EMF Exposure ... and Children

Forums › LAN (ethernet/Wifi/routers/Bluetooth) › EMF Exposure ... and Children

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1408412 17-Oct-2015 21:52

Thanks to all and sundry. Ive learned or discovered.
1- as freitsm pointed out two different types of radiation. Wifi more likely to cause heating eg ionising vs non ionising.
2 - distance is important. Make sure wireless receivers etc higher up so people dont sit too close to them. Also improves reception as an added benefit
3 - while there is research showing changes in animals exposed to emf its normally lower freq. In the hz not Mhz ranges.
4- there is evidence both anecdotal and emperical emf can cause physical symptoms in some people. This needs to be considered. Especially tiredness headaches etc.
5-even highly cumulative wifi such as the 60 kids im a modern learning environment shared xlassroom still serms to be orders of magnitude less than published safe levels.

Teaching kids to practice laptop safety such as not using them on laps as they cause burns, visual eye strain and poture more likely to be important than wifi exposure.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1408968 19-Oct-2015 08:29

Sideface:
nunz: ... There are some people who cant be in rooms or areas with RF, cell phones, Cell phone towers etc - it gives them headaches, ringing in the ears, sight issues, migraines etc etc. Scientifically proven. ...

This is all news to me.

Can you give us the "scientific proof" / reference ?

Mike McGill, from Better Call Saul?

Oh, science. Not pop culture. Then no.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1408972 19-Oct-2015 08:44

nunz:
Primary Class Rooms under the new Learning environment have 60 kids or so in them. Next door another sixty and often a class at the other end too.

This is awful. I think it is a cost saving measure at the expense of childrens education.

As for the idea that the emf from 60 laptops might affect childrens health... show me some research otherwise I think it is just fine.

I'm against the idea of laptops in primary schools though. For things like learning basic facts , pen and paper is faster.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1408973 19-Oct-2015 08:50

JoshWright:

One point I thought of was that realistically most NZ Primary classrooms are around 30 kids (not 60?), and the majority of Primary Schools don't have 1:1 devices for students..

It seems they must have sent school principals on a course which says you can save money with more kids in a classroom. As far as I know, a lot of primary schools are moving towards this.

I can't stand it myself.

And, our school has macbook trolleys which wheel around different classrooms to allow 1:1 at times.

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1409040 19-Oct-2015 09:39

surfisup1000:
nunz:
Primary Class Rooms under the new Learning environment have 60 kids or so in them. Next door another sixty and often a class at the other end too.

This is awful. I think it is a cost saving measure at the expense of childrens education.

As for the idea that the emf from 60 laptops might affect childrens health... show me some research otherwise I think it is just fine.

I'm against the idea of laptops in primary schools though. For things like learning basic facts , pen and paper is faster.

Lack of published research doesn't prove safety. It could be that those who can afford to do the research don't want to, or that research has been done but not made public.

If you look up the history of asbestos and human health you'll find that industry had the evidence but chose not tell the public or its workers because the business case outweighed the health risks. Those who died might have preferred to know.

1101

3122 posts

Uber Geek

#1409757 20-Oct-2015 12:03

Its easy to get carried away will all this. Wifi is 2.4Ghz. So are microwave Ovens, so are video repeaters & some garage door openers
Its been around a long long time, its safe to assume its safe .
Where are all the cases of Brain cancer that mobile phones were supposed to cause when they 1st were being sold. Another folly :-)

its easy to get carried away & panicked about every little thing. NOTHing is 100% safe. Even vitamins are poisonous in high dose
Just going outside there is UV & some cosmic radiation risk.

Here some more tin foil hat stuff :-)
Be concerned about the effects of RADON gas & start researching & testing for that. Stay out of brick & concrete bldings
Dont EVER get an X-Ray...ever , as that is many many many times more powerfull & dangerous than wifi
Dont let kids in any area where there are cellphones turned on
Throw away your microwave oven
Throw away your conventional oven, due to research showing the effects of cooking & browning food
Throw away all bread & fermented products, due to research blah blah

:-)

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409768 20-Oct-2015 12:47

If it turns out that exposure to EM fields causes cancer, too bad. I would rather that, than live without electricity.

Matthew

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Jase2985

13459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1409772 20-Oct-2015 12:51

mdooher: If it turns out that exposure to EM fields causes cancer, too bad. I would rather that, than live without electricity.

and all the goodness it enables

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1421064 4-Nov-2015 17:56

Jase2985:
nathan: Sugarloaf probably has many thousands x the power of a WiFi AP

sugarloaf is 64 kW, a unifi UAP-LR is 500mW, so about 128 thousand times more

to the OP, find and read NZS 2772.1:1999, it contains all the info you need to know about Radiofrequency fields - Maximum exposure levels - 3 kHz to 300 GHz

thanks .

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1421069 4-Nov-2015 18:01

surfisup1000:
JoshWright:

One point I thought of was that realistically most NZ Primary classrooms are around 30 kids (not 60?), and the majority of Primary Schools don't have 1:1 devices for students..

It seems they must have sent school principals on a course which says you can save money with more kids in a classroom. As far as I know, a lot of primary schools are moving towards this.

I can't stand it myself.

And, our school has macbook trolleys which wheel around different classrooms to allow 1:1 at times.

Many principals dont like this - it is mandated from the minister / ministry downwards.

My kids school has around twenty something class rooms which are going to get demolished and replaced with ONE building, with class rooms around the outside of a centralised area - ministry mandated. Its a horrible mixture of revisiting the mess of open plan classrooms from the 70s and the googleisation of office space / common space retc which is failing in many corporate places over seas.

Unfortunately the education dept doesn't see any harm in usin gour kids as guinea pigs. Teacher stress up, parent satisfaction down.

raytaylor

4014 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1422954 7-Nov-2015 20:43

I'll start typing just in case i cover something someone else hasnt

The router in a school will often be a managed router.
It will not be at maximum power - this is to reduce the range. Your laptop or phone will still see it exists well byond the usable range. Managed routers are designed to work in conjunction with each other to provide blanket coverage while limiting the overlapping. The main problem is that most routers are not capable of handling more than 10 simultaneous connections.

An "industrial strength" router is not necessarily more powerful - and is usually less powerful than a good home router. They are designed for more simultaneous connections, not range.

Many routers will also put out multiple SSID's - this means the number of networks you see are not necessarily the amount of routers. Multiple SSIDs are used to virtually segregate computers - in a school the teachers may use one ssid and the kids may use another with more strict content filters but both come from the same router.

The maximum power output is 4 watts EIRP. This is a combination of antenna and transmitter power.
4 watts is WELL WELL WELL below any safety limits.
And if a larger antenna is used, the transmitter power is reduced accordingly - there are technical reasons to do this, but the overall result from your perspective is the maximum power output is the same.
AND most routers are not powerful enough to even get to 4 watts EIRP with a good antenna.

Power Savings
Laptops especially, and routers will only transmit when they are asked to.
Your laptop sitting on your lap is not transmitting 100% of the time. This is simply to save power as they are designed to run on a battery and wifi severely reduces the battery life.
Transmitting all the time would also stop other devices from using the router.
The biggest thing though is that when a wifi router is not being used, it will also have a lower duty cycle.
You know how your phone often scans for wifi networks and they take 10 seconds to all show up in the list? This is because a wifi router only occasionally send a very very short 'ping' or announcement transmission to let devices know its there. It wont do anything else unless a device or user requests data such as load a web page or click on a link.
Hence why your phone or laptop takes a while to scan for wifi networks - it waits 5-10 seconds to count up how many pings it picks up from wireless routers to show you the list.

Vodafone Towers and Proximity
This image probably best describes why you dont get too close
Source Jonathan Brewer
http://nztelco.com/2013/12/19/cell-phones-wi-fi-and-electromagnetic-radiation/

So the idea is that if you move away from an antenna, you will absorb less radiation. Just like light from a bulb.
The 30cm guide is just a simple way of saying you should probably not get too close to this.
In reality the nanostation you refer to has a similar output power to the laptop - but its got a directional antenna on it where as your laptop has an omnidirectional 360 degree antenna. The laptop takes that energy and radiates it in all directions with much less power going in any direction. The nanostation pushes all the output energy in a specific direction so when you are close, there is potentially more.

The most important thing is they want to stop vandals. At our transmitter sites, we put up signs that say "The electromagnetic radiation in this area is higher than the FCC recommended maximum for human exposure"
Its no where near the maximum but we just dont want people going near our equipment on hilltops and will happily play into your radiation fears to keep you and your teenage ideas of vandalism away.

No scientific evidence of EMF sensitivity
I have not seen an actual scientific study that shows EMF sensitivity is a thing other than some non-peer-reviewed studies that havent really been good enough to present a credible link.
There are pleanty of people that seem to move to a small town in the USA that has low EMF regulations due to the sensitivity of a government-owned radio telescope in the area.
But to be honest, the amount of radiation coming off the sun is walking through the school quad between buildings more than you would get from a router over an entire day.

EMF sensitivity as far as I am concerned is a conspiracy created for, and enabled by hippies.

Smart TVs
A smart TV with a wifi client / transmitter inside it will put out much less radiation than your old electron gun tube tv. Lol. Much, Much less than a tube.
Old TV repairmen used to have a saying - I forget how it goes but it was something along the lines of when you sqat down behind a tv to take off the rear cover, you close your legs to protect your 'nads.

Transmission tower repaint deaths
I would suspect this is probably due to the fact they smoked cigerettes, or inhaled second hand smoke.
Would be interesting to find out about the types of cancer they had.

Laptops on your knees
Make sure you take into account that there is often a large metal plate on the bottom of the laptop to limit the amount of radio waves that go downward.
Any radio waves that end up in that vicinity are probably reflections off the walls of the room and will be severely reduced in power.

When I talk about safe limits
The maximum limits are also lowered to be well below any safety limits.
In fact the 4 watt wifi limit is not a safety thing at all - its to lower interference between multiple wifi routers trying to share the same frequency in a given area. It lowers the range, so the channel could be used by another wifi router two houses down the road, and not allow your overpowered router to cause interference for everyone in a city.
This is especially true because when you look at the legal license known as the General User License on the RSM.govt.nz website, you will find there are mentions of downtilt of antennas - and indoor use only channels specifically to reduce range. It has nothing to do with safety at all, even though the limits are well below any safety guides.

Next the NZ ministry of health has a booklet on their website about celltowers etc and proximity to humans.

"Kids are more susceptible "
This one really annoys me - kids are smaller, therefore they will absorb less radiation from the surrounding environment. Melanoma is a good way to visualise it. When you are exposed to the sunlight radiation, you can get melanoma. If you have more skin exposed to the sun, there is a higher chance of melanoma. Once you get melanoma or a cancer it then starts to spread throughout your body.
By that logic, a fully grown human body is more susceptible as they have more surface area to absorb the radiation.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1423003 7-Nov-2015 23:15

Belated breaking news!!!

According to the leaked WHO data, bread crust, roasted coffee, grilled steak [the theme here is heated to high temp], and oh did I mention bacon and sausaged - has a better chance of giving your kids cancer. The only food confirmed to not cause it is nylon.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79268 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1423006 8-Nov-2015 00:03

The "leaked WHO data" is not leaked anymore, since the report was officially released since that link was posted. Keep up with the times ;)

Also, as suspected, everything causes cancer. Except nylon, as mentioned.

“Red and processed meat are among 940 agents reviewed by the IARC and found to pose some level of theoretical ‘hazard’. Only one substance, a chemical in yoga pants, has been declared by the IARC not to cause cancer.

“The IARC says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don’t breathe air (class 1 carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (class 1), apply aloe vera (class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (class 1 and class 2B), or eat grilled food (class 2A). And if you are a hairdresser or do shift work (both class 2A), you should seek a new career.”

[UPDATE: article on The Lancet]

jonherries

1395 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1423010 8-Nov-2015 01:25

afe66:
nunz: The discussions on EMF are similar to the EMF type studies done on Trasnformers, sub stations and power lines. most of it was rubbished but more and more studies showing strong correlations between high voltage powerlines, transformers and substations - especially in children

Powerlines- again an EMF source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2247309

The 95% confidence intervals all include 1 in other words there is no difference in risk. (1989 is a very old study)

A.

I have done some learning in biostatistics and epidemiology and there has been significant increases in the understanding of what constitutes a good study in this field in the past 20 years. For this reason I would be skeptical of any study which is older that about 2005 (and still skeptical anyway :)

For interest when considering any research there are some basic concepts that need to be considered as these tend to have an impact on the applicability and reliability of results.

1. Bias (type 1 and type 2)
2. Correlation and causation (related to number 6 below)
3. What does a confidence interval mean
4. Statistical power
5. Ecological fallacy
6. Confounding
7. Odds and risk ratios

Feel free to google these terms, pretty sure they will have wikipedia pages for them, if you have an interest I can guarantee a multi-hour rabbit hole of reading.

Some things that stand out from the first page of this study which relate to the above in no particular order are:

"It was not possible to obtain direct measurements of field intensity for this study, or of duration of exposure"

No attempt was made to actually measure exposure, given the age of the study an probable lack of GIS I wonder how they actually measured distance (it doesn't say).

"Electoral registration is not compulsory, but largely complete. The roll does not state age or sex, and the population control series was therefore compared to Bromley cases aged 18 or over in an unmatched analysis."

Key thing is to match populations, this is the point of a control.

"Most of the dwellings are houses of 1-3 floors or apartment buildings of 2-5 floors; high-rise blocks of 10-12 floors are infrequent."

From this statement it appears they ignored building materials and building height.

Lastly it should be stated that there were no statistically significant findings from this study at a (low) level of 95% confidence so it isn't clear to me why it could be considered evidence of a link between RF and cancer (leukaemia specifically)?

Jon

kiwirock

685 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1423015 8-Nov-2015 02:34

I've done some stuff around hundreds of watts near antennas with KW, installing transmitters and antenna systems underneath other active transmission systems.

Perhaps that's why I'm screwy in the head since 2008.

Being near any electro-magnetic field can cause stray currents in conductors. The human body uses low voltages and electricity through nerves to work, so technically it could cause some sort of physiological effect on people. The question is who is more prone.

The important one to remember Wi-Fi's frequency was selected in microwave ovens because it heats water more efficiently (which the body is made up a lot of). Things like eyes however don't have a good means to regulate temperature so radiation would have more effect on them etc... Heating by small amounts can effect brain tissue as well, whether unwanted or not who knows.

But when you think about it, go park yourself in front of a fireplace or radiant heater. A few KW of infrared heat would probably do more damage during winter than a few mW of Wi-Fi gear.

Stand out in the sun and feel the heat... I can't feel that sitting beside a Wi-Fi router. My garage router is 1W with gained antenna, so in the right spot I get a good dose of 3-4 Watts when inside the garage. In the house though, I have the radio turned down to as low as acceptable Wi-Fi speed so my daughter doesn't get bombed as much as when at school.

Technically you can't say Wi-Fi doesn't effect people. It does to some degree, but measurable on the other hand... there's a lot of variables as to who why how and when it effects people. It may effect some and not others. Long term Wi-Fi exposure, well, wait another 10 years and see if if whatever decision you go wirth turned out the right one. Either way, aging another 10 years takes more time away from your health more than Wi-Fi I'd say :o)

For all we know there could be positive effects of Wi-Fi exposure. We might evolve to better co-exist with higher levels or radiation.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5