There is apparently a large number of folks in Santa Fe, NM, claiming they are allergic to Wi-Fi.
I just saw this on Yahoo (yes, I still look at Yahoo's home page from time to time), and wanted to pass it along. First, have a look at the story and then the video, keeping an open mind. As I've said for some time, the only possibility that can derail wireless is a proven link between exposure to consumer-grade radiation and clearly consequential negative impacts on human health or safety. Do we have that here?
It looks, if we believe the claims in the items above, like we may indeed have a cluster of electrosensitive individuals in Santa Fe. OK, open mind or not, I'm doubtful that this case will result in a clear, broad-based cause-and-effect relationship being established, but more investigation is certainly indicated - this could be the smoking gun. I seriously doubt it, again, but it is possible. And, of course, this is unlikely to be the last word on the subject regardless.
I remain confident that there will be no such relationship established except in very, very rare circumstances, and to my knowledge we've yet to see any proven connection anywhere, even in one, single case. But let's have a detailed, scientific investigation, in the hope that we can put this issue to bed once if not for all.
Mathias is a principal at Farpoint Group, a wireless advisory firm in Ashland, Mass.
|
|
Alergic to wifi
Ah...if we could only see in radio waves, what a blinding world we would live in!
Why so sure?
Craig,
I appreciate your call for thorough investigation into the possible effects of wireless on health, but I'm curious as to why you are confident that nothing will be found. I agree that a single study is unlikely to be conclusive; however, in the long run I think that we may discover that wireless energy has the potential to cause serious health issues. Long range studies must be commenced, government regulations must be implemented and enforced (e.g. power budgets), and practical, forward-thinking safety measures must be developed now. The current incarnation of wireless technology has revolutionary potential, but I fear that our rush to deploy it lacks vision.
I urge you to read the following:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7025
Thanks for writing about this topic. Hopefully you are right.
More Study is Always Indicated, But...
The article you note (which is worth reading regardless) is typical sensationalist ranting that is hardly objective. Let me ask you this: there are now more than three billion cell phone users on this planet - about half of its total population. Cellular has been in use since 1983 in the US. How come users aren't dropping like flies? It may have something to do with long-term effects (or not), non-ionizing radiation (which is what RF is), or other factors. We don't know. So more study is indicated, but apart from a few people that may (may) indeed be electrosensitive to the point of pathology, I really doubt that the rest of us have anything to fear. But I'm happy to be among those who call for more study, and I will continue to do so. And, if a conclusive link between exposure to consumer-grade radiation is proven, I will find another line of work.
The question is not whether we have vision, but whether we exercise sufficient caution. Such is not always possible or practical for purely economic reasons, with possibly serious consequences (e.g., global warming) resulting over very long timeframes. Anyway, Santa Fe appears to present a real opportunity - let's hope someone takes advantage of it.
Thx. Craig.
yes and no
Craig,
I think that "sensationalist rant" is a bit harsh, but maybe I'll read the article again.
Why aren't we dropping like flies? You answer your own question, but I would echo Frans' commentary that some effects (if there are any) can be very subtle and/or take generations to manifest. The article cites some instances of high energy exposures. I'm guessing that the average Wi-Fi or cell/cordless phone user doesn't fall into that category. Thus, effects may not appear for decades, or possibly show up in future generations. Further, are children even more susceptible? Figuring this stuff out is obviously non-trivial, and like you, I think that we need to advocate for more research. I am less optimistic than you regarding effects, but I hope that I am wrong.
My use of vision is meant to imply prudent and responsible application of technology. Sorry if I was unclear. Do you think that wireless technology is being deployed with sufficient caution? I am genuinely interested in your thoughts (not trying to be a smart*ss). If evidence of serious health issues come to light, then economically it may be wiser to rein in the wireless explosion sooner than later (to say nothing of health or environmental issues, etc.)
I cede the floor. Thanks for the reasonable back-and-forth.
Regards,
Al
This is Difficult...
Almost all technologies are deployed in advance of knowing all of the possible impacts they might have because the ROI is much greater (or so it seems at the time) than the risk that is always involved. We must accept that global transportation (primarily by air) brings with it the risk of carrying a communicable disease with remarkable speed. Planes do occasionally crash, with disastrous results. Invasive species travel on ocean freighters. Thousands dies in automobile collisions every year, to say nothing of the air pollution involved - both from the vehicles themselves as well as from the production of the raw materials involved in their manufacture. It is likely impossible to roll out any new techology without accepting some degree of risk.
OK - let's suppose that exposure to consumer-grade RF (we can all agree that all other RF is best left in every case to the professionals) is found to cause, let's say cancer, for sake of argument, in some small percentage of the population. What should be done? Shut down cellular networks? Ban cordless phones and Wi-Fi? And why stop there? Perhaps all RF should be banned. We'd thus eliminate the threat.
Public-safety communications would resort to - what? Ditto for air-traffic control. And we could knock 20 points off of GDP, kiss our standard of living goodbye, and otherwise suffer consequences that might be greater that the problem that mandated action that led these steps.
I do not mean to be flip here, and, again, I do not know whether there is a problem or not. But we will need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages and use the law and policy processes to reach a conclusion. This is why additional investigation is always indicated, even when we think we know the answer (which we don't in this case).
I personally believe this risk is acceptable. I've read over the years more than 200 papers on the subject of RF safety written by physicists, physicians, engineers, government officials, and others, and I've yet to see any evidence that would lead me to conclude otherwise. If indeed we are damaging the gene pool (very unlikely; this is, again, non-ionizing radiation) or the effects are cumulative over a very long period of time (many decades to centuries), well, we just don't know. But for now, the benefits outweigh the risks. Additional cautions beyonds current regulations is not indicated, IMHO.
At this point, I don't think anyone would argue that wireless costs more lives than it saves. And that, for me, is the bottom line for now.
Thank you again for writing! I, too, enjoy the debate.
Craig.
Health Health impact on a long(er) term?
Many claim that no visible health impact has been diagnosed thusfar. My point is that this is not always that easy. May I remind you for instance that some centuries ago it used to be common practice to drink from tin cups and eat from tin plates. We now know that this was not so smart, as many suffered from very gradual tin poisoning on the long term.
Maybe the next generation humans will observe the same from us using wireless technologies.
At least I do observe many new vague but very persistent health complaints from many people. Allergies’ in many forms are spreading and do pop up at earlier ages too. They could be related maybe they aren’t at all. A fact is that many changes are hitting our society in a very short time frame.
Progress and Cost
But, then, we might try nothing new and experience no benefits because, well, there's a risk that a new technology might cause damage that doesn't show up over a long period of time. I think it's better to (prudently, of course) deploy and deal with the problems if and when they appear.
How many lives have been saved by wireless? Would you be willing to give up wireless based on a possibility that it might have a heretofore unknown potential negative impact?
Thx. Craig.
Wi-fi
no surprise Craig Mathias remains confident that there will be no relationship found between exposure to wi-fi and adverse human health effects. He is personally benefiting economically from the buildout and use of EMR/EMF technology. It is better to be blind to what the world scientific community already knows about the adverse biological effects from exposure to radiofrequency radition because then you don't have to think about what you are personally responsible for having a hand in creating. A behavioral defence to avoid looking at the knowledge base that exists today. Also he IS the telecom industry, which has waged a PR war for decades to keep information from the American people. An influential industry RF engineer once said of opposition to RF technology, "We're wargaming them"! Corporate profits over public health: we have seen it before with DDT, asbestos, thalidomide, tobacco, chemicals et al, and yet the telecom industry is not willing to heed the warning signs that science has already uncovered. Hopefully, americans will wake up when significant numbers of people die.
Proof?
Whoa. I wrote earlier that if and when a definitive link is proven between serious health impacts in humans and exposure to consumer-grade RF, I'll find another line of work. I mean that. Health and safety have priority over almost everything else, including profits. We are on the same page here.
But - do you have any proof of the claims you make? If not, spreading hysteria is of little value.
Thx. Craig.
Nothing found?
Nothing found? I question that premise. Granted, nothing signifigant has been found, but I don't doubt that some people might have a sensitivity akin to an allergic reaction. It is microwave radiation. The same or similar stuff is emitted from cellphones, cordless phones, microwave ovens, bluetooth, and similar technologies.
A recent study by Wayne state University scientist, Bengt Arnetz, M.D., found that 3 hours of exposure to cellphone waves signifigantly limited the amount of time you later spent in deep sleep. according to the author, certain EM waves may stimulate your brain to release stress hormones that prevent you from relaxing fully.
http://www.smarthomesllc.net
Post new comment