Can Wireless Devices Kill

It cannot hurt you. below the energy level to cause cell damage and is also blocked by the salty water of our blood which acts as a high attenuation faraday shield. Not as good as solid metal though

What about the recent data showing links to cancer?

Years ago, Scientific American ran an article to check which frequencies of radio wave had the most extreme effect on the human body. By far, the absolutely worst frequency was around 96 Mhz!!! Resonates very well with the human form. This is far lower in frequency than most of the wireless electronics of today.

"the salty water of our blood which acts as a high attenuation faraday shield." - Not a chance.

I ask that the reader contemplate a simple definition given in an introductory teaching text along with the universal and fundamental principle of electrical resonance.

"A nerve fiber or axon, along which an electrical impulse can travel, includes a CYLINDRICAL membrane with one CONDUCTING fluid (electrolyte) inside and another outside. By mechanisms similar to those in batteries, a potential difference of the order of .1V is maintained between these fluids."(1)

This leads to a conclusion that the nervous system is electrochemical in nature. I stressed CYLINDRICAL and CONDUCTIVE because of the resonant potential of long, thin, conductive materials, regardless of where these long, thin, conductive materials may be found.

Long, thin, conductive materials with certain properties respond similarly to exposure to near resonant field, as does a high inductance RLC circuit. The sharpness of the resonant response in a RLC circuit is a result of the inductive component being large in value.

An admitted intuitive assumption on my part is that the sharpness of the resonant response in a long, thin, conductive material is a result of the length relative to diameter of the material. Since a long thin wire will react like a high inductance RLC circuit, the resonant bandwidth of a long thin conductive material with certain properties can be modeled as a high inductance RLC circuit.

Algorithmic analysis of a basic RLC circuit could lead to the extrapolation that any resonant response of the human nervous system may be individually specific. This would explain why only a small number of people within a large population group would be affected by identical exposure to specific frequencies.

"---the human body absorbs RF energy more effectively at a frequency where body length is about .4 the wave length and the body's long axis is aligned with the incoming electric-field polarization. This condition is known as "whole-body resonance." Further - "for an average male adult weighing about 70 kilograms and about 1.75 meters tall, the maximum RF energy uptake would be at about 60 MHz, close to TV channel 2, and not far removed from the 6- meter band." (2)

The above gives the approximate values for the frequencies for "whole body resonance", which could be interpreted to mean a cylindrical object with some conductive value. However, the nervous system (or components thereof) could be viewed as a much less massive subsystem of significant different effective length and with a much higher Q value due to both structure and chemical composition. The "Q Value" being defined as the sharpness or reactivity of the system to field at or near specific resonant frequency.

Although field density is most commonly sited as the measurement of environmental exposure, frequency has a much greater impact on resonant capable systems. Again, a long thin conductor will react like a high inductance RLC circuit when exposed to near resonant frequency.

In computing values for a RLC circuit where the inductance is given as .1 Henry and solving for the capacitance to tune the circuit to an effective length of 68 inches; the tremendous effect frequency has on the induced power becomes clearly evident. First computing induced power at resonance and then changing the frequency of the exposing field by a value corresponding to just .001 inch, the induced power changes by over 8 fold. At 173 MHz this corresponds to a difference of about 2500 HZ. This is a relatively small difference in frequency, or length of the resonator, for such a significant change in induced power. Again, it is this effect (electrical resonance) that could explain why only a small number of people, out of a large population group, would be affected when exposed to the same electromagnetic environment.

The laws of physics are universal. If long thin membranes exist as part of the human nervous system, as indicated in my wife's nursing texts, then the potential for resonant effect exists.

Yes, Indeed, the human body absorbs RF energy. So does salt water in the sea which is 5 times as salty. Ever wonder why we do not radio to submarines with ease?

The only RF energy that has any penetration in sea water is very long wave where the emss are so far apart they cannot form a counter current. When you get to high frequencies the attenuation is very high as is seen by the inability of a microwave oven to defrost thick meat evenly. Meat in a roast is much like meat in us.

This is 1000 watts. With a cell phone at 2 Ghz and one watt, attenuation is rapid.

So is this a Faraday shield? You will note, I said that solid metal is a far better Faraday shield, but salt water is indeed a Faraday shield, albeit a lesser one.

http://ecjones.org/physics.html

notice the attenuation in sea water above 1 Ghz, 300 Db/Foot = SFA penetrates.

reducing the salt content to normal saline will move that chart down a little, but still above 75 DB/Foot.

a bit more informative than a nursing text...

Hi Gavilan, I agree with what you have written! I have a close friend who is very sensitive to EMF emmisions, she is so affected at times that she cannot live in a home that has not been protected or far away from any source of EMF's. At one time it drove her completely mad and the doctors did not help by saying she was imagining it. Since then she has lived with three others who are equaly affected on a small island off the coast of Scotland. There there is no electricity whatsoever and all cooking and heating is done with gas, since she moved there she has not suffered like she did. Also there was an artical in one of our largest newspapers about a group of people living within a range of high frequency radio antennea belonging to the Royal Navey on the firth of Clyde in Scotland, they all were affected by this and were forced to move. Spencer.

This has been taken up earlier this year on CR4. In Sweden you are not allowed to build a house within 50yds of a high power overhead electricity cable (typically 30,000 - 55,000 volts). Here in the UK they are thinking of banning WI-FI in the schools that are using computer technology in the classroom as a lot of the students using this are feeling disorientated during lessons. A recent study in both Sweden and the UK shows that children who have used cell-phones for 10 years or more run the risk (30%) of cancer of the Glial cells that support and protect the nerve cells in the head. They also found that there was an increased risk of acoustic-neuromas, these are benign but often disabling tumors which usually cause deafness. They also pointed out that we live within an EMF-smog and the main culprits were flourecsent lighting and TV. They made the point that living with one or even two electric appliances working at the same time was not much of a problem, but they point out, most homes and offices today are bathed in an EMF-smog. They recomended that we should never run more than two appliencies at the same time in our homes, flourecsent lights included. Spencer.

Scapolie:

"A recent study in both Sweden and the UK shows that children who have used cell-phones for 10 years or more run the risk (30%) of cancer of the Glial cells that support and protect the nerve cells in the head."

That's incredible. 10 years use of cell phones associated with a 30% risk of cancer? Can you provide a link to that study?

DickL

Hi DickL, Yes here is where I found the artical: The journal of " Occupational Environmental Medicine", the names of the authors are, Professor Lennart Hardell of the University hospital in Orebro, and Professor Kjell Hansson Mild of Umea University, both of these are in Sweden. The names of the UK investigators is not given. Spencer.

30%?? Surely you jest or operate on false data, we would have 15% of the people in bed by now dying of glioma, since 15% have used cellphones for ten years now.

In fact, I see both your posts as 'chicken little' commentaries

Hi aurizon, I dare you to tell the Swede's that! Anyway in what capacity are you profficient in this felt? Spencer.

The Swedes often espouse irrational things, as in this case.

some experience with high frequency communications on 144 and 440 mhz with 5 watt hand helds and more powerfull base stations.

the other is the ability to read the literature and see that there is not a problem. All there are is a bunch of paranoids trying to co-opt the public into chicken little type of plots.

Had there been any risk of brain tumors from this there would be an increase in tumors in cell users compared to non users.

There is no such increase.

There are self serving web sites financed by tort lawyers to create a pseudo-scientific case for the layman.

Look on the web under any one of dozens of things. all commong drugs, all common non sugar sweeteners and you will find thousands of web sites stating they cause dozens of ailments.

Look at naturopathy, accupuncture and chiropractic(classical), all three total fakes, yet there are thousands of web sites that love them.

Can you imagine curing cancer by bone manipulation? not a hope.

Can you imagine 100 dilutions of a medicine 1:1 with water, so that the final product has 1/2^100 of the original concentration in it and still has therapeutic effect as the 'paths claim?

Can you imagine needle sticks and taps having any effect? Tests show zero effect.

All the above have is anecdotes told by people with bias,

Same with the cell-phone tumor lobby. I expect if you track this back to it's lair you will find tort lawyers funding them

"Chicken Little", tort lawyers, etc.

Sounds like we should start the GW alarm all over (deja vu)

Aurizon stated :"

"So is this a Faraday shield? You will note, I said that solid metal is a far better Faraday shield, but salt water is indeed a Faraday shield, albeit a lesser one.

http://ecjones.org/physics.html

notice the attenuation in sea water above 1 Ghz, 300 Db/Foot = SFA penetrates.

reducing the salt content to normal saline will move that chart down a little, but still above 75 DB/Foot.

a bit more informative than a nursing text..."

Yes indeed, the website is quite informative, although I didn't see any mention of resonant effect. Again, in resonant capable systems, frequency as a much greater impact on induced voltage than field strength.

In your "Faraday shield" remark. Doesn't the grid size of your "shield" determine the frequency being shielded against? I think so.

At a glance, the reflectivity studies in which the website focuses has little or no relevance to resonant response. A better study would be a basic electronics communication text book.

Considering relevance to the topic at hand, the transparencies showing the structure of the human nervous system is not a "bit more informative" in showing the potential for human nervous system resonant response ; the nursing text is much more informative.

Gavilan

resonance in nerves does not matter as we have closely spaced synapses across which chemical signals travel, but which are not electrically connected. Any frequency high enough that it would resonate the inter axon length is so high that the salt water blocks it completely.

The human body as a conductor can be part of a resonant circuit, but a low Q one with mainly skin effect. Penetration is very low.

a fluid conductor, like salt water can comprise a faraday shield, but is is porous and attenuates instead of blocks. Lower wavelengths will attenuate less than higher frequency ones.

Aurizon replied: "resonance in nerves does not matter as we have closely spaced synapses across which chemical signals travel, but which are not electrically connected. -----The human body as a conductor can be part of a resonant circuit, but a low Q one with mainly skin effect. Penetration is very low.

"---the human body absorbs RF energy more effectively at a frequency where body length is about .4 the wave length and the body's long axis is aligned with the incoming electric-field polarization. This condition is known as "whole-body resonance." Further - "for an average male adult weighing about 70 kilograms and about 1.75 meters tall, the maximum RF energy uptake would be at about 60 MHz, close to TV channel 2, and not far removed from the 6- meter band." (2)

The above gives the approximate values for the frequencies for "whole body resonance", which could be interpreted to mean a cylindrical object with some conductive value. However, the nervous system (or components thereof) could be viewed as a much less massive subsystem of significant different effective length and with a much higher Q value due to both structure and chemical composition. The "Q Value" being defined as the sharpness or reactivity of the system to field at or near specific resonant frequency.

At the frequencies of interest, "Penetration is very low" is a clear misstatement. The "Skin effect" of which you refer may be more relative to the myelin sheath than the organ "skin."

The other argument would be a valid point if the scale of the effect was at the neuron level, or an intimate understanding of the human nervous system was prerequisite to understanding, or would negate, the effects of rudimentary electromagnetic induction.

It is however, of some value to know the action potential of a nerve impulse because this would give some indication as to what potential the myelin must withstand without oxidation. I certainly do not have a good understanding of the electrochemical processes of the nervous system, but neither is it needed to make thesis that components of the nervous system, singularly or in continuous connection, can be modeled as long thin conductors.

An example of this is the spinal cord. Beginning at the Foramen Magnum (extending from the brain stem) and continues down through the Vertebral Canal to the tapering point of the Conus Medullaris. The spinal cord alone presents a thin continuously conductive material. This component is further lengthened by the Brain Stem at one end and Cauda Equina at the other.

I suggest that certain components of the human nervous system, alone and/or in continuously connected combination, will respond to near resonant field, that the frequency of resonant response will be a function of the length of electrical continuity and that very possibly, for some components, singularly or in combination, will correspond to a bandwidth commonly found in the environment. The thesis is further defined to include argument that the length and inductance of the human nervous system is possibly individual specific, so much so, that it can be used much like a fingerprint. Further, that the "Q Value" of the nervous system, combined with the slight differences between individuals, would explain the low occurrence of detrimental effect when large population groups are exposed to the same electromagnetic environment.

In any case, the frequency of the environmental field could have far greater effect than field density and should be a primary factor when considering environmental exposure.

do you not realize that absorbs = attenuates?

If is did not absorb it would go right through.

The nature of the frequency involved in cell phones is such that 5-10 MM of wet tissue reduces them by 10 db or more. That is how microwave cookers work. The 1/2 watt of a cell phone will not do a think to the brain innards

1: Try to attack arguments, not people. Let's keep things collegial.

2: Our purpose should be to find the facts, not win the argument.

It is clear that ultraviolet radiation causes cancer.

The mechanism for UV induced melanoma is based on very little penetration.

The body carries diseased tissue throughout the system.

The body is not immersed in salt water, salt water saturates the body.

Antennae are also conductive bodies.

Faraday cages are conductive cavities.

Action potentials are on the order of 50 mV. This demonstrates that cellular processes create and use very low potentials.

So, we cannot reject out of hand the proposition that EM interacts with the body or that the interaction is not likely to be significant.

true, but uv gets skin cells from the intrinsic energy of an uv photon being enought to break bonds, gamma the same, beta causes it from particle spray, alpha does not penetrate.

A photon of 2000 mhz radiation has too little energy to break bonds. about 10 micro electron volts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

far below the 50 mv action potential.

body = low Q cavity, so zero resonance amplification.= no harm,

just lawyers is all.

Noted. The site cited gives an interesting phenomenon that has not been implicated in the debate thus far.

"When light waves (and other electromagnetic waves) enter a medium, their wavelength is reduced."

It would be interesting to determine the extent to which the wavelength is altered when absorbed by the body.

In general, this is the basis of refraction. The ratio of the refractive indexes between the media is proportional to the speed of the EM wave before and after the interface. The frequency is unaltered, however the wavelength is, owing to the reduction (change) in propagation speed.

I suggest that there is a significant difference in media refractive indexes when comparing air to the human body and its' components (plasma, intracellular fluid, lymph fluids, oils, etc.)

The mechanism for UV interaction with the body is photonic energy transfer. This is agreed to be different that the mode of energy transfer for EM radiation from radio sources. I meant only to illustrate that we need not look only at cellular interactions within the body when the strength is attenuated, as was argued.

May I suggest an experiment?

1. hook an oscilloscope up to a body inside a faraday cage.

2. submit the gross waveform to spectral analysis

3. determine how much energy is in the spectrum range of interest.

4. place an EM source in the room with the subject

5. measure again and look for differences in frequency components

you will get the various brain rhythms, with heart pulse trains and some muscle noise, but you may need to make contact with the skin, the level of radiation through space will be extremely low because radiation is a function of the aperture of the antenna.

at 10 hertz you need a quarter wave radiator 7,500,000 metsr long to get the signal out. Few are that tall, even on tippy toes...

In any event this has been done with skin contacts.

http://www.iranep.org/ECG_archive.htm

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=electrocardiogram+%2Barchive&spell=1

there are some for encephalograms, all I could find is copyrighted stuff, locked down.

Aurizon;

I guess at this point I want to ask at what frequency "antenna aperture" becomes a factor of radiated power? It sounds like you move from the microwave length to ELF as if the propagation properties are similar.

Electrical Resonance is a fundamental physical phenomena, it doesn't matter whether it be in a series RLC circuit or a fixed length conductor, if the system is capable of resonant amplification, significant and measurable voltages will be induced when the system is exposed to field at frequencies that correspond to the resonant frequency of the system.

I am not proposing that the following is a model for any type of human or mammalian neural structure, I am only referring to it to show the significant effect of resonance on resonant capable systems.

In computing values for a RLC circuit where the inductance is given as .1 Henry and solving for the capacitance to tune the circuit to an effective length of 68 inches; the tremendous effect frequency has on the induced power becomes clearly evident. First computing induced power at resonance and then changing the frequency of the exposing field by a value corresponding to a change in wave length of just .001 inch, the induced power changes by over 8 fold. At 173 MHz this corresponds to a difference of about 2500 HZ. This is a relatively small difference in frequency, or length of the resonator, for such a significant change in induced power. Again, it is this effect (electrical resonance) that could explain why only a small number of people, out of a large population group, would be affected when exposed to the same electromagnetic environment.

The laws of physics are universal. If long thin membranes exist as part of the human nervous system, then the potential for resonant effect exists.

Gavilan

aperture is important at all frequencies. as it falls the efficiciency of radiating falls.

Here is the analogy.

you have a large flat water surface and you want to start waves. You have an apparatus that will move the needle up and down 1/4" at whatever frequency you wish. You have another which has a 1 meter square flat plate parallel to the water connected so it can make it go up and down 1/2" at whatever frequency you wish.

The waves you want to make are .1 hertz, which one will be better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_(antenna)

"Generally, antenna gain is increased by directing radiation in a single direction, while necessarily reducing it in all other directions since power cannot be created by the antenna. Thus a larger aperture produces a higher gain and narrower beamwidth.

Large dish antennas, many wavelengths across, have an aperture nearly equal to their physical area."

For the environmental case, the aperture argument is valid. For the "cellphone up against head" case however, it is very different.

1. Near field radiation has markedly different inter-action with media.

2. Aperture is many wavelengths in size (0.36 feet at 824 MHz)

3. (average skull is 17 -18 cm wide) (17 centimeter = 0.557 742 782 feet)

Another experiment is to measure Field Strength (radiation pattern) with and without a skull. The difference has to be either absorbed or conducted.

Coming from abusive families and bad homes. Abandoned, it's no reason that these wireless devices fall in with gangs and bad influences. Shunned by main stream society and reduced to poverty and want. It's no reason wireless devices can go bad.

Can wireless devices kill? Pushed far enough, yes they can!!!