|
How Microwave EMF
Radiation Affects Us Part 2
Cell Tower
Life Bluetube Headsets
Cell Phone Towers Health Effects
EM Field Meter
Cell Phone Sensitivity
In response to the media outcry, and the public admissions
by William Stewart, the HPA announced in October 2007 that
it would launch a programme of research into the health
effects of Wi-Fi. Initial optimism for the proposal quickly
faded when campaigners discovered that the project would
merely “measure exposures to radio signals from wireless
computer networks”, and compare them to “international
guidelines”.
“This research has already been done” says Graham Philips of
PowerWatch. “To spend £300,000 of taxpayers’ money on
measuring exposure to Wi-Fi and then comparing the data to
10-year-old ICNIRP guidelines is a complete and utter
farce.”
If recent cases of research into the health risks of mobile
phone transmitter masts are anything to go by, Philips is
right to be angry. In July 2007, the results of a two-year
research project joint-funded by the Government and the
mobile phone industry were published. The study, run by
researchers in a flagship facility at Essex University, had
set out to investigate whether people who claimed they
suffered health effects because of microwave radiation
(known as “electrosensitives”) could tell if a hidden mobile
mast was switched on or off at any given time. At a
high-profile launch in London’s Science Media Centre – from
which representatives of pressure groups and non-mainstream
media were banned – the researchers told the press that no
significant results had been found and that any
electrosensitives who claimed they were affected by
radiation should start to look for other, psychological,
causes for their distress.
Faced with tight deadlines and information from a supposedly
reliable Government research programme, the journalists
repeated to their editors and readers exactly what they had
been told at the launch. But the study, which has been cited
worldwide to dismiss health concerns over microwave
radiation, is now mired in controversy.
Basic errors in arithmetic have been found and admitted by
the researchers. The scientists also confess that they
failed to recruit enough participants, and as such the
study’s statistical power (the ability of research to
predict “real world” effects) falls below that considered
acceptable in social science. In addition, because so few
participants were found, the researchers were unable to
“screen” them to see if their symptoms corresponded to the
known attributes of electrosensitivity.
The researchers also began the experiment by spending three
months using equipment designed to simulate a mobile phone
mast, which was not sending out realistic signals. The
laboratory equipment was missing a crucial frequency that
exists in real-world mobile mast broadcasts and is thought
to contribute to headaches and other neurophysiological
effects. Alasdair Philips was invited in to correct the
equipment, but data collected using the incorrect settings
as still used in the final analysis.
When the Ecologist challenged one of the paper’s lead
authors, Professor Elaine Fox, over why her team had chosen
to tell the world’s media that electrosensitivity – a
condition medically recognized by the Swedish government –
was a myth, she told us: “It seems unreasonable to conclude
that there is an effect, when almost 900 sensitive people
have been tested under double-blind conditions (Rubin et al,
meta analysis, 2005; Regel et al, EHP, 2006, and Eltiti et
al, EHP, 2007). These studies are extremely expensive and it
now seems more reasonable to start looking for other causes,
given the growing evidence.”
A fair defense, until examined more closely. Rubin et al’s
“meta-analysis”, which was published, notably, in the
Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, is simply a review of 25
studies of varying quality, of which only seven exposed
participants to mobile phone-type radiation; of these, three
studies actually had found evidence of adverse health
effects. Elaine Fox also fails to mention that the Regel et
al study in fact concludes that some subjects were able
consistently to tell whether a mobile mast was switched on
or off, and that in its conclusion, the paper admits that an
effect on brain function could not be discounted.
Moreover, the study run at Essex University had been
specifically commissioned to make up for failings in earlier
studies, so then to defend the study by citing earlier ones
seems dubious at best.
Ultimately, however, the HPA’s new investigation into the
risks of Wi-Fi will be of little importance. The reason for
this lies not in the airwaves, but in the bundle of data
cables that runs beneath your feet.
Internet capacity in the UK is at breaking point. Soaring
demand for video services, internet radio, file swapping and
web phone services has meant that an ageing system of copper
wires originally installed only for telephone calls can no
longer cope. In a report by the consultancy firm Deloitte,
it was estimated that 2007 may in fact see the internet
reach “peak capacity”.
No government, much less one that depends upon the success
of a “knowledge economy” such as the UK’s, can afford to let
this happen. To lose speed and capacity on your internet
network translates into lost business, innovation and tax
revenue.
Desperate to encourage ways around this bottleneck, the UK’s
communications regulator, Ofcom, announced in summer 2007
that it was planning to auction off a slice of the microwave
spectrum around the 2.5 GHz frequency.
The industry nearly fell over itself with excitement. Ofcom
knew that this particular frequency band was perfect for a
new type of wireless broadband service known as WiMAX.
Described by the industry as “Wi-Fi on steroids”, WiMAX uses
centrally placed masts (like mobile phone masts) to transmit
high-speed internet across towns and rural areas, thereby
bypassing capacity problems in using BT’s old-fashioned
copper wires and the disruption from digging up roads and
gardens to lay new cables.In order to achieve wider
coverage, the WiMAX masts are allowed to operate at power
levels significantly above those of conventional masts, and
the receiver units, which Intel is preparing to build into
laptops from 2008 onwards, have been authorized to emit
microwaves at up to twice the power level of conventional
Wi-Fi equipment.
By 2008, when the HPA will only be halfway through its
“inquiry” into the health effects of conventional Wi-Fi, the
chief executive of Intel, Paul Otellini, estimates that 150
million Americans alone will already be within range of a
WiMAX transmitter, and many thousands of will be using a
WiMAX-enabled laptop. Ofcom is already encouraging WiMAX
systems in the UK, allowing telecoms companies to increase
power levels on rural transmitters in what is described as
an effort to “close the digital divide”. The technology is
now moving far faster than it can be tested or regulated.
When the spectrum auction was first announced, an Ofcom
spokesman told an industry reporter: “Our whole approach to
spectrum management is that the market is better placed to
decide how to use spectrum than the regulator”.
The German government is advising its citizens to limit
their exposure to Wi-Fi systems wherever possible, and to
use wired alternatives. The local government in Salzburg,
Austria, has set legally binding limits for radiation from
masts that is thousands of times below international
standards. The Swedish government officially recognises
electrosensitivity as a medical problem. The Australian
government has rejected the ICNIRP guidelines on microwave
exposure as inadequate.
In the UK, however, the final decision on which powerful new
Wi-Fi technologies are allowed into our homes, schools,
offices and towns will rest with a powerful coalition of IT
developers, internet service providers and lame duck
regulators.
How Microwave EMF Radiation Affects Us
Part 1
Iraq, Baghdad
Tonga, Nuku'alofa
Bhutan, Thimphu
Sudan, Khartoum
Solomon Islands, Honiara
Honduras, Tegucigalpa
San Bernardino, California, USA
Qatar, Doha (Al-Dawhah)
Dominica, Roseau
Antigua and Barbuda, Saint John's
http://www.emfnews.org/store |
