52 AM Federer Fanatic <<a href="mailto:nafdef@gmail.com" target="_blank">nafdef@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div> >> <br></div><div> >> > Hi, There are various hypothesized issues regarding exposure<br></div><div> >> > to wifi<br></div><div> >> <br></div><div> >> There is no science behind any of those claims.<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > The great thing about science and its doctrines is that there are<br></div><div> > so many to choose from.<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > The problem is that most of the choices are expensive, in that<br></div><div> > published peer-reviewed science mostly comes out of institutions<br></div><div> > whose funding is geared towards commercialization of research. I<br></div><div> > have spent nearly fifty years in scholarly publishing (mostly<br></div><div> > social science) and I know what kind of research doesn't get<br></div><div> > sufficient funds for making it through the process. It's usually<br></div><div> > the counter-intuitive ideals that challenge the peers who hold<br></div><div> > the reigns of acceptable publishing.<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > In respect to electro-magnetic radiation, even the capitalists<br></div><div> > and militarists are needing to consider a revision of past<br></div><div> > assumptions:<br></div><div> > <<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/09/14/cockpit-electromagnetic-fields-are-harming-pilots-the-us-military-fears" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/09/14/cockpit-electromagnetic-fields-are-harming-pilots-the-us-military-fears</a>><br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > Microbiological research has shown that cells of all organisms<br></div><div> > use some sort of electro-magnetic radiation for communication<br></div><div> > (among other processes, such as chemical signalling and mRNA).<br></div><div> > <<a href="https://deheynlab.ucsd.edu/research/em-communication/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://deheynlab.ucsd.edu/research/em-communication/</a>> It's<br></div><div> > likely that cells learn to adapt to interference from external<br></div><div> > EMR, but obviously such a process depends on many factors, many<br></div><div> > of which won't help a lot of people exposed to them.<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > The problem, as shown by the concern with pilots' cockpits, is<br></div><div> > that the accumulation of electro-magnetic energy is such<br></div><div> > situations is easy to measure, but the effect of smaller amounts<br></div><div> > on particular cells, still living within a human body, is very<br></div><div> > hard to measure. Also the kind of effects that need to be<br></div><div> > measured on a celluar level isn't well defined. It's easy to<br></div><div> > argue that observable short-term damage can give strong clues to<br></div><div> > causation, but detecting the connection to long-term damage is<br></div><div> > much more expensive research -- and in whose interest would it be<br></div><div> > undertaken? Think about how long it took to scientifically<br></div><div> > connect cigarette smoking to cancer.<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > I worry that a statement like "there's no science" assumes that<br></div><div> > the only legitimate science is that coming out of well-funded<br></div><div> > institutions. There is a great deal of marginalized research that<br></div><div> > raises doubts and questions about the dominant theories, and when<br></div><div> > the major communications corporations and most governments<br></div><div> > denounce such research efforts and ridicule questions about<br></div><div> > things like 5G, we would do well to wonder what's behind this<br></div><div> > apparent unity of scientific and political thinking.<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > Anyway, that's one of the reasons I quote from Stephen Jay Gould,<br></div><div> > below.<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > -- Steve<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > -- <br></div><div> > Steve Izma<br></div><div> > -<br></div><div> > Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada N2H 1W6<br></div><div> > E-mail: <a href="mailto:sizma@golden.net" target="_blank">sizma@golden.net</a> phone: 519-745-1313<br></div><div> > cell (text only; not frequently checked): 519-998-2684<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > ==<br></div><div> > The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and<br></div><div> > therefore never scrutinize or question.<br></div><div> > -- Stephen Jay Gould, *Full House: The Spread of Excellence<br></div><div> > from Plato to Darwin*, 1996<br></div><div> ><br></div><div> > _______________________________________________<br></div><div> > kwlug-disc mailing list<br></div><div> > <a href="mailto:kwlug-disc@kwlug.org" target="_blank">kwlug-disc@kwlug.org</a><br></div><div> > <a href="https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org</a><br></div><div> <br></div><div> _______________________________________________<br></div><div> kwlug-disc mailing list<br></div><div> <a href="mailto:kwlug-disc@kwlug.org" target="_blank">kwlug-disc@kwlug.org</a><br></div><div> <a href="https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org</a><br></div></blockquote></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>kwlug-disc mailing list<br></div><div><a href="mailto:kwlug-disc@kwlug.org">kwlug-disc@kwlug.org</a><br></div><div><a href="https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org">https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org</a><br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></body></html>