Others from universities, the National Science Foundation, the Royal Academy, the government.
This is one of the most heavily studied subjects and ALL data from well controlled studies indicates zero risk from low power RF sources. This is not new either. UHF and microwave radiation goes back to and has been studied since the end of world war II
The effects of dialectric heating, eddy currents and so on are very well understood.
In other news, it has been discovered that the sun emits the "same kind of radiation" as X-rays, repeated exposure to which has been proven harmful. We recommend that you stay indoors and cover your windows with tin-foil to avoid getting skin cancer.
"What do you make of the argument that this will close the digital divide?"
"People who think that need to get on the internet and download these reports from 'overseas'".
Having said all this, there *should* be an environmental and health review. Mind you, if they don't know what the impact of the mobile phone masts is, I don't see how they can make a call on these ones.
As a health educator with a syndicated radio show I've interviewed the most respected researchers here and abroad. There is consenus about a biological effect ranging from DNA breaks to increased cancers with this technology. Good reason hold the industry to a higher standard!
50% of the over 400 studies conducted show a health or biological effect from non-ionizing radition. If the industry sponsored studies are excluded, the percent goes up to 70% showing a health effect. There's more than adequate evidence to support conducting an environmental review.
Hey Jeff, I was wondering if you could give me a link to some of the abstracts of the studies done that show harmful effects from the radiation of these signals. I would like to have the opportunity to review these and would like to see the ones you have found.
Start with an article I wrote for the Townsend Letter. A copy is available on my website, which I can't actually give you because YouTube blocks it, but it is yourownhealthandfitness dot org forward slash Documents forward slash Fawcett>TheWiFiBlues dot pdf. There are lots of references there to both research and websites.
"Fawcett" is my last name. ">" is just a marker that separates it from the title. If you just go to the website, you'll see a link to it on the right under "What's New." The title is "The WiFi Blues." Try it. You'll like it.
Hilarious, wish I could've been there.
strathmeyer 4 years ago
Should we have an environmental review before the city is allowed to spray the trees with dihydrogen monoxide to?
soylentgreenb 4 years ago
Who conducted the studies, and where did they get their funding?
EyeOfBwock 4 years ago
Some from the phone industry.
Others from universities, the National Science Foundation, the Royal Academy, the government.
This is one of the most heavily studied subjects and ALL data from well controlled studies indicates zero risk from low power RF sources. This is not new either. UHF and microwave radiation goes back to and has been studied since the end of world war II
The effects of dialectric heating, eddy currents and so on are very well understood.
DrBuzz0 4 years ago
In other news, it has been discovered that the sun emits the "same kind of radiation" as X-rays, repeated exposure to which has been proven harmful. We recommend that you stay indoors and cover your windows with tin-foil to avoid getting skin cancer.
metanym 4 years ago
Also, I loved:
"What do you make of the argument that this will close the digital divide?"
"People who think that need to get on the internet and download these reports from 'overseas'".
Having said all this, there *should* be an environmental and health review. Mind you, if they don't know what the impact of the mobile phone masts is, I don't see how they can make a call on these ones.
metanym 4 years ago
As a health educator with a syndicated radio show I've interviewed the most respected researchers here and abroad. There is consenus about a biological effect ranging from DNA breaks to increased cancers with this technology. Good reason hold the industry to a higher standard!
laynaberman 4 years ago
50% of the over 400 studies conducted show a health or biological effect from non-ionizing radition. If the industry sponsored studies are excluded, the percent goes up to 70% showing a health effect. There's more than adequate evidence to support conducting an environmental review.
jeffryf 4 years ago
Hey Jeff, I was wondering if you could give me a link to some of the abstracts of the studies done that show harmful effects from the radiation of these signals. I would like to have the opportunity to review these and would like to see the ones you have found.
I am neutral on the issue at tis moment.
ElijahLynn 4 years ago
Start with an article I wrote for the Townsend Letter. A copy is available on my website, which I can't actually give you because YouTube blocks it, but it is yourownhealthandfitness dot org forward slash Documents forward slash Fawcett>TheWiFiBlues dot pdf. There are lots of references there to both research and websites.
jeffryf 4 years ago
i don't know what fawcett> is
ElijahLynn 4 years ago
"Fawcett" is my last name. ">" is just a marker that separates it from the title. If you just go to the website, you'll see a link to it on the right under "What's New." The title is "The WiFi Blues." Try it. You'll like it.
jeffryf 4 years ago