So, Wi-Fi....PANIC STATIONS!

OR Not. No PANIC needed here, just plainly myth-busting the claims that Wi-Fi is dangerous.

Ok, so let’s put an end to the superstition about Wi-Fi and its many mythical supposed deadly side effects.

With Wi-Fi emitting radiation, it’s common for those that once discover this, then go on to conjure up ideas of nuclear weapons. Mutants!!..... No, move along. No 3-eyed fish here.



It is true that Wi-FI emits radiation however this radiation is non-ionising, low energy radiation, it is part of the low radio frequency band non-damaging. If it was however ionising, this would mean it has the ability to pull an electron from an atom or molecule. This in effect would damage DNA and cause cancer. Low level RF bands have the ability to move atoms around/vibrate but not achieve separation. The spectrum's used for Wi-Fi are lower than light radiation we receive from the sun every day. Other types of radiation that can be received would be from outer space, lightning strikes and radiation from the earth itself with infrared and a small portion of that radiation is RF.

Under the trademark of Wi-Fi, they are only legally allowed to use low level frequencies to be used as public domains. These are what your routers use within your homes.

This list of WLAN channels is the set of legally allowed wireless local area network channels using IEEE 802.11 protocols, mostly sold under the trademark Wi-Fi.

The 802.11 workgroup currently documents use in five distinct frequency ranges: 2.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz, 4.9 GHz, 5 GHz, and 5.9 GHz bands

LINK

However here are some man-made concerns other then Wi-Fi that really do emit damaging radiation. Radio and television signals, transmitting signals from cordless telephones, cellular phones and cell phone towers, satellite phones, and 2-way radios, radar, Bluetooth, microwave ovens. To name a few.

If you wish to read up on this, the below link will give you more information written by American Cancer Society.

LINK

The signal strength of Wi-Fi diminishes from the source very quickly. It follows the inverse-square law: so the further you are from the router, the less powerful its signal.

With this in mind, any Wi-FI signal in your home will lessen in other rooms you are in, away from the source. Therefore, overall the low signals become even lower the further you are from the router. To add to this

The World Health Organization explains that radio-frequency exposures in wireless technologies are thousands of times below international standards of safety.

LINK

I could go on however I think this would be enough, if anyone wishes to read further into this please do. Follow some of the links above and read more and do some research too. However do remember, there is a lot of websites jumping on the bandwagon and some websites make money off this gravy train too.

There are some metals such as Copper and Iron that are used in the human body. Iron is used for haemoglobin. Eight electron bonds are tied down to the protein leaving four bonds free to attach to oxygen molecules. Zinc doesn't actually bind to any proteins but has a protein chain wrapped around it:

en.wikipedia.org...

Even Cobalt, Nickel, Cadmium , Molybdenum, Tungsten and Selenium are used for some chemical processes.

These are all metals that are capable of conducting electricity and are used in mobile phones. So why wouldn't it be possible for these to be sensitive to RF energy?

There are some metals such as Copper and Iron that are used in the human body. Iron is used for haemoglobin. Eight electron bonds are tied down to the protein leaving four bonds free to attach to oxygen molecules. Zinc doesn't actually bind to any proteins but has a protein chain wrapped around it:

en.wikipedia.org...

Even Cobalt, Nickel, Cadmium , Molybdenum, Tungsten and Selenium are used for some chemical processes.

These are all metals that are capable of conducting electricity and are used in mobile phones. So why wouldn't it be possible for these to be sensitive to RF energy?

a reply to: stormcell

Lots of things "conduct electricity" like the saline solution you're filled with. RF dissipates in conducting media producing heat.

But you're talking fractions of a milliwatt. So it's essentially zero.

I believe wi-fi does damage our bodies. I used to have the router on the floor near my left leg. This was due to the placement of three computers round the room that were hard wired but the cable lengths were restrictive and so could not have the router anywhere else. I found that after several months, my leg started getting very tender. It became so bad that I could hardly brush the skin on my lower leg with my fingertips without a lot of pain. I went to the doctor, thinking I might have a dvt and was told it was phlebitis (at least I think that was what it was called) and it is inflammation of the blood vessels. I was given cream but it did nothing to help. I then came across a talk/interview with Barrie Trower on youtube who explained the damage wi-fi can do and I wondered if that was what was causing the inflammation. I then switched off the wi-fi part of the router to see if it would make any difference and it did. Having suffered increasing pain for weeks, even with using the cream from the doc that didn't work, my leg was back to normal in two weeks after switching off the wi-fi.

I now have very long cables and the router in the hall.

Would post a link to Barrie Trowers videos but it is difficult to do on the ipad, but I am sure google will find it if you are interested.

originally posted by: CthulhuMythos
I then switched off the wi-fi part of the router to see if it would make any difference and it did. Having suffered increasing pain for weeks, even with using the cream from the doc that didn't work, my leg was back to normal in two weeks after switching off the wi-fi.

Two weeks is just about the timeframe for phlebitis symptoms to disappear. Your router has nothing to do with it.

a reply to: BlackProject

Heres some info…

WIFI vs. Microwave oven

originally posted by: BlackProject
Under the trademark of Wi-Fi, they are only legally allowed to use low level frequencies to be used as public domains. These are what your routers use within your homes.

The 802.11 workgroup currently documents use in five distinct frequency ranges: 2.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz, 4.9 GHz, 5 GHz, and 5.9 GHz bands

LINK

However here are some man-made concerns other then Wi-Fi that really do emit damaging radiation...microwave ovens.

Microwave ovens use 2.4 GHz the same frequency as Wifi, and they are generally built like a faraday cage to keep most of the radiation from leaking out so it makes no sense to me to say that Wifi doesn't emit damaging radiation but microwaves do, not to mention some of the other sources listed. The two types of electromagnetic radiation you definitely don't want are X-rays and Gamma Rays, though as long as the X-rays are in moderation the risk is pretty low. I've probably been exposed to more ionizing radiation from flying than all my dental X-rays put together.

a reply to: intrptr
Yes, that confirms that microwave ovens and WiFi use the same frequency for the most part, 2.4 GHz, though WiFi has a few other options also.

originally posted by: stormcell
There are some metals such as Copper and Iron that are used in the human body. Iron is used for haemoglobin. Eight electron bonds are tied down to the protein leaving four bonds free to attach to oxygen molecules. Zinc doesn't actually bind to any proteins but has a protein chain wrapped around it:

en.wikipedia.org...

Even Cobalt, Nickel, Cadmium , Molybdenum, Tungsten and Selenium are used for some chemical processes.

These are all metals that are capable of conducting electricity and are used in mobile phones. So why wouldn't it be possible for these to be sensitive to RF energy?

For conduction through metals to occur, they need to be directly connected - atom to atom - to each other. We call these wires. The human body is devoid of metal wires.

Even in cells like hemoglobin, the conduction occurring within a cell only happens for microscopic distances. Radio waves have wavelengths of greater than 10 cm and most sources are considerably larger (WiFi, as it is currently known, is 12.5 cm for the 2.4 GHz range and about 6cm for 5 GHz). To create a potential difference, it is generally regarded that you need to have an antenna of at least 1/2 of the wavelength of the radio i.e: one end of the antenna is immersed at a radio field of the positive phase of the wave and the other end is at the negative one, so between the ends of the antenna, there is an electrical potential difference. This explains why there would be no discernible electrical potential difference upon an object as small as a blood cell. Since there is poor conduction between blood cells, there is also little electrical potential over the aggregate distance.

Whilst a lot of people are concerned about the high-frequencies, work done by Robert Becker and others have shown we should be more concerned about ELF, i.e. 50 and 60Hz. There are numerous studies on the effect of ELF, but seeing that it is all over, and modern life depends on electricity, there is not a lot that can be done about it.

And excerpt of only one article :

Earlier work had revealed the ability of a magnetic field to function as a biological stressor.50 An investigation was therefore undertaken to determine whether an ELF electric field could produce a similar response. Rats 21 to 24 days old were exposed to 150 v/cm at 60 Hz for one month in ten separate experiments.51,52 A variety of statistically significant effects were found including depressed body weight, depressed water consumption, increased adrenal and pituitary weights, and altered serum levels of albumin, hydroxycorticosterone, and glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase. The results indicated that exposure to the ELF field produced a physiological stress response. Noval et al.53 independently performed similar experiments at much lower field strengths and reached essentially the same conclusion. They exposed rats 30 to 35 days old to 0.005-1.0 v/cm at 45 Hz for 30-40 days. The treated rats exhibited depressed body weights, decreased levels of brain choline acetyltransferase activity, and elevated levels of liver tryptophan pyrrolase.

This comes from ss1.spletnik.si...

The book "the body electric" by Robert Becker as well as his other publications makes for interesting reading.

There are also quite a lot of info available on the 'healing properties' of other electromagnetic fields as by Tesla, Beck, Lakhovksy, and others.

I myself, arebeing kept alive by high-frequency stimulation of my brain.

Electromagnetic radiation, good or bad? Numerous controversial studies show both. Guess the truth lies somewhere in between.

To understand how electric fields can have an effect on cells, you need to understand the transport mechanism over cell membranes, and there are still a lot of unknowns in it, but what is clear from electrophysiological studies, is that cells are polarized with a 70mV potential difference over the cell membrane. Anything that changes this, chemical or electrical, will activate the ion pumps in the cell membrane, causing calcium, potrassion and Kalium to be pumped into/out of the cell. This is the most clearly visiible and well studied in the neurons of the giant squid on which patch-clamp experiments can be performed with relative ease. A neuron con be considered to be an electric wire, as the inside is a electrolytic medium. A nerve-impulse is a electrical signal conducted through that medium, that gets regenerated at the Nodes of Ranvier. Nerves can be stimulated electrically be application of a varying electromagnetic field, Lenz's law states that a varying magnetic field will induce an electric current in a conductor, to oppose that magnetic field, in the human body, the nervous system is full of nerves. An externally induced electric current in a nerve, will cause a potential difference, thereby interfering with the normal activities of the cell, if it is large enough.

This is all part of a field called bio-electromagnetism :

Bioelectromagnetism is a new discipline. The word "Bioelectromagnetism" was first used in the title of the book written by Jaakko Malmivuo and Robert Plonsey in 1995. This discipline is defined as follows: Bioelectromagnetism is a discipline that examines the electric, electromagnetic and magnetic phenomena which arise in biological tissues.

For those of you that are interested in a thorough description of the bio-electric properties of cells, the following on-line book by Prof, Jaakko Malmivuo from the University of Aalto in Finland is recommended :
www.bem.fi...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

WIFI spreads its signal around the room pretty much evenly, whereas microwave ovens concentrate theirs to the center of the oven. That and the power difference, Milliwatts and kilowatts.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

WIFI spreads its signal around the room pretty much evenly, whereas microwave ovens concentrate theirs to the center of the oven. That and the power difference, Milliwatts and kilowatts.

Yes but my point is the energy from the microwave oven is mostly contained so regardless of the fact the microwave oven has a higher power output, we aren't really exposed to those microwaves because nobody is inside the microwave oven. Neither Wifi nor properly functioning microwave ovens are dangerous, but it's ridiculous to say that microwave ovens are more dangerous when we probably get exposed to more microwaves from wifi than from the microwave oven, which isn't much in either case.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

People press their cell phones to the side of their head, I wouldn't recommend doing the same with a microwave oven, though.

article

a reply to: intrptr

No need to worry about the feeble effects from microwave ovens or wi-fi, whilst you are surrounded by a huge EVLF field caused by your mains wirinng.

originally posted by: Hellhound604
a reply to: intrptr

No need to worry about the feeble effects from microwave ovens or wi-fi, whilst you are surrounded by a huge EVLF field caused by your mains wirinng.

Less concerned about all that than ionizing radiation from the cosmos and man made sources.

originally posted by: Hellhound604
To understand how electric fields can have an effect on cells, you need to understand the transport mechanism over cell membranes, and there are still a lot of unknowns in it, but what is clear from electrophysiological studies, is that cells are polarized with a 70mV potential difference over the cell membrane. Anything that changes this, chemical or electrical, will activate the ion pumps in the cell membrane, causing calcium, potrassion and Kalium to be pumped into/out of the cell.

First you have to change it. And 70mV sounds small, but it's across the thickness of a cell's membrane, which comes to about 7 million volts/meter. It's going to be tough to do a LOT of triggering of that with a radio wave.

Next, what's "potrassion"? And "kalium" is just a bogus way of saying potassium, which I suppose you might have meant by "potrassion".

The pumps generally run all the time, btw. What happens when a neuron fires is, the ion channels open and the potassium, sodium and to some extent calcium move through various channels, depolarizing the neuron in a fairly slow wave that starts at the axonal hill and propagates down the axon, laterally. It does not flow down the axon like an electrical current would. Neurons are not wires.

A neuron con be considered to be an electric wire, as the inside is a electrolytic medium. A nerve-impulse is a electrical signal conducted through that medium, that gets regenerated at the Nodes of Ranvier.

Most incorrect. It is NOT an electric wire, and doesn't function anything like one. The outside is also an electrolytic medium. It's a bag of salt water immersed in a bag of salt water. It is no more or less conductive than its environment. Further, the only wirelike flow of electrons down a neuron that you get are betweens nodes of Ranvier, they're one of nature's tricks for speeding the otherwise slow conduction of neural depolarization down the neuron's membrane.

Nerves can be stimulated electrically be application of a varying electromagnetic field, Lenz's law states that a varying magnetic field will induce an electric current in a conductor, to oppose that magnetic field, in the human body, the nervous system is full of nerves. An externally induced electric current in a nerve, will cause a potential difference, thereby interfering with the normal activities of the cell, if it is large enough.

And here you're mixing two different phenomena. One is an electromagnetic field, by which we'd mean a radio signal. However, a time varying magnetic field, ala Lenz's law, is not the same thing. Yes, if you stick someone's arm in a huge electromagnet and pulse it, you can induce currents in their arm. That and a radio signal are two different things.

This is all part of a field called bio-electromagnetism

Which is as deeply fraught with woo as is research into telepathy, chi, and the adeledicnander force.

The radiation from wireless emitters and recievers lose intencity exponentially with distance. So as long as you are far enough, at a couple feet, the effects should be negligible.

On the other hand, I'm sensitive to wireless radiation. I can't use a cell phone next to my head, can't use a wireless phone, can't be near smart meters and some computers also give me those un-wanted effects in my brain. I've always had these side-effects since the 90's when I never even heard that wireless systems could cause problems in some individuals.

Just to be safe, I recommend to not get those appliances close to you, especially your head.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
This was after the cream didn't work and my leg was still enflamed and had been for weeks. The only difference was no wi fi. That is good enough for me. Tell me, on what grounds can you justify the statement that my router had nothing to do with it when you not only were not here to observe the condition development but have done no tests within my home or on my body?