[1st-mile-nm] WiFi to the Home: Revision

Tue Jun 3 18:34:43 PDT 2008

Well done.

I'd quibble about the cell phone frequencies. GSM and PCS in 
the US are up around 1900 MHz -- darn close to WiFi -- with 
the 800 MHz band mainly old analog. Yes, analog cellular is 
not uncommon, especially in rural areas, and 700 MHz mobile 
is coming, but the biggest carriers are all GSM or PCS/CDMA 
in the US.

Worldwide, GSM can be 800, 1800, etc. So studies done 
elsewhere may be examining different frequencies.

Segmented cellular antennas produce more signal strength 
farther way from the base stations than calculated in this 
paper, and cell phone antennas (on the hand sets) have 
widely varying propagation/radiation patterns.

Cordless phones are generally 2.4 or 5.8 GHz, too.

Microwave ovens operate at 2.4 GHz, and anyone who has used 
a 2.4 GHz cordless phone near one while it is operating 
knows that legally escaping microwave radiation can interfere.

My argument (and the stuff of this paper) has been that 
holding a cell phone or cordless phone to your head is going 
to give you a lot more exposure than pretty much any wifi 
scenario except of course wifi PHONES. So why single out 
wifi base stations for special attention?

(BTW, Head gets singled out as most likely to be harmed 
because the circulation system there does not dissipate heat 
as well as rest of body, and density of electric impulses is 
far, far higher.)

All that being said, why DO the studies scatter so much? And 
what should we make of it? Having investigated a cancer 
cluster in NJ that was suspected to be caused by 
high-intensity microwaves, and having taught epidemiology 
stats and consulted for several high-rank schools of public 
health (Harvard, Columbia), I offer these guidelines:

1. The scatter is natural, and usually (almost always, 
really) due to difficulty measuring real exposure and 
following a large enough sample. People don't simply stay 
home. People get exposures to RF in many settings. They also 
get exposed to lots of stuff. The small studies control 
well. The large studies do not, and can not. THUS THE 
STUDIES DO NOT IN GENERAL HAVE ENOUGH STATISTICAL POWER, 
EVEN WHEN THEIR AUTHORS SAY THEY DO. Scatter they will. It's 
the way God made numbers, bless her.

2. In the studies we see (and some unpublished ones I've 
seen), when we see this kind of scatter, we can usually 
assume that there is no problem from KNOWN effects of 
exposure. That is, we know about thermal effects. We know 
about EF. We know that these wavelengths and fluxes do not 
ionize. To say that another way, given KNOWN effect 
mechanisms, these frequencies and signal strengths can be 
considered extremely low risk and probably zero risk.

3. Previously unknown effects mechanisms have bitten us in 
the past, however. The classic example in health studies is, 
of course, prions and "mad cow" disease. I once saw a clutch 
of papers that noted men who work with CRTs were more likely 
to father girls (and I have three daughters, no sons...). 
People worried about wifi are going to focus on that sort of 
stuff, not on this great paper.

4. So far, the best alternative mechanism opponents to wifi 
have come up with is "allergy" to wifi. Is it credible? 
Certainly within the realm of possibility, although there 
does not seem to be a single controlled study proving it 
exists. There are several such studies that strongly suggest 
it does NOT exist (can't say "disprove because you can't 
disprove a negative). What if the folks who say they have it 
acutely are just psychosomatic, as seems likely? Even so, 
people who ARE RF-allergic at a low level would never know 
it, and could show up as "scatter on the high side" in the 
studies. And we do know that implants of various kinds can 
act as RF receivers/antennas (tooth fillings and pacemakers 
have been studied quite a bit). One big problem, though: All 
those other RF sources (cell phones, microwaves, cordless 
phones) operating at about the same frequency as wifi and at 
far greater ubiquity and levels of exposure, for much longer 
use histories in the home.

5. It is well known that people will accept far higher risks 
voluntarily than they will involuntarily. So they talk on 
the cell phone 12 hours nonstop, but don't want their 
neighbor's wifi spillover. OK, it's an issue, and also not 
one this paper can address. Too logical. and we may come up 
with other mechanisms. Maybe wifi only affects folks who 
drink beer. At 5 AM. On Thursdays.

As for me: I'm not in the wifi biz. My magazine mainly 
pushes fiber to the home. But given all this background, I 
just can't get all that excited about exposure to wifi, or 
people who (sincerely) claim allergies to it.

Steven S. Ross
Editor-in-Chief
Broadband Properties
steve at broadbandproperties.com
www.bbpmag.com
SKYPE: editorsteve
+1 781-284-8810
+1 646-216-8030 fax
+1 201-456-5933 mobile

Richard Lowenberg wrote:
> Jim Cummings asked that I forward his slightly corrected and updated version of
> his paper (including output ratings for some non-Airport routers).
> A .pdf version is attached, or see his web site.
> rl
> 
> ----- Forwarded message --------------------
> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:05:36 -0600
> From: Jim Cummings <jim at acousticecology.org>
> Subject: WiFi in the home
> 
> The report seems to have stabilized in this form for now; you can share
> it....and I'd love any input, comments.
> 
> I will also post it at:
> http://www.AcousticEcology.org/srwifi.html
> 
> Thanks
> Jim
> 
> Jim Cummings
> Executive Director, Acoustic Ecology Institute
> <http://www.AcousticEcology.org>
> Sound-related Environmental Coverage: Wildlands, Ocean, Urban Issues
> News Digest, Special Reports, Science Coverage, Educators' Resource Center
> 
> Needle clusters shirring in the wind‹listen close, the sound gets better
> ---Gary Snyder, Mountains and Rivers Without End
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> 
> Richard Lowenberg
> 1st-Mile Institute
> P.O. Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504
> 505-989-9110;   505-603-5200 cell
> rl at 1st-mile.com  www.1st-mile.com
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm