Is Wi-Fi safe?

peterbaker

asea wrote: »

so is that a yes or a no?

Is what a yes or a no, asea? Or have you just arrived looking for the answer to "Is WiFI safe?"

I still don't know the answer to that.

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

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.

I'm still missing something, those low repetition frequencies can occur in any EM signal and are not "new" or exclusive to microwave radiation signals. That was basically the definition of pulse I was using and as I said they occur in just about every man-made EM signal. I'm sure I'm completely wrong but I just still don't see anything new.

peterbaker

Well cost281.org obviously acknowledge something is different in "New pulsed" signalling, or they wouldn't be poo-pooing it, SS! They obviously don't like using the phrase "pulsed", so much so that in another 2005 report about TETRA they said both:
"This work had confirmed to within the limits of the experimental precision (around 1%) that no 17.6 Hz was present in the base station signal"
AND
"...This affects the spectrum of the power at the modulation symbol rate of ~18 kHz, rather than introducing any 17.6 Hz component."

Now, 1% of 18Hz is 0.18Hz so whoever said 17.6 Hz is talking poppycock is what they are saying:-))

Talk about splitting hairs!

In the same paper they acknowledge "...the Stewart Group recommendation in its May 2000 report that “as a precautionary measure, amplitude modulation around 16 Hz should be avoided, if possible, in future developments in signal coding”"

So 16Hz is to be avoided but 17.6Hz was wrong and our ~18Hz even further from 16Hz so is okay? Hmmm!

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

Now, 1% of 18Hz is 0.18Hz so whoever said 17.6 Hz is talking poppycock is what they are saying:-))

You've lost me again, where have you got the figure 18 Hz from? I can only see 18 kHz, 1% of which is 180 Hz. You seem to be comparing completely different things. I'm sure again I'm completely wrong but 18 Hz isn't mentioned in that document at all.

peterbaker

Oh gawd... you got me there SS! I wonder why they mentioned it in the same sentence as 17.6Hz? Their typo or maybe they were anticipating lightning judgements from amateurs like me?:-))

Serves me right ... I missed the k, and your signature has warned me often enough that you are hot on these things superscraper!!

Now I am looking for further ideas of what that 17.6Hz might actually relate to ... here's a good one for starters ...http://www.rense.com/general11/mm.htm

Don't worry, I am laughing too at that one:-)) .... Ermmm ... I think ...

Use of the TETRA system by the police will lead to psychotronicaly controlled officers who may be totally controlled in any situation and are very useful for states of economic or social chaos where extreme and violent behaviour is needed without any conscious or moral compunction - so-called police robots. Crikey! ..and there was me telling the policeman to watch out for his kidneys!

peterbaker

As a foil, here's a "we should be worried" type article which tries to highlight the apparent suppression of the idea of any significant 17.6Hz pulse in TETRA in offical circles:
http://www.starweave.com/prof/

asea

peterbaker wrote: »

Is what a yes or a no, asea? Or have you just arrived looking for the answer to "Is WiFI safe?"

I still don't know the answer to that.

yes, sorry that was a bit cheeky.. i've been trying to read the thread but honestly i can't understand it, all those big scary words.. i'm just a little worried as i live very close to the city and within the new wifi zone which i find a little scary as i also work in the city and so will be exposed 24-7!!

superscaper

asea wrote: »

yes, sorry that was a bit cheeky.. i've been trying to read the thread but honestly i can't understand it, all those big scary words.. i'm just a little worried as i live very close to the city and within the new wifi zone which i find a little scary as i also work in the city and so will be exposed 24-7!!

There is no yes or no. That's why this thread has dragged out for so long. There's no definitive answer either way as far as evidence goes. So far all we can say for sure is that there may be an effect on human tissue, but exact amounts an how that relates to practical application and whether the effect is damaging or not is unknown. There doesn't presently seem to be a known scientific mechanism that would explain a damaging effect which is why it was assumed to be safe currently and the EU have already placed power limits for all the different broadcast limits. I personally don't think there is anything to worry about unless there's definite proof, whereas peterbaker's view (I apologise if I'm misinterpreting peter) is that we should worry unless we have definitive proof it is safe.

peterbaker

Well superscraper, I wouldn't say my view is quite as you suggest because it sounds somewhat vacuous when put that way, and I wouldn't want to be thought of as promoting anything like that!

There seem to be far too many knowledgeable people who have attained a position as 'acknowledged expert' in a related field, who are content to have to do little work to justify their position when queueing up to say "There is no evidence to suggest that..." versus those who are saying "Well actually we have been told about..., or we have noticed that..., or we could imagine that..., and therefore we are looking for more evidence to support..., and we expect to be reporting back by ..."

I think there may well actually be a tendency amongst 'acknowledged experts' to rest on their laurels in elevated positions and to let others convince them by doing the hardwork within the accepted politics of the day of not just the scientific community itself, but of the big money sponsors who keep the acknowledged experts comfy on their high seats (or aeroplane seats between conferences). It's something to do with the human condition I think, that sooner or later the trappings of success start dictating the actions of those who once upon a time would have striven to succeed on the merits of their own work, not by putting down that of selected others climbing the pedestal.

On that cost281.org sit there is actually a lot of interesting material, but I was astonished to quickly come across a downloadable expenses form as fast as I was able to find research reports!! Do not send Brussels! was the somewhat intriguing accompanying headline to go with the download link, which indicates to me that the kind of people using the site are perhaps well used to the EU gravy train.

I am also concerned that there is from time to time actually a great deal of spin and disinformation supported by scientists right at the top who might earn money as 'respected' Chairpersons of this or that committee. My hunt for information about the TETRA 17.6Hz pulse is a good example of where the path to the truth of it has perhaps been dusted over by a number of people with various loose branches.

That cost281.org character assassination of Dr Hyland was ruthless. I wonder what he did that was so dreadful?

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

Well superscraper, I wouldn't say my view is quite as you suggest because it sounds somewhat vacuous when put that way, and I wouldn't want to be thought of as promoting anything like that!

Well that was my own interpretation which I made quite clear and is certainly the sense I get from the responses you put, which is why I mentioned the OP was probably a rhetorical question. And before you get over defensive again, that is MY impression of what you've written whether you mean it that way or not and the point in the post was to give a counterpoint to my own personal view so as to make it a general summary that wasn't biased. I've lost count of the number of times I've said I'm probably wrong, but you always seem to interpret my words as immovable gospel on a specific solid position. As for your rant on self appointed "acknowledged experts" I'm not sure who you are talking about. It seems to be a rather cynical view.