Philadelphia, the town of brotherly love has it. Many in Bay area want to buy...
Wireless broadband Access to the internet ( WiFi ) seems too good to be true. At
relatively inexpensive, anybody could possibly get on the web any place in a city. All of the city
must do is install WiFi antennas.
A disagreement in support of citywide WiFi is that it'll decrease the digital divide:
the poorer you are, the more limited your use of the web and its own information
resources. Cities like Philadelphia and Bay area are earnestly attempting to close the
digital divide. One option is WiFi.
Yet in weighing the choices, virtually there is nothing learned about the potential health
risks. Saturating a whole city with WiFi increases the existing burden of nonionizing
radiation. That burden, called electrosmog by some, includes long-term
contact with low-level concentrations of nonionizing radiation from familiar sources
like radio and TELEVISION signals, electronic and electrical devices, and the ubiquitous cell
phone.
Wireless Access to the internet
Neighborhood networks ( LANs ) link computers, printers, modems, along with other
devices. Conventional LANs make the links physically using wire cable. Messages
between computers and another devices on the network are managed with a device
called a router.
A radio LAN eliminates the wire cable using a router that transmits and
receives radio signals. To utilize a wired LAN, you need to plug the computer or other
device right into a wall socket. A wire leads from the socket to the router, which manages
signal traffic between your devices on the network.
With a radio LAN, each device on the network is made such that it can send an indication
to the router and receive signals right back. Wireless routers routinely have a variety of a
hundred to many hundred feet. The number could be increased with the addition of a booster
that escalates the signal strength.
Just like all radio signals, the closer you are to the transmitter (the router) the
stronger the signal. Mobile phones work on a single principle. The big difference is that
mobile phones work on another frequency and released a stronger signal than wireless
LANs.
Radio Frequencies
Mobile phones operate at frequencies in the 3 to 30 GHz range, much like microwave
ovens. Wireless LANs operate at one tenth of this range--0. 3 to 3 GHz, the number of
UHF tv broadcasts. GHz means gigaHertz, a typical measure
of radio frequency radiation ( RFR )--electromagnetic radiation developed by
sending an alternating electrical current via an antenna. The larger the GHz,
the faster the present alternates.
Frequency alone doesn't gauge the potential aftereffect of RFR. As you'd
guess, the effectiveness of the signal also matters. The effectiveness of an indication is measured
in watts, a typical way of measuring electrical power. For instance, a 100 watt
lamp is brighter since it creates more energy than the usual 60 watt bulb.
Think about the result of waves at the beach: small waves far apart (low strength, low
frequency) versus large wave close together (high strength, high frequency). The
former will probably have less of an impact compared to latter.
The contact with RFR is measured using SAR--specific absorption rate. SAR is
expressed either in milliwatts/kilogram (mW/kg) of bodyweight or milliwatts/cubic
centimeter (mW/cm2) of exposed human body area: how big the wave and just how much of
the body it strikes.
Health problems
WiFi enthusiasts dismiss health risk concerns since the power output and SAR
exposure is somewhat below the minimum standard set for mobile phones. But cell
phone standards are set for the temporary exposure of a mobile phone being used pressed
to your face. Additionally, the standards are set in line with the thermal (heating) effect
of rays.
Nonthermal ramifications of mobile phones are documented at exposures below the present
US standards, including
- memory loss,
- sleep disruption,
- slowed motor skills and reaction time,
- decreased immune function,
- spatial disorientation and dizziness,
- headaches,
- lowered sperm fertility,
- increased blood circulation pressure and pulse,
- DNA breakage and paid down DNA repair capacity, and
- cell proliferation.
Another problem is that mobile phone exposure is intermittent, whereas WiFi
exposure is constant. A far more accurate comparison would be to the result of mobile phone
broadcast antennas. These antennas receive and send radio frequency signals
constantly.
The signal strength from an antenna resembles a mobile phone only at very close
range. The exposure isn't a cell phone's brief blast but a persistent bath of low-
strength RFR. As well as the health effects documented for mobile phone use,
contact with mobile phone antennas include
- increased blood circulation pressure and pulse,
- sleep disruption,
- emotional effects such as for example increased depression and irritability,
- memory loss and mental fog,
- fatique and vertigo, and
- increased cancer risk.
Due to these effects, the International Association of Firemen (AFL-CIO)
decided in 2004 that they'll maybe not permit mobile phone antennas burning houses.
RFR Hypersensitivity
A lot of the discussion of RFR health effects is framed as an issue with people
who're hypersensitive. Hypersensitivity may be the technical term for allergies
and similar immunity system overreactions. But rather of pollen, RFR
hypersensitivity is really a a reaction to nonionizing
radiation. It would appear that an unlucky few are affected while average folks are off the
hook.
Research by Olle Johansson and Ö rjan Halberg of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm
suggests otherwise. They looked over the incidence of cancer in Europe and the united states
and found a striking association between your upsurge in certain cancers throughout the
20th Century and exposure RFR as measured by radio and TELEVISION broadcasts.
What the hypersensitive really represent is one extreme in a complex landscape of
effects and risks. The same as every other environmental stressor, RFR will affect some
people a lot more than the others. So that as with other environmental stressors, the higher the
over all burden, the higher the danger to become among the the "unlucky few. "
Wireless LANs increase the existing burden of RFR. Just like burning more fossil fuels
adds more smog, adding more RFR adds more electrosmog. It's not necessary to
expose your house or your city to the increased burden developed by WiFi. There is a
viable alternative: a wired LAN. The hype might create it seem less convenient and
more costly. But what's a great night's sleep worth? Or lowering your threat of
cancer?
Resources
International Association of Firemen. 2004. Position on the Effects from
Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities from
Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Mobile phone
Transmissions. Access at
celltowerfinal. htm.
Johansson, Olle and Doug Loranger. 2005. Electrosmog. Your personal Health insurance and
Fitness. Broadcast November 29, 2005.
radiation. html.
Sage, Cindy. 2005. Discuss Bay area TechConnect Community Wireless
Broadband Initiative. Sage Associates: September 2005.