A large group of people perceive risks of RF exposure as likely and even possible severe. It is explained that RF radiation cannot be directly carcinogenic. RF heating is well controlled by (inter)national power restrictions and exposure limit recommendations. Long-term effects are not fully known and research concerning possible effects is ongoing. Awaiting these results, we propose to use the ALATA principle concerning transmit powers. For wireless energy transport we furthermore propose to place RF base station and wireless sensor nodes on the ceiling and direct the radiation over the ceiling. The benefit is two-fold: humans are not subject to electromagnetic radiation and energy transport is not blocked by humans.
Hubregt, interesting and so much needed clarification on this important topic with so much confusion among public in general...would you be interested in expanding it to a book chapter to the medical electronics book I am editing? kris.iniewski@gmail.com
An usefull information that the human body
absorbs about five time more of the
signals from FM radio and television
broadcasting stations than it does
from a GSM base station. Broadcast
stations have been in use for over 50
years now. Up to date no adverse
health effects originating from these
broadcasting stations have been
established.
I feel that receiving RF radiation at minimum levels energises the human body especially when we are at sleep or resting or during relaxing times.
You're kidding, right? That's what they said about radiation, x-rays, and ultrasound. All have been proven harmful. Next will be MRI... I have a highly degreed collegue working at a major electrical utility, and he says the studies show conclusively all this stuff is harmful. Go check cancer rates in and around towers, power plants, etc. Then compare and contrast with cancer rates where there are no towers and plants. Scary stuff.
Yes, exactly: let's check cancer rates around towers and power plants. There have been multiple studies and meta-studies, and they showed no effect that can be connected to the EM radiation, for frequencies from 50Hz up to GSM/microwave.
The confusing part is that there are cancer correlations, but they keep pointing towards other effects, like socioeconomics of people living in the industrial areas with lots of power wires, environmental pollution in such areas, etc.
But within the high risk cancer "plums"...hmmm... are sub groups, like vegetarians.
If they are identified within a study and the study is large enough so that the subset group, in this case vegitarains and organicarians can be statistically significant we would see enough difference to tag or eliminate food preferences as a primary cancer input.
three more things:
1) What about peak vs. ave power levels. This will show if superposition and peak power levels are contributers relative to average power. Has anybody looked at power plants and cell towers overlaid together? Is there a correlation associated with superpositions of relative spacail power levels of all EM sources?
2) What if EM levels can increase harmful chemical reactions in and around the homes of people living near the sources? Couple that with air pollution from exhaust and industrial processes in these areas and this may explain the correlations. I think the other contributers need identifying and how they interact with radiation chemically to solve this difference in cancer and the science that makes sense to the best minds in the fields.
3) ground currents can effect chemical reactions in soil and be transported into the drinking water table. Comparing data from areas with local wells near power plants and external water sources could be used to exclude or show relevance to the concept.
As the # of cell towers increases the average and peak RF exposure drops off exponentially because the power needed to work is reduced exponentially.
So fears of fempto cell near one at work are actually completely backwards.
The majority of peoples average and peak exposures will go down, and the ones that go up slightly will be on the bottom end and order or two below the highest levels.
Rf exposure should also be able to be correlated to LOAD sites as well as Source sites, because the EM exposures will both be relatively high.
Any studies of heavy industrial workers cancer rates around elecrtic motors or AC magnets?
Metal yard AC magnet train operator, Electric motor distance in plant to cancer rates?
Holst Centre is an independent open-innovation R&D centre that develops generic technologies for Wireless Autonomous Sensor Technologies and Flexible Electronics.
Technical Paper
0
14
Download to Print
Add to bookmarks
14 comments
write a commentiniewski Posted Nov 14, 2011
Hubregt, interesting and so much needed clarification on this important topic with so much confusion among public in general...would you be interested in expanding it to a book chapter to the medical electronics book I am editing? kris.iniewski@gmail.com
reply
Hubregt Visser Posted Nov 17, 2011
Hi Kris, Sure. Contact me at hubregt@live.nl Regards, Hubregt
reply
Streetrodder Posted Jul 12, 2012
Kris; Would there be any interest in post-deployment issues in the hospitals? Regards, Paul Sherman
reply
iniewski Posted Jul 12, 2012
Paul, it might be relevant...pls contact me at kris.iniewski@gmail.com, Kris
reply
mayur.sarode Posted Dec 23, 2011
A detailed technically accurate article Thanks Huib Mayur
reply
agk Posted Dec 23, 2011
An usefull information that the human body absorbs about five time more of the signals from FM radio and television broadcasting stations than it does from a GSM base station. Broadcast stations have been in use for over 50 years now. Up to date no adverse health effects originating from these broadcasting stations have been established. I feel that receiving RF radiation at minimum levels energises the human body especially when we are at sleep or resting or during relaxing times.
reply
weflynnJr Posted Mar 30, 2012
You're kidding, right? That's what they said about radiation, x-rays, and ultrasound. All have been proven harmful. Next will be MRI... I have a highly degreed collegue working at a major electrical utility, and he says the studies show conclusively all this stuff is harmful. Go check cancer rates in and around towers, power plants, etc. Then compare and contrast with cancer rates where there are no towers and plants. Scary stuff.
reply
przemek Posted Jul 11, 2012
Yes, exactly: let's check cancer rates around towers and power plants. There have been multiple studies and meta-studies, and they showed no effect that can be connected to the EM radiation, for frequencies from 50Hz up to GSM/microwave. The confusing part is that there are cancer correlations, but they keep pointing towards other effects, like socioeconomics of people living in the industrial areas with lots of power wires, environmental pollution in such areas, etc.
reply
green_is_now Posted Jul 14, 2012
But within the high risk cancer "plums"...hmmm... are sub groups, like vegetarians. If they are identified within a study and the study is large enough so that the subset group, in this case vegitarains and organicarians can be statistically significant we would see enough difference to tag or eliminate food preferences as a primary cancer input.
reply
green_is_now Posted Jul 14, 2012
Coupled to high relative RF exposure levels
reply
green_is_now Posted Jul 14, 2012
three more things: 1) What about peak vs. ave power levels. This will show if superposition and peak power levels are contributers relative to average power. Has anybody looked at power plants and cell towers overlaid together? Is there a correlation associated with superpositions of relative spacail power levels of all EM sources? 2) What if EM levels can increase harmful chemical reactions in and around the homes of people living near the sources? Couple that with air pollution from exhaust and industrial processes in these areas and this may explain the correlations. I think the other contributers need identifying and how they interact with radiation chemically to solve this difference in cancer and the science that makes sense to the best minds in the fields. 3) ground currents can effect chemical reactions in soil and be transported into the drinking water table. Comparing data from areas with local wells near power plants and external water sources could be used to exclude or show relevance to the concept.
reply
green_is_now Posted Jul 14, 2012
If concept holds water (filtered) then antioxidants should reduce cancer rates in these areas
reply
green_is_now Posted Jul 14, 2012
As the # of cell towers increases the average and peak RF exposure drops off exponentially because the power needed to work is reduced exponentially. So fears of fempto cell near one at work are actually completely backwards. The majority of peoples average and peak exposures will go down, and the ones that go up slightly will be on the bottom end and order or two below the highest levels.
reply
green_is_now Posted Jul 14, 2012
Rf exposure should also be able to be correlated to LOAD sites as well as Source sites, because the EM exposures will both be relatively high. Any studies of heavy industrial workers cancer rates around elecrtic motors or AC magnets? Metal yard AC magnet train operator, Electric motor distance in plant to cancer rates?
reply