Is there any harmful effect from wifi (802.11.x) radiation? Anydefinitive proof?

"Gregory Weston" <uce@splook.com> wrote in message
news:uce-73A6AD.06042301102008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com ...
> In article <_NyEk.355$XY.187@fe119.usenetserver.com>,
> "vernono" <vernono@there.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Weston" <uce@splook.com> wrote in message
>> news:uce-06D7B6.18053630092008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com ...
>>
>> >> >> You want dumb logic? I gave it to you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Um yes. Yes you did. Congrats.
>> >>
>> >> Watch out. They are coming to get you.
>> >> Good Greif.
>> >
>> > Have you always made no sense, or is this a recent affliction?
>>
>> It doesn't take much to go over your mental head,
>
> True. Non sequiturs, nonsensical leaps of logic and flights of fancy
> will do it any time.
>
>
>> Of course you know with ALL of the repeated statements that the earth is
>> flat because it has four corners.. All those people can't be wrong
>> including
>> NASA.
>
> What are you blathering about? The only person who said anything about
> the shape of the earth is you. We grown ups are talking about whether
> it's reasonable to make a positive claim about the non-existence of
> something when there are exactly zero data points gathered so far.
>
> --

There is /was a "dome" of water over the earth. Today it is a light amount
of moisture. Get it???

"Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:ytXEk.185$P5.91@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> vernono wrote:
>> "Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message
>>> Hmmm. I've never heard anyone yelling into a cell phone.
>>
>> Loud enough to be heard three or four tables away in a restaurant.
>
> I see. Different definitions of shouting.
> Being heard three or four tables away is
> speaking normally for many people.

Well, goody.

Polite is polite. Stupid is stupid. Go outside.

>
> --
> Wes Groleau
>
> Standards—a parable
> http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=145

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:43:40 +1200, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie
Kahn Genet) wrote:

>If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Nope. I'm part of the colloidal suspension. When flocculated, I turn
into a flake.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocculation>



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> Sorry for the delay. I fell asleep while watching daytime TV.
>>
> That happens a lot with older folks (g).

Well, maybe that's partly because they're watching daytime TV,
AND partly because they're older, so they're seeing the
same plot, different names for the four hundredth time.

--
Wes Groleau

The lesson
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=106

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> addict. If that doesn't cut it, you might need to add reality shows.

"reality" show--talk about creative misuse of language.....

--
Wes Groleau

The man who says, "I can do it!" may sometimes fail.
The man who says, "Impossible!" will never succeed.

Gregory Weston wrote:
> | I'm *not* saying that the alarmists are right. But I will say it's
> | too early to be completely dismissive of concerns they try to raise.
>
> ........
>
> The issue I'm concerned with is not safety; it's honesty. I think people

Fair enough. And the alarmists are not being honest
when they pretend to have evidence for their alarms.

--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him
three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, "That preacher
said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
stay with you guys."

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello, all.
>>
>> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
>> Penang, Malaysia.
>>
>> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
>> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
>> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
>> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
>> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>>
>> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
>>
>> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>>
>> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
>> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
>> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>>
>> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
>> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
>> effect to the people of this city.
>>
>> Can you help, please?
>>
>> Thank you all !!!
>
> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D

Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.

/BAH

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 2, 3:09 pm, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>> Saying that cell phones will not cause brain tumors because there's no
>> evidence so far that they have caused brain tumors is similarly
>> unreasonable.
>
> Here we have that evidence though ignorance thing again.
>
> Denial is your friend. You should have blind faith in skepticism and
> be blissfully ignorant. Kunspieracie! Aluminoum hat!!
>
> People get brain tumors from phones. PEROID

<snip>

Have you considered that holding it against the ear might be
the problem and not the EMF?

/BAH

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello, all.
> >>
> >> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
> >> Penang, Malaysia.
> >>
> >> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
> >> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
> >> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
> >> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
> >> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
> >>
> >> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
> >>
> >> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
> >> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
> >> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
> >>
> >> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
> >> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
> >> effect to the people of this city.
> >>
> >> Can you help, please?
> >>
> >> Thank you all !!!
> >
> > Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
> > that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
>
> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
>
> /BAH

Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
plenty.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article
<9780f654-be21-4d24-a04e-e448baa2f2d5@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello, all.
>
> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
> Penang, Malaysia.
>
> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>
> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
>
> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>
> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?

If you need information, you'd have to search at the website of the
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, http://www.ethz.ch. They do quite
a lot of research in this area (see eg
http://www.mobile-research.ethz.ch/english/index_e.htm).
As the above institution is fully equipped with Wifi troughout the
campus and has been among the first to do so, asking some of the people
from the above list might give you good references to study.
Or search on the internet, in a database.
What I know is that mobile phones are orders of magnitude stronger than
WiFi. And mobile phone use does change brain electromagnetic patterns,
as well as non-REM sleep. As far as I know harmful effects have not yet
been proven, except for children. This does not mean harmful effects do
not exist. Especially long term effects did not yet have time to develop.

> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
> effect to the people of this city.

My argument would be that mobile phone antennae and mobile phones are
orders of magnitude worse.

HTH

Marc

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
<http://www.heusser.com>

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>
>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>> Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello, all.
>>>>
>>>> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
>>>> Penang, Malaysia.
>>>>
>>>> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
>>>> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
>>>> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
>>>> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
>>>> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
>>>>
>>>> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>>>>
>>>> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
>>>> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
>>>> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>>>>
>>>> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
>>>> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
>>>> effect to the people of this city.
>>>>
>>>> Can you help, please?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you all !!!
>>> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
>>> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
>> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
>> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
> plenty.

2008-20=1988. Must have been scams. By 1988 all manufacturers had
to be compliant under the FCC constraints.

/BAH

jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
> >
> >> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> >>> Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello, all.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
> >>>> Penang, Malaysia.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
> >>>> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
> >>>> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
> >>>> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
> >>>> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
> >>>>
> >>>> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
> >>>> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
> >>>> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
> >>>> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
> >>>> effect to the people of this city.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you help, please?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you all !!!
> >>> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
> >>> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
> >> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
> >> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
> >>
> >> /BAH
> >
> > Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
> > plenty.
>
> 2008-20=1988. Must have been scams. By 1988 all manufacturers had
> to be compliant under the FCC constraints.
>
> /BAH

Then MacWorld ran a lot of 'scam' ads and reviewed a bunch of 'scam'
products. Of course the products seem daft now (unless you're a nut),
but they were... mostly... not scams. They were generally designed to
sheild the user from CRT EMR.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 08:15:42 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote
(in article <gc7mg361bk3@news2.newsguy.com>):

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>
>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>> Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello, all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
>>>>> Penang, Malaysia.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
>>>>> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
>>>>> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
>>>>> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
>>>>> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
>>>>> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
>>>>> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
>>>>> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
>>>>> effect to the people of this city.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you help, please?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you all !!!
>>>> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
>>>> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
>>> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
>>> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
>> plenty.
>
> 2008-20=1988. Must have been scams.

Unlikely. There were _swarms_ of the things.

> By 1988 all manufacturers had
> to be compliant under the FCC constraints.

And this has _nothing_ to do with what the Great Unwashed Public will demand.

>
> /BAH



--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:02:13 -0400, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
(in article <1iobeuv.el7g4r16tgyltN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz >):

> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>
>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>>> Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello, all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
>>>>>> Penang, Malaysia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
>>>>>> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
>>>>>> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
>>>>>> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
>>>>>> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
>>>>>> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
>>>>>> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
>>>>>> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
>>>>>> effect to the people of this city.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you help, please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you all !!!
>>>>> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
>>>>> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
>>>> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
>>>> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>
>>> Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
>>> plenty.
>>
>> 2008-20=1988. Must have been scams. By 1988 all manufacturers had
>> to be compliant under the FCC constraints.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Then MacWorld ran a lot of 'scam' ads and reviewed a bunch of 'scam'
> products. Of course the products seem daft now (unless you're a nut),
> but they were... mostly... not scams. They were generally designed to
> sheild the user from CRT EMR.
>

And they worked (mostly) as advertised, too... so long as the user was
sitting in front of the CRT and was not in a row of cubicles with a lot of
other users. If he was, then he'd be exposed to the radiation from the sides
of the CRT and (far, far worse) from the back of the CRT in the cube on the
other side of the partition.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Oct 2, 6:43*pm, jami...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet)
wrote:
>
> You know - I think you're right! Instead of seeing stupid ignorant
> people as an annoyance, we should be viewing them as a market for
> useless goods and services! :-D

Make that stupid ignorant, FEARFUL people and you've got the
forumula. It used to be called snake oil.

I've got Lyme disease (had it for years) and am currently researching
alternative treatments. I'm a kind of hippie skeptic (rare combo !)
type and believe that mainstream medicine misses a lot and is also
frequently misguided by the market interests. On the other hand, I
have noticed that people react to that in ways that are so extreme as
to be simply superstitious. I try not to laugh.

Cruising the Lymes forums you can find lots of people doing lots of
different weird things to cure themselves, usually as promoted by some
suspicious site or author who has a financial interest (hidden or not)
in the new miracle treatment they are espousing. One treatment
circulating involves high doses of salt and C. Another involves
ingestion of a sodium chlorite solution to internally disinfect the
body. Another is the use of specific frequencies of EMF applied to
the body to kill infections.

There is a small revival of this EMF therapy (!), using what are
called RIFE Machines by a few vociferferous users and authors, so I
investigated.

Not surprisingly, thier promoters conclude that EMF, as applied when
using their special machines (!) to be both Effective and Perfectly
SAFE !
-----
"Is the Rife equipment safe?
Rife observed that viruses and bacteria could be selectively destroyed
because each oscillates at a frequency unique from any other microbe.
Subjecting them to an intensified version of that resonant frequency
destroys them much like how an opera singer can shatter a wine glass
when hitting the particular note that corresponds to the frequency of
the glass molecules. The glass is destroyed, but nothing else is
harmed.

Human cells and disease producing organisms oscillate at very
different frequencies. Our bodies' cells have built in safeguards that
help prevent them from being affected by potentially harmful
frequencies. Even the good bacteria in our systems have their own
resonant frequencies, but these do not overlap with the frequencies of
harmful bacteria."
http://www.spiritual-healer.com/rife-faq.htm
----

The irony is that in the special case of cell phones and wifi, people
are trying to find out if EMF causes Cancer, while others are hoping
that EMF cures Cancer (and Lymes). I know, the frequencies must be
different.... It appears that in both cases, energy levels need to be
fairly high to have an effect.

What does the cancer society say about Rife and EMF curative
powers ?

-----------
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/co...ic_Therapy.asp

" Science has established the fact that electrical and magnetic energy
exist in the human body. Electrical energy is used by physicians to re-
start the heart after heart attacks and is even applied to promote
bone growth. Some accepted electrical devices commonly used in
hospitals include EEGs to measure electrical activity in the brain and
EKGs to measure electrical patterns of heartbeats.

Low level radio waves or tiny electrical impulses are not strong
enough to produce a significant effect on the body. There is no
evidence that the radio waves produced by these devices can destroy
bacteria or any living cells.

Microwaves, another form of electromagnetic therapy, are used in some
cancer treatment centers to heat and destroy tumor cells. High-energy
radio waves can also be used to "cook" cancer cells, a process called
radiofrequency ablation (see Hyperthermia.)

In addition, powerful electromagnetic fields (stronger and of a
different type than those produced by radionic devices) may be able to
change the responses of certain cells in the body. Early evidence
suggests that these electromagnetic fields may help broken bones that
are not healing well. Some researchers have reported that pulsed
electromagnetic stimulation may reduce frequency of migraine
headaches, although larger studies are needed to prove any benefit.
Some early studies found that electromagnetic energy may reduce some
kinds of pain, although the methods and results still need to be
checked by others to learn if they hold true. One review analyzed 2
studies and found that electromagnetic treatment did not seem to help
heal pressure sores (bedsores). Scientific studies are looking at
whether these powerful electromagnetic fields may help with other
problems. These studies are only done in carefully controlled research
settings. If they show benefit, it is possible that electromagnets may
be used in conventional medicine in the future.

There is no relationship between the conventional medical uses of
electromagnetic energy and the alternative devices or methods that use
externally applied electrical forces. Available scientific evidence
does not support claims that these alternative electrical devices are
effective in diagnosing or treating cancer or any other disease. "
----
Wouldn't it be funny, though, if it turns out that cell phone (or
wifi) usage reduces the incidence of Cancer? Why not? We have reason
to believe that the levels are too low to have an effect, but if not,
why assume that the effect would be harmful and not curative? Or
perhaps like most things it has good and bad effects. Kills cancer,
but increases some other disease incidence.


> If we're ignorantly fearful of one type of magnetic field, why don't
> other, often much stronger types bother us?

Agreed. People talk about what they are noticing and ignore all the
stuff that is background noise (literally) to them.


Steve

jmfbahciv wrote:
> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
>>>> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
>>> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
>>> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
>> Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
>> plenty.
> 2008-20=1988. Must have been scams. By 1988 all manufacturers had
> to be compliant under the FCC constraints.

You really believe every TV in use in 1998 was manufactured that year?

--
Wes Groleau

achy breaky grammar
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=229

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>
>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>>> Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello, all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
>>>>>> Penang, Malaysia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
>>>>>> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
>>>>>> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
>>>>>> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
>>>>>> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
>>>>>> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
>>>>>> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
>>>>>> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
>>>>>> effect to the people of this city.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you help, please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you all !!!
>>>>> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
>>>>> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
>>>> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
>>>> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>> Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
>>> plenty.
>> 2008-20=1988. Must have been scams. By 1988 all manufacturers had
>> to be compliant under the FCC constraints.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Then MacWorld ran a lot of 'scam' ads and reviewed a bunch of 'scam'
> products.

Am I supposed to be impressed with the name MacWorld?

> Of course the products seem daft now (unless you're a nut),
> but they were... mostly... not scams. They were generally designed to
> sheild the user from CRT EMR.

I can't remember the year we had to start shielding. Late 70s or very
early 80s. It was kewl. the company built an anechoic chamber. Walk
in the building and you get spooked very easily; I think mostly because
there was no sound. Product testing was done in the chamber.

/BAH

J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:02:13 -0400, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
> (in article <1iobeuv.el7g4r16tgyltN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz >):
>
>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>
>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>>>> Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello, all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
>>>>>>> Penang, Malaysia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the city-
>>>>>>> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
>>>>>>> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
>>>>>>> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
>>>>>>> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
>>>>>>> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
>>>>>>> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
>>>>>>> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
>>>>>>> effect to the people of this city.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you help, please?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you all !!!
>>>>>> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
>>>>>> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
>>>>> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
>>>>> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
>>>>>
>>>>> /BAH
>>>> Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
>>>> plenty.
>>> 2008-20=1988. Must have been scams. By 1988 all manufacturers had
>>> to be compliant under the FCC constraints.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>> Then MacWorld ran a lot of 'scam' ads and reviewed a bunch of 'scam'
>> products. Of course the products seem daft now (unless you're a nut),
>> but they were... mostly... not scams. They were generally designed to
>> sheild the user from CRT EMR.
>>
>
> And they worked (mostly) as advertised, too... so long as the user was
> sitting in front of the CRT and was not in a row of cubicles with a lot of
> other users. If he was, then he'd be exposed to the radiation from the sides
> of the CRT and (far, far worse) from the back of the CRT in the cube on the
> other side of the partition.
>
I don't understand. All of that had to shielded. We had one of the
unshielded CRTs in the house. Every character echoed on the CRT
showed up on my black and white TV. I had to warn JMF to be careful
of what he was doing because I could read the responses.

/BAH

Wes Groleau wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>>> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
>>>>> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
>>>> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
>>>> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
>>> Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
>>> plenty.
>> 2008-20=1988. Must have been scams. By 1988 all manufacturers had
>> to be compliant under the FCC constraints.
>
> You really believe every TV in use in 1998 was manufactured that year?
>
I was not talking about TVs. I was talking about computer terminals
which were also called CRTs.

/BAH

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:23:08 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote
(in article <gcaba022gup@news4.newsguy.com>):

> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:02:13 -0400, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
>> (in article <1iobeuv.el7g4r16tgyltN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz >):
>>
>>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>>>>>> Penang <kalambong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello, all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am part of the task force to set up a city-wide wifi coverage in
>>>>>>>> Penang, Malaysia.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, there's a group appeared on the local scene opposing the
>>>>>>>> city-
>>>>>>>> wide wifi coverage, on the ground that the "radiation from wifi is
>>>>>>>> extremely harmful to health" and they quote "an internationally known
>>>>>>>> expert" (a German) who wrote a book with the title of "Stress durch
>>>>>>>> Strom und Strahlung" to state their point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I don't know the German language. It's Greek to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I'm here posting this question to all you Gurus anyway ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any _PROVEN_ harmful effect stemming from the wireless
>>>>>>>> radiation of WIFI, be it in the 2.4GHz band (for 802.11b and 802.11g)
>>>>>>>> and in the 5GHz band (for 802.11n) ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although I am part of the team deploying the city-wide wifi coverage,
>>>>>>>> I want to be sure that what I am doing would NOT cause any harmful
>>>>>>>> effect to the people of this city.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you help, please?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you all !!!
>>>>>>> Anyone else reminded of the panic over CRTs 20 years ago and all crap
>>>>>>> that was sold to those living in fear? :-D
>>>>>> Never heard of it. We did have to shield them so that TVs and things
>>>>>> wouldn't display the characters that were displayed on the CRTs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /BAH
>>>>> Really? Try looking in any 20 year old computer magazine for ads a
>>>>> plenty.
>>>> 2008-20=1988. Must have been scams. By 1988 all manufacturers had
>>>> to be compliant under the FCC constraints.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>> Then MacWorld ran a lot of 'scam' ads and reviewed a bunch of 'scam'
>>> products. Of course the products seem daft now (unless you're a nut),
>>> but they were... mostly... not scams. They were generally designed to
>>> sheild the user from CRT EMR.
>>>
>>
>> And they worked (mostly) as advertised, too... so long as the user was
>> sitting in front of the CRT and was not in a row of cubicles with a lot of
>> other users. If he was, then he'd be exposed to the radiation from the
>> sides
>> of the CRT and (far, far worse) from the back of the CRT in the cube on the
>> other side of the partition.
>>
> I don't understand. All of that had to shielded.

It was, just not very well.

> We had one of the
> unshielded CRTs in the house. Every character echoed on the CRT
> showed up on my black and white TV.

Yep. If you did things right, you could pick up the signal from the CRT (and
the keyboard) as much as 20 meters away. You can _still_ pick up signals from
keyboards at a good distance, and not just from wireless keyboards, either.
There's a _reason_ why the US gov had something called 'Tempest' rated
computer terminals, and why such units cost so much more than normal ones.

> I had to warn JMF to be careful
> of what he was doing because I could read the responses.

If I wanted to I could read the keyboards of at least two of my neighbors
from where I'm sitting right now. It wouldn't even be difficult. Reading the
CRTs would be harder, but still possible.

>
> /BAH



--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:20:43 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote
(in article <gcab5f12gup@news4.newsguy.com>):

>> Then MacWorld ran a lot of 'scam' ads and reviewed a bunch of 'scam'
>> products.
>
> Am I supposed to be impressed with the name MacWorld?

Similar ads were in MacUser, Macazine, PC World, PC Magazine, Computer
Shopper, and a whole swarm of others, including magazines serving the
electric utility community. I know 'cause at the time I was working in the
electric utility community. The items in question worked (or, more properly,
did nothing worth paying for) with machines running any OS. Jamie's posting
from comp.sys.mac.system, which is why he specified MacWorld, that being the
#1 Mac magazine at the time.

It should be noted that while such ads were present in popular computer mags
and even in some mags with a more selective audience, they did _not_ show up
in serious computer tech mags (or in serious electric power mags...) 'cause
the people who read _those_ mags would know that the ads were purest
bullshit. I never saw such an ad in MacTech, or whatever the name was back
then, it's been a while and the name's changed at least twice. I'm sure that
the publishers would have been happy to take the cash for running those ads,
and I'm also sure that the letter col would have been highly amusing after
one such ad showed up, and the marketdroids pushing the items in question
knew damn well what would happen.

The Great Unwashed Public wanted the product. Those who knew better didn't.
After a while The Word(tm) filtered down to the Great Unwashed Public, and
sales dried up.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Science, vol 321, 29 August 2008, pp. 1144-1145:

"Fraud Charges Cast Doubt on Claims of DNA Damage From Cell Phone Fields"

This is from the print edition. I didn't dig out the exact URL, but it's
probably accessible on line through <http://www.sciencemag.org>

In article <gcabco32gup@news4.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol>
wrote:

> I was not talking about TVs. I was talking about computer terminals
> which were also called CRTs.

BTW color TV's and CRT terminals emit quite some Xrays.
A color TV at 30 kV and a few mA is quite a nice Xray gun, partially
shielded by the lead in the front glass of the tube.

It is certainly not very healthy to sit close to a big tube watching for
hours.

HTH

Marc

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
<http://www.heusser.com>

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:21:12 +0200, Marc Heusser
<marc.heusser@byeheusser.commercialspammers.invali d> wrote:

>In article <gcabco32gup@news4.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol>
>wrote:
>
>> I was not talking about TVs. I was talking about computer terminals
>> which were also called CRTs.
>
>BTW color TV's and CRT terminals emit quite some Xrays.
>A color TV at 30 kV and a few mA is quite a nice Xray gun, partially
>shielded by the lead in the front glass of the tube.

Are you sure? I decided to do my own testing and simply plastered a
dental X-ray film sheet, in a black plastic bag, to front of the TV
screen. I placed a door key between the CRT and the film and left the
TV running for 4 days. When I developed the film, I found nothing.

About a month later, I had the opportunity to work with some dental
X-ray equipment. I wanted to see if my setup worked. So I did the
film in the black bag trick again, and exposed it to as low a level of
rays that the machine could generate for about 30 seconds. Instant
shadow.

X-rays from CRT's were a problem perhaps 30 years ago, but modern
design and safety regulations have effectively eliminated the danger.
Incidentally, most of the x-rays from the old picture tubes came out
the BACK of the tube, not the front. Sitting in front of the tube was
the safest place to be.

Incidentally, it's not just the CRT that generates x-rays:
<http://www.belljar.net/xray.htm>

>It is certainly not very healthy to sit close to a big tube watching for
>hours.

Yeah, I know. The commercials are devastating.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:20:43 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote
> (in article <gcab5f12gup@news4.newsguy.com>):
>
> >> Then MacWorld ran a lot of 'scam' ads and reviewed a bunch of 'scam'
> >> products.
> >
> > Am I supposed to be impressed with the name MacWorld?
>
> Similar ads were in MacUser, Macazine, PC World, PC Magazine, Computer
> Shopper, and a whole swarm of others, including magazines serving the
> electric utility community. I know 'cause at the time I was working in the
> electric utility community. The items in question worked (or, more properly,
> did nothing worth paying for) with machines running any OS. Jamie's posting
> from comp.sys.mac.system, which is why he specified MacWorld, that being the
> #1 Mac magazine at the time.

I remember seeing them in the back of Byte as well, but as J.J. says -
most publishers were only too happy to reap the advertising revenue
regardless of the scientific validity of the product.

> It should be noted that while such ads were present in popular computer mags
> and even in some mags with a more selective audience, they did _not_ show up
> in serious computer tech mags (or in serious electric power mags...) 'cause
> the people who read _those_ mags would know that the ads were purest
> bullshit. I never saw such an ad in MacTech, or whatever the name was back
> then, it's been a while and the name's changed at least twice. I'm sure that
> the publishers would have been happy to take the cash for running those ads,
> and I'm also sure that the letter col would have been highly amusing after
> one such ad showed up, and the marketdroids pushing the items in question
> knew damn well what would happen.

Hey, MacWorld even _reviewed_ CRT EMR sheilding. It seems funny now, but
there was a lot of concern by even otherwise smart 'expert' level
computer geeks.

> The Great Unwashed Public wanted the product. Those who knew better didn't.
> After a while The Word(tm) filtered down to the Great Unwashed Public, and
> sales dried up.

Thank goodness the hysteria subsided :-) It bothered me when I saw this
sort of junk being taken seriously by magazines I liked back in the day.

Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:21:12 -0400, Marc Heusser wrote
(in article <marc.heusser-07D3D2.17210905102008@news.uzh.ch>):

> In article <gcabco32gup@news4.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol>
> wrote:
>
>> I was not talking about TVs. I was talking about computer terminals
>> which were also called CRTs.
>
> BTW color TV's and CRT terminals emit quite some Xrays.
> A color TV at 30 kV and a few mA is quite a nice Xray gun, partially
> shielded by the lead in the front glass of the tube.

The X-ray generator is the _back_ of the set. And even then only if there was
a suitable object near it (rebar in the wall behind it, for example) which
could generate the actual X-rays. And the large metal object in question
would have to be at the right distance and size and angle or the resulting
X-rays would be of limited effect. And at the best (or worst) they'd not be
particularly focused, or at a high level.

>
> It is certainly not very healthy to sit close to a big tube watching for
> hours.
>
> HTH
>
> Marc
>
>



--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:10:36 -0400, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
(in article <1iodkel.vxe5a91uymkapN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz >):

> Hey, MacWorld even _reviewed_ CRT EMR sheilding. It seems funny now, but
> there was a lot of concern by even otherwise smart 'expert' level
> computer geeks.

I saw 'shields' for VT100 terminals. At one point someone from Corporate came
down to ECS (the department I worked in, Electronics & Communications
Systems) and tried to insist that we put 'shields' on all our terminals. The
manager invited that person to make a presentation showing exactly what the
'shields' shielded. Said person departed, never to mention the matter again.

Purest bullshit, that's all it is.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.