| | | PM from a lurker who gave permission to post but no attribution to protect privacy:
Hi Kirk, I'm a lurker on your board and thought I'd chime in here as I'm quite knowledgeable on the subject. The most important thing to know about radio frequency science is that it's far more complicated than most people realize. An example of this is that the "dose response" that is an unequivocal rule for toxin response in the human body does not apply to RF. Higher field densities can be less harmful than lower densities. This is known as the "window effect" and it can make scientific study results appear to be contradictory.
Also, in your post you mentioned natural radiation exposure. All natural radiation is analog in nature, typically very low-level (often 10-15 orders of magnitude weaker) and without modulation (i.e., there is no information carried, just a carrier wave.) Creatures on Earth have evolved over millions of years and have obviously adapted to these exposures. Man-made electromagnetic radiation used for communication is always modulated and, as technologies improve, information densities increase via more abrupt and dense modulation using phase and amplitude changes.
Think of the carrier frequency as the vehicle and the information carried on it as the payload. It has been shown in many studies that harm to organisms is highly dependent on the modulation type while a bare carrier has little effect. These effects all happen below the thermal levels that current safety standards are based on. Through a confluence of fast technological development and slow safety standard adjustments (demonstrably influenced by well funded industry groups) we are left in a wild west of harmful modulated radiation exposure that is extremely harmful to humans, other animals, and insects. When the results of studies are compared, 70% of industry funded studies show no harm while 30% do. The results are almost exactly opposite if only independent scientists' studies are reviewed. The complexity of the subject matter allows studies to be designed to show no harm (the window effect being an example.)
There are leading scientists today that believe it could lead to our destruction through fertility drops, brain and other cancers, autism, and dozens of other health effects. I've barely scratched the surface on this topic. The more you know, the more you find that you don't know. (kind of like the markets.) My advice if you use wifi at home is to put it on a timer so that's it's off while you sleep so you have time to repair. As far as your nervous system is concerned, think of it as a strobe light running all night in your bedroom. Unfortunately, humans are not capable of sensing the immediate harm, just like for ionizing radiation.
Cheers |
|
