IANAD but I met someone who had migraines when she was exposed to electromagnetic radiation in certain frequencies. This was two years ago and while I thought it was plausible, (EDIT: she had a bit of a crackpot vibe).
It took her a long time to figure out what it was, and when she did, she got a house in a neighborhood in a suburb in the hills, a good distance away from cell towers, with no wifi, a toaster oven (i think) instead of a microwave, some special arrangement for the phone (might have been wireless, don't remember), some filters (forget which) on the screens of her computers, little trays to put between the laptop and the lap, and so on. She owned an instrument to measure the She was even getting paint designed for stealth planes (it absorbed electromagnetic radiation) to paint her house.
She had a hard time with doctors for a pretty long time, and showed a friend and I a presentation about the regulation and health risks surrounding certain parts of the spectrum (I think from ultraviolet on). My notion of her problem was that she had a genetic condition that made some part of her nervous system malfunction (or hurt for no reason) when exposed to too many of the wrong photons. I don't know if she had a good sense of direction but she could, apparently, sense if she was getting a lot of certain frequency radiation because her head hurt.
I am sorry for your friend's psychosomatic illness. Cell towers, wifi, microwaves, wireless phones, etc. all operate at frequencies below infrared, not above ultraviolet. There are "regulation and health risks" for parts of the spectrum above ultraviolet because that contains X-rays, gamma rays, and other forms of nasty ionizing radiation. Things below ultraviolet are non-ionizing and will do no more than heat you up... very very slightly too, unless you're standing in front of a microwave transmitter, thanks to the inverse square law.
There are a bunch of people claiming to be sensitive to things like cell towers and wifi. I know the radio-wave science makes most of these claims far-fetched.
But it also seems it would be simple to test those claiming the effects in a controlled trial. ("Is the Wifi Access Point you can't see or hear transmitting now, or not?")
Does anyone know if such tests have been done and documented?
> I know the radio-wave science makes most of these claims far-fetched.
The radio wave science specifically says:
- wifi - 2.4 GHz , ie. 5in wavelength. A well-formed conducting channel in the body of 1.25in length makes an antenna. The channel can be blood vessel, nerve connections, etc... Some voltage and current will be generated - thats just the hard science. How much of the current and voltage, how (and whether) it will be felt depends on how its all connected, its biology defining electric characteristics, etc...
A DC magnetic field like Earth's magnetic field is so different from a 2.4 GHz EM field, I honestly don't even know where to begin to explain the difference to you. If you didn't listen to your high school science teacher the first time s/he explained it, you probably won't listen to anyone here, either.
I know the opposite has been done, on a grand scale. A group of residents in a local suburb were complaining that a iBurst's (a local wisp) newly erected tower was causing headaches, nausea, tinnitus, dry burning itchy skins, totally disrupted sleep patterns, gastric imbalances and bouts of nausea and retching. They claimed that for these symptoms to subside took up to six weeks away from the broadcasting tower.
At a meeting where concerns residents confirmed they were still experiencing symptoms. iBurst then revealed they had shut down the tower more than six weeks earlier.
Unfortunately, if you're hoping to cure a psychosomatic illness, evidence alone just won't do it. Last I heard, residents were looking at a solution through the Department of Environmental Affairs. Full story at http://goo.gl/8UxNI
10 comments
[ 130 ms ] story [ 1020 ms ] threadIt took her a long time to figure out what it was, and when she did, she got a house in a neighborhood in a suburb in the hills, a good distance away from cell towers, with no wifi, a toaster oven (i think) instead of a microwave, some special arrangement for the phone (might have been wireless, don't remember), some filters (forget which) on the screens of her computers, little trays to put between the laptop and the lap, and so on. She owned an instrument to measure the She was even getting paint designed for stealth planes (it absorbed electromagnetic radiation) to paint her house.
She had a hard time with doctors for a pretty long time, and showed a friend and I a presentation about the regulation and health risks surrounding certain parts of the spectrum (I think from ultraviolet on). My notion of her problem was that she had a genetic condition that made some part of her nervous system malfunction (or hurt for no reason) when exposed to too many of the wrong photons. I don't know if she had a good sense of direction but she could, apparently, sense if she was getting a lot of certain frequency radiation because her head hurt.
But it also seems it would be simple to test those claiming the effects in a controlled trial. ("Is the Wifi Access Point you can't see or hear transmitting now, or not?")
Does anyone know if such tests have been done and documented?
Start here, about half way down there's a good discussion and a bunch of links. Looks like they're mostly alergic to seeing the power lights.
The radio wave science specifically says:
- wifi - 2.4 GHz , ie. 5in wavelength. A well-formed conducting channel in the body of 1.25in length makes an antenna. The channel can be blood vessel, nerve connections, etc... Some voltage and current will be generated - thats just the hard science. How much of the current and voltage, how (and whether) it will be felt depends on how its all connected, its biology defining electric characteristics, etc...
Also, yes, there is regulation related to cell sites. Looks unnecessary, but it's there in most countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_heal...
I hate this argument. UV is also non-ionizing and it causes skin cancer without doubt.