Is Wi-Fi safe?

peterbaker

wolfman wrote: »

Interesting addition to the argument:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6583815.stm

Well some of us have already commented on that one a few posts back, wolfman, but please go ahead and explain your take on it:-)

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

But Orange's PCN did/does used pulsed signals does it not?

What doesn't use pulsed signals? We've all been surrounded by pulsed signals since we were born.

peterbaker

SS you are in blanket derision mode again. It is not pretty.

As you have set yourself up as someone with a bit of knowledge too, please timeline and list the relative importance of all the pulsed signals you've learned of since you were born with an eye to educating someone who might be concerned about avoiding the ones with the likely most adverse effects on human health.

Alternatively prioritise them in order of the likely most beneficial effects if you like.

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

SS you are in blanket derision mode again. It is not pretty.

As you have set yourself up as someone with a bit of knowledge too, please timeline and list the relative importance of all the pulsed signals you've learned of since you were born with an eye to educating someone who might be concerned about avoiding the ones with the likely most adverse effects on human health.

Alternatively prioritise them in order of the likely most beneficial effects if you like.

I've already said I don't know whether low level microwaves adversely affect human health so how can I prioritise anything else when I've also said that I have no knowledge of having adverse effects in the first place, I presume you've read the posts I've made. I have not heard anything about the adverse health effects of pulse signals in tv transmission and radio waves so I don't know how to prioritise them, and I'm pretty sure they've been around since I was born. You're the one obsessing over pulsed signals and I genuinely want to know what you would consider a signal that isn't pulsed and for that matter a safe signal .

Edit: Just to clarify, my earlier post wasn't derisory or sarcastic but a genuine question, that with my very limited knowledge I couldn't think of an artificial signal that wasn't pulsed.

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

I've already said I don't know whether low level microwaves adversely affect human health so how can I prioritise anything else when I've also said that I have no knowledge of having adverse effects in the first place, I presume you've read the posts I've made. I have not heard anything about the adverse health effects of pulse signals in tv transmission and radio waves so I don't know how to prioritise them, and I'm pretty sure they've been around since I was born. You're the one obsessing over pulsed signals and I genuinely want to know what you would consider a signal that isn't pulsed and for that matter a safe signal .

Edit: Just to clarify, my earlier post wasn't derisory or sarcastic but a genuine question, that with my very limited knowledge I couldn't think of an artificial signal that wasn't pulsed.

I apologise for accusing you of being derisory. Yep I've read it all, and I interpret some things wrong. As I said, I'm not infallible!

I don't think your saying I am obsessing over pulsed signals is a very good interpretation of what I have said if you don't mind me saying so. AFAIK I have barely touched on the 'pulsed' aspect of some signals until espresso picked me up on an incorrect interpretation of an acronym.

I can just about accept your use of the word 'pulsed' as one way to describe carrier waves perhaps, but I think most with any knowledge discussing our subject here would recognise 'pulsed' as a comparative term used to mean something else and indeed a more modern development in signals transmission, just as 'ionising' has been used compared to non-ionising in radiation generally.

I'm fairly sure you'll find reference to it in some of the articles we have linked to, but I'll see if I can Google a better link explaining what I think is meant by 'pulsed' in the context of concern about it's effects versus other types of radio, for example.

Edit: Well first I have found a .pdf file of a presentation which has a section supporting your one liner about pulsed radiation having been with us for some time:

http://www.cost281.org/download.php?fid=720
W. Bächtold, ETH-IFH, 2005 page 23 says
FAQ
• Sinosoidal vs. non-sinosoidal RF signals?
Answer: there are no sinosoidal communication signals !!
• New pulsed vs. traditional continuous RF signals?
– Most today’s wireless communication systems use
„pulsed“ transmission. Exception: UMTS
– „Pulsed“ is not new: since more than 50 years TV
transmitters emit a pulsed signal with a rise time < 1 μs
with repetition rate 50 Hz and 15.625 kHz

I think W. Bächtold's words may have been deliberately phrased to handle a predominance of queries about "pulsed" signals, don't you? :-) ... now I'll look again and try to find what the concerns might be.

superscaper

Well wasn't me pulling you up on your acronym mistake, and secondly I think most of what I'm talking about in terms of pulses comes from my own misunderstanding of what you mean by pulses? I can only go from my own experiences which is that the term pulse refers to quite a common and necessary artifact in signal processing as it was explained to me. So if you're talking about something else specifically then obviously everything I've talked about is irrelevant. So what exactly do you mean by pulses and in what way do these pulses exist in recent signals such as mobile phone transmission such as they don't exist in other forms of transmission? Again I'm obviously limited in what I've been taught so we may be talking about completely different things.

peterbaker

Well I haven't found a good link yet to explain pulsed, because I got distracted by that https://www.cost281.org website I found!

Now then, there's a heavyweight political organisation if ever I saw one! Have a read of this: http://www.cost281.org/activities/hyland_comment_final23-11-2001.pdf

Now tell me that isn't a hatchet job on poor old Dr Hyland who dared to open his mouth:-) ... if he had scientific credibility previously, then he certainly got singled out as persona non-grata in the 'relevant' EMF / biological interactivity expert forums after that was released:-)

I'd never heard of Hyland or cost281.org until an hour ago.

They do mention TETRA (the recently implemented police/emergency services cellular network) in that document, and that Hyland thinks the repetition frequency of 17.6Hz is biologically significant and probably adverse (they have chosen not to say 'pulse frequency', he he! Oh the art of spin is not dead is it?)

superscaper

But you're the one that brought up "pulse frequency" so what did YOU mean by that? Just so we all know we're talking about the same thing.

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

But you're the one that brought up "pulse frequency" so what did YOU mean by that? Just so we all know we're talking about the same thing.

I am alluding to (I can't define it well at the moment) the low frequency pulsing of high frequency transmission systems like TETRA. About 6 months ago I told a policeman that I would not wear a TETRA set against my kidney all day like he did, until I'd found out much more about it! Which may have been unfair of me because I know he wasn't entirely sure of the difference between a physicist and a physician! However, the question is obviously the province of some expert domain falling between the two:-)

I think it may already have been generally accepted that very low frequency EMF may have biological effects. The modification of high frequency EMF by some kind of ELF (Extra Low Frequency=3Hz to 30Hz) 'repetition frequency' is what I mean by 'new pulsed' signals.

asea

so is that a yes or a no?