[kwlug-disc] To WIFI or not to WIFI

Thu Oct 6 17:29:16 EDT 2022

Thanks for the numbers, Jason. Much appreciated.

I carry a cell phone, but keep the cell radio turned off unless I am using it. I discourage incoming cell calls (it's a lifestyle choice, I don't give most people the right to interrupt me at will in real time). I use speakerphone when possible so I can avoid pressing the thing against my head when it isn't necessary. I have home wifi and don't worry about it. I wasn't sure if my lack of wifi precautions were justified, but your measurements are reassuring (even if not definitive).

Some things I have read on the internet suggest that a small subset of people are far more sensitive to EMR than the average person, but I don't have enough data to have an opinion. I do know that cell phone cancer has occurred (it's rare), and I do know that a few people are negatively affected by infrasound from wind mills; I have data for this.

I have checked out the levels of radiation on Mars, and radiation exposure during interplanetary travel, and I will not be participating in Elon's Mars colonization project. Really, there are multiple reasons for this decision.

Doug.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 4:49 PM, Jason Eckert wrote:
> Since it's on topic (somewhat), I thought it'd be fun to share the small fun (but crude) Wi-Fi and cellular radiation experiment we do as an extra in our Wireless Infrastructure Administration & Design course.
> 
> Basically, I introduce that radiation is energy that travels. All radiation will pass through various materials. Nonionizing radiation doesn’t affect the materials that it passes through (light & radio waves). Ionizing radiation DOES affect the material that it passes through by creating charged particles in the materials called ions (x‐rays, gamma rays, lasers). All high-voltage devices create at least a small amount of ionizing radiation, and we even have background ionizing radiation due to cosmic rays & rock (e.g. Colorado and the Canadian Shield).
> 
> Today, it is considered bad if you absorb more than 20000 uSv of ionizing radiation per year
> 1 year = 8 765.81277 hours
> 20000 uSv per year / 8765.81277 hours year = 2.28159105 uSv per hour
> 
> Background radiation is well known for all parts of the world (Kitchener is 0.15 uSv per hour)
> 2.28159105 uSv per hour / 0.15 uSv per hour = 15.210607
> So, 15X background radiation in Kitchener would be bad.
> 
> So let’s do an experiment:
> 1. Get a cheap ($15) radiation dosimeter 
> 2. Measure the background radiation (e.g. ticks/minute if it doesn't have an LED readout)
> 3. Put it next to a cell phone playing a video across cellular data (4G/5G LTE) & measure the ticks/minute
> 4. Put it next to a cell phone playing a video across WiFi (802.11n/ac/ax) & measure the ticks per minute
> 5. See whether 4G/5G LTE and/or 802.11n/ac/ax generate more than 15 times background radiation.
> 
> Results?  They’ve been pretty consistent:
> Background radiation = 13 ticks/minute (baseline)
> Playing YouTube video on cellular data (4GLTE/5G) = 140-150 ticks/minute (>10 times the background radiation)
> *5G was a bit less! (lower power than 4G)
> Playing YouTube video on Wi-Fi 802.11n connection = 13 ticks/minute (= background radiation)
> Playing YouTube video on Wi-Fi 802.11ac connection = 14 ticks/minute (= background radiation)
> Playing YouTube video on Wi-Fi 802.11ax connection = 13 ticks/minute (= background radiation)
> 
> So cellular is definitely worse than Wi-Fi, but you'd probably have to be on a cellular connection all the time to get close to the recommended bad dosage per year.
> 
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 16:06, Doug Moen <doug at moens.org> wrote:
>> I know somebody who got brain cancer from a RIM cell phone, and who received hush money from RIM.
>> 
>> Whether cell phone radio wave frequencies are "safe" is not a yes or no question, in the sense that either the frequency is ionizing or non ionizing. What matters is intensity and duration. In the case I mention above, the design of the phone and its antenna, the frequency and duration of use, and the way it was held, were all relevant factors.
>> 
>> Drinking water is not "safe" in an absolute sense: an overdose will kill you. Magnetic fields are not "safe": a high enough intensity will kill you. Black pepper and cloves are known carcinogens (I still use them). There was a case last year of someone dying from an overdose of licorice candy (which I occasionally eat).
>> 
>> Some people are more sensitive to environmental stressors than others. If your immune system is compromised, for example, then minor cellular damage that would be cleaned up and repaired in a healthy person could turn into cancer. This is just one way you could be sensitive to environmental stressors, there are many others.
>> 
>> So don't be making absolute statements about the safety of something and calling it "science".
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 1:51 PM, Steve Izma wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 12:26:19PM -0400, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
>> >> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] To WIFI or not to WIFI
>> >> 
>> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 10:52 AM Federer Fanatic <nafdef at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Hi, There are various hypothesized issues regarding exposure
>> >> > to wifi
>> >> 
>> >> There is no science behind any of those claims.
>> >
>> > The great thing about science and its doctrines is that there are
>> > so many to choose from.
>> >
>> > The problem is that most of the choices are expensive, in that
>> > published peer-reviewed science mostly comes out of institutions
>> > whose funding is geared towards commercialization of research. I
>> > have spent nearly fifty years in scholarly publishing (mostly
>> > social science) and I know what kind of research doesn't get
>> > sufficient funds for making it through the process. It's usually
>> > the counter-intuitive ideals that challenge the peers who hold
>> > the reigns of acceptable publishing.
>> >
>> > In respect to electro-magnetic radiation, even the capitalists
>> > and militarists are needing to consider a revision of past
>> > assumptions:
>> > <https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/09/14/cockpit-electromagnetic-fields-are-harming-pilots-the-us-military-fears>
>> >
>> > Microbiological research has shown that cells of all organisms
>> > use some sort of electro-magnetic radiation for communication
>> > (among other processes, such as chemical signalling and mRNA).
>> > <https://deheynlab.ucsd.edu/research/em-communication/> It's
>> > likely that cells learn to adapt to interference from external
>> > EMR, but obviously such a process depends on many factors, many
>> > of which won't help a lot of people exposed to them.
>> >
>> > The problem, as shown by the concern with pilots' cockpits, is
>> > that the accumulation of electro-magnetic energy is such
>> > situations is easy to measure, but the effect of smaller amounts
>> > on particular cells, still living within a human body, is very
>> > hard to measure. Also the kind of effects that need to be
>> > measured on a celluar level isn't well defined. It's easy to
>> > argue that observable short-term damage can give strong clues to
>> > causation, but detecting the connection to long-term damage is
>> > much more expensive research -- and in whose interest would it be
>> > undertaken? Think about how long it took to scientifically
>> > connect cigarette smoking to cancer.
>> >
>> > I worry that a statement like "there's no science" assumes that
>> > the only legitimate science is that coming out of well-funded
>> > institutions. There is a great deal of marginalized research that
>> > raises doubts and questions about the dominant theories, and when
>> > the major communications corporations and most governments
>> > denounce such research efforts and ridicule questions about
>> > things like 5G, we would do well to wonder what's behind this
>> > apparent unity of scientific and political thinking.
>> >
>> > Anyway, that's one of the reasons I quote from Stephen Jay Gould,
>> > below.
>> >
>> >       -- Steve
>> >
>> > -- 
>> > Steve Izma
>> > -
>> > Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada  N2H 1W6
>> > E-mail: sizma at golden.net  phone: 519-745-1313
>> > cell (text only; not frequently checked): 519-998-2684
>> >
>> > ==
>> > The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and
>> > therefore never scrutinize or question.
>> >     -- Stephen Jay Gould, *Full House: The Spread of Excellence
>> >        from Plato to Darwin*, 1996
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > kwlug-disc mailing list
>> > kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
>> > https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> kwlug-disc mailing list
>> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
>> https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20221006/b90c9f97/attachment.htm>