[LINK] Danger on the airwaves: Is the Wi-Fi revolution a health time bomb?

[Alastair Rankine]

On 23/04/2007, at 5:57 PM, rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au wrote:

> Indeed. Regardless of the epidemiology - even assuming the jury was  
> still out - the power delivered to the human from the *tower* is  
> trivial compared to that delivered by the phone. To hear people  
> saying "phone towers give you cancer" while happily burbling away  
> on the mobile makes me grind my teeth.
>
> But "inverse square law" is one of those phrases that just gets a  
> glaze-over in 99% of the population.

Although I am by no means an expert in this topic, that doesn't stop  
me playing one on Wikipedia:

> The communications protocols used by mobile phones often result in  
> low-frequency pulsing of the carrier signal. These low frequencies  
> are similar to those that exist in the electrical oscillations of  
> the human body, specifically the alpha and delta brain waves. Non- 
> linear interactions are thought to result when resonances are  
> created when the brain is subjected to mobile phone radiation, in a  
> manner similar to that observed when light strobing induces  
> photosensitive epilepsy in susceptible individuals. These non- 
> thermal effects are summarized in (Hyland, 2000).
>
> The non-thermal effects described in (Hyland, 2000) are due to  
> frequency interactions between the mobile phone communciations  
> protocols and the human body, and not primarily the intensity of  
> radiation. If epidemological evidence is accumulated to show some  
> health risks as a result of these interactions, base stations may  
> be implicated in addition to handsets.

That was an attempt to cite and summarise G J Hyland (2000). "Physics  
and biology of mobile telephony". The Lancet 356: 1833-1836. Yes I  
even read the paper.

Since I posted that summary, I note that others have had their  
wikipedian way, leaving very little of my text or the substance  
behind it.

Anyway the basic point is: inverse-square does not tell the whole  
picture.


> "Because we think they're ugly" is the honest reason for most  
> opposition to phone towers. In a democratic sense, this is  
> perfectly valid as a stand to take in the argument, because people  
> have at least a limited right to a say in their immediate  
> environment. As long as the real reason is in the open, I don't  
> object to the debate.

Couldn't agree more, although far more noticeable and objectionable  
billboard advertising doesn't seem to garner anywhere near as much in  
the way of opposition.