'Wi-fi refugees' shelter in West Virginia mountains

reply to post by DarknessMatters





here is the electromagnetic spectrum

care to read to us the first type of EM radiation on the chart?



technician license = 35 question test. its entry level and you dont repair anything....

my 14 year old cousin has a tech license

Originally posted by Regenstorm
2.4 Gigaherz----> Same frequency as microwaves.
Nothing to see here, please move along.

Anything between 300Mhz and 300Ghz is microwave. Picking a random frequency out of that range to cause alarm by saying "it's the same as microwaves!" is a bit misleading.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
a microwave oven and most name brand televisions are shielded.

Leakage still happens and is certainly at a higher power than any WiFi or Cellphone system.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
a cell phone operates on half a watt, and wifi routers can operate up to 4 watts (depending what its set to)

Not true, even remotely. A WiFi system, in Europe at least, is limited to a maximum power output of 100mW, a mere 1/40th of the power you're claiming. The latest Cell phones are also in the mW range, but vary depending on the model.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
chordless phone is anywhere from 1 to 4 watts depending on its frequency band.

In the US, the maximum power for a digitial spread spectrum cordless phone is 1W. This is the highest power cordless phone system available.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
my guess is, you have no idea what your talking about.

Ironic............

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
the biggest problem is the cell towers that can range anywhere from 1000 to 30,000 watts.

Again, if you knew anything about this subject, you would know that the power of an electromagnetic field decreases exponentially the further you get way from the source, so while they may transmit at that power range at the antenna, they certainly don't have anywhere near that kind of power once you are at ground level or some distance away.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
is this a joke? these statements couldnt be any more false.

radio frequency IS electromagnetic.

You're both right. The RF spectrum is part of the EM spectrum, but is a distinct part in itself. It is the end of the spectrum beyond microwaves, which occupy a huge chunk of the spectrum themselves, as stated earlier.

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
2.4ghz happens to be the specific frequency that agitates water molecules the most.

what are we made up of again?

No, it isn't. The actual resonant frequency of water molecules is closer to 20Ghz, not 2.4Ghz.

2.4Ghz is used because it sits in a part of the spectrum that isn't regulated for use by communications systems (ISM frequency bands set aside for non-communication purposes) and is also the most efficient use of power when generating said microwaves.

I will also add that the radiation from WiFi, Microwave ovens or cell phones is all non-ionising, meaning it doesn't mutate or damage DNA or cellular structures by it's passage. All it does is "excite" molecules, leading to at most some burning, but never anything like cancer. Anyone claiming otherwise is cow-pooping...

These type of people have already been proven hypochondriacs.

Theyve done tests on them and asked them if the machines were interfering or causing them pain and the machines werent even turned on. Its all in their heads.

reply to post by stumason

Anything between 300Mhz and 300Ghz is microwave. Picking a random frequency out of that range to cause alarm by saying "it's the same as microwaves!" is a bit misleading.

theres nothing random about it. that is the specific frequency wifi routers operate on, and it is in the microwave spectrum.

Leakage still happens and is certainly at a higher power than any WiFi or Cellphone system.

maybe in your 10 year old appliances. but any properly manufactured relatively new appliance is required to have the proper shielding as to contain the radiation.

Not true, even remotely. A WiFi system, in Europe at least, is limited to a maximum power output of 100mW, a mere 1/40th of the power you're claiming. The latest Cell phones are also in the mW range, but vary depending on the model.

in America (where West Virginia is located) the FCC limit is 4 watts.

FCC regulations

In the US, the maximum power for a digitial spread spectrum cordless phone is 1W. This is the highest power cordless phone system available.

correct in the United states the limit is 1W but in other countries there is no limit. and since they operate on the same bands there is nothing stopping you from buying and using a higher power base.

here is a website that offers up to 45W

Ironic............

indeed.

Again, if you knew anything about this subject, you would know that the power of an electromagnetic field decreases exponentially the further you get way from the source, so while they may transmit at that power range at the antenna, they certainly don't have anywhere near that kind of power once you are at ground level or some distance away.

perhaps you should read the rest of my post. here i will quote it for you.

the biggest problem is the cell towers that can range anywhere from 1000 to 30,000 watts.

some people live right next to one.

Consider the case of The Sutro Tower Study conducted in San Francisco in direct relation to childhood cancer rates. This was from a UHF/VHF(RF) transmitter which is considerably lower on the EM spectrum than the microwaves put out by cell towers. heres a summery of their findings.

Summary and Conclusions: There are extremely high and significantly elevated childhood cancer rates in populations living very close to the Sutro Tower. Around the Tower there are geographic cancer clusters related to the ways in which topography influences the RF/MW exposures from the Tower. The significance and dose-response from the 3-ring analysis, the detailed radial ring analysis and the cumulative radial analysis, all provide a consistent and unbiased support for the hypothesis. Taken together, the analysis of this data-set strongly and comprehensively confirms the a priori hypothesis that the chronic exposure to RF/MW radiation causes cancer at residential exposure levels. There is robust evidence that RF/MW radiation is genotoxic. This study confirms that RF/MW is carcinogenic with a Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of zero chronic mean exposure, consistent with RF/MW radiation being a genotoxic disease agent. Although this study uses US White childhood cancer incidence in San Francisco to evaluate the hypothesis, the implications are widespread. The conclusions also relate to US Black children and all other persons. Living in the vicinity of the Sutro Tower in San Francisco significantly elevates the incidence of cancer. Other studies have found elevated adult and childhood cancers at residential RF/MW exposure levels in the United States (2-4), in Hawaii (5), in North Sydney, Australia (6), around 21 sites in the United Kingdom (7,8), and from the Vatican Radio Station in Rome (9). There is consistent and comprehensive evidence requiring a revision of national RF/MW standards. Most standards are currently based on avoiding tissue heating. Public health protection standards for RF/MW exposures would be more appropriately based on multiple laboratory evidence of significant elevation and dose-response increases in genotoxicity and multiple studies showing significantly and dose-response elevated cancer rates from epidemiological evidence of RF/MW exposure.

You're both right. The RF spectrum is part of the EM spectrum, but is a distinct part in itself. It is the end of the spectrum beyond microwaves, which occupy a huge chunk of the spectrum themselves, as stated earlier

no. the RF band is part of the EM spectrum.every band is distinct that is what makes it a spectrum.

reply to post by stumason

No, it isn't. The actual resonant frequency of water molecules is closer to 20Ghz, not 2.4Ghz.

2.4Ghz is used because it sits in a part of the spectrum that isn't regulated for use by communications systems (ISM frequency bands set aside for non-communication purposes) and is also the most efficient use of power when generating said microwaves.

i think you mean to say that its the most efficient at producing excitation of said molecules. in a microwave oven the goal is to excite the most amount of molecules with the least amount of power. not to just generate microwaves. if the goal were to just generate microwaves then it would take far less power in the mhz spectrum...but your food wouldnt cook as fast.

I will also add that the radiation from WiFi, Microwave ovens or cell phones is all non-ionising, meaning it doesn't mutate or damage DNA or cellular structures by it's passage. All it does is "excite" molecules, leading to at most some burning, but never anything like cancer. Anyone claiming otherwise is cow-pooping...

sure you wont see any apparent damage in the short burst's that the microwave is used, nobody is saying that. its the long-term effects of this repeated excitation of the molecules that has people worried.furthermore, when it reaches the point of "burning" it has then become ionizing, and does infact damage cells.

people who live near these towers have dramatically longer exposure times to this radiation. they may not feel a "burn" but that doesnt mean that the constant bombardment doesnt achieve the same damage over the long haul, or promote free radicals.