Marc Alessi wrote a letter in the March 16 issue of the Great Neck News, gushing over the upcoming implementation of a new, powerful version of a wireless network, known as 5G. Unfortunately, his presentation failed to mention the potential negative health consequences of the system.
On Sept. 13, 2017, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries signed a petition recommending a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G systems for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.
5G will substantially increase exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields on top of the 2G, 3G, and 4G Wi-Fi networks for telecommunications already in place.
Given that RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment, scientists are fearful that exposure to 5G systems will substantially increase the health hazard, over and above what we are already experiencing.
A large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports have demonstrated harm to human health from EMFs, including a recent study by the National Toxicology Program. These results support human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumor risk.
5G networks are generally considered to operate within the band of spectrum between 6 GHz and 100 GHz, also known as the millimeter wave band.
These are much higher frequencies than the 2G, 3G, or 4G networks currently in place, and have never before been used in conjunction with everyday consumer products. Because of the tremendous capacity of these 5G networks, companies will be able to link more and more devices to one another wirelessly.
Such connected devices make up what is called “The Internet of Things.”
Soon we’ll be able to access many of our appliances at home via our cell phones or computers, as an example. As great as this may sound, it means that we will be completely awash in the waves that connect these devices, and by the electromagnetic fields generated by them.
Another related use of the 5G networks is in “Smart City” systems. These are wireless networks that connect many objects in a community, such as the streetlights, cameras, audio surveillance equipment, billboards, garbage pails, etc.
As part of the LED streetlight installation in the Village of Great Neck, Mayor Pedram Bral authorized the installation of a Smart City system.
There is now a wireless receiver on top of every one of the 800 light poles in the Village. This will make it possible for someone at a remote location to dim the lights as needed. Ostensibly, this is the major purpose of this very expensive network.
My concern is twofold: 1. even with the system in place, the result is that we now are bathed in RF-EMFs to a greater degree than we had been previously; 2. it is likely that in the future, the system will be upgraded to a 5G system, bringing with it even more potential risks to health and to the environment.
The issue of RF-EMFs goes way beyond Great Neck Village. State legislation is now on track to ease the installation of 5G systems by the major telecommunications giants in this country, leaving localities no control over the rollout.
Does Wireless Network Affect Health, Health Hazards Of Wireless Networks, Use Of Wireless Networks In Healthcare, Wireless Internet Causing Health Problems, Wireless Internet Connection Health Risks, Wireless Internet Health Concerns, Wireless Internet Health Effects, Wireless Lan Health Risk, Wireless Network And Health, Wireless Network Effects On Health, Wireless Network Extender Health Risk, Wireless Network Health Check, Wireless Network Health Concerns, Wireless Network Health Issues, Wireless Network In Healthcare, Wireless Network Safety Health, Wireless Networks And Health Risks, Wireless Networks Health, Wireless Networks In Healthcare, Wireless Router Health Concerns, Wireless Router Health Effects, Wireless Router Health Risks, Wireless Router Health Safety, Wireless Sensor Network In Health Monitoring
We take wireless technology for granted, even though it is basically “magic.” And that perceived magic has led to myths and fallacies that need to be dispelled.
Wireless, or radio if you prefer, is a strange and wonderful phenomenon. Voice, music, video, and data miraculously move almost instantaneously from one place to another invisibly through the air. How could that be? Our entire environment is an invisible fog of thousands of electromagnetic waves. The whole phenomenon has been amazing to me since I was a kid. Even though I understand it I am still in awe of the technology.
That said, wireless technology is a complex subject. It has taken me most of my life time to learn it. And I still don’t know it all. But to non-wireless engineers, radio must seem an enigma. There’s much to get accustomed to and understand. What follows are 11 myths about wireless you may not know but should.
1. Wireless was invented by Marconi.
No, it was not. I would give my vote to Heinrich Hertz, who should get more recognition for his earliest demonstration of the concept. But we do use his name as the unit of frequency measurement. As for Marconi, he was a major contributor to the technology and is probably best known for putting the theory into practice. Marconi engineered the early radio equipment and demonstrated its capabilities. The real inventor of radio was Tesla, who did little to advance the science beyond a few clever demonstrations. Tesla was posthumously awarded the U.S. patent in 1943.
2. The Federal Communications Commission is the primary communications regulator.
The FCC implements the rules and regulations regarding most commercial and personal wireless products and applications. They manage the spectrum and define all kinds of guidelines like power, antennas, bandwidth, modulation, and interference. But they aren’t the only U.S. regulatory agency. The other agency that most of you have not encountered is the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA). The NTIA is the manager and regulator of all government and military wireless spectrum and equipment. It’s a division of the Department of Commerce. They work closely with the FCC to rule the airwaves.
3. Radio waves work like magnetic induction.
Not so. A radio wave is really a combination of an electric field at a right angle to a magnetic field. The two travel together in a direction perpendicular to both fields. As they propagate from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna, they stay together. Essentially the fields break away from the antenna, or radiate, and then actually support and rejuvenate one another along the way. The math describing that process was spelled out as far back as 1873 by James Clerk Maxwell. This signal that’s radiated is called the far field. It’s the real radio wave.
The field close to the antenna, typically within one wavelength, is called the near field. Transmission is more by magnetic field than by combined magnetic and electric fields. The near field signal is non-radiative. The near field is really inductive coupling that occurs between the primary and secondary windings of an air core transformer. The near field isn’t the real radio wave.
4. The propagation of a radio wave is basically the same for all wireless applications.
No way. Radio signals act differently depending on their frequency. Low-frequency signals in the 50- to 3000-kHz range travel by ground or surface wave. The vertically polarized signal hugs the ground and is mostly dissipated after a few hundred miles.
AM broadcast stations represent one example. Signals in the 3- to 30-MHz range travel by sky wave. The signals essentially are refracted by the ionosphere back to earth. Depending on the angle of radiation, time of day, and the specific ionosphere layer encountered, the signal could travel by skipping long distances nearly around the world. Frequencies over 30 MHz and up into the mmWave range travel by direct line of sight from antenna to antenna. These signals are usually reflected or absorbed, so range is generally limited.
5. We have totally run out of frequency spectrum.
Not completely, but we’re working toward that it seems. Most of the so-called “good” spectrum (~500 MHz to 6 GHz) is pretty much consumed, but plenty of spectrum exists at the higher frequencies beyond about 30 GHz.
Some say there’s a spectrum crisis as more wireless products and services are developed. One contributor to the shortage is the growing Internet of Things (IoT) movement. With billions of new devices coming on line, spectrum usage is something to worry about. But it’s the cellular industry that lusts after spectrum the most. The FCC hosts auctions to sell off available chunks of spectrum when they become available. Billions of dollars are collected.
6. Radio broadcasting is dead.
You may have gotten the impression that AM, FM, and TV broadcasting were on their way out thanks to all the internet streaming of music and video. But it’s not. While the number of AM stations has declined a bit, FM is growing. Satellite radio is also healthy. Furthermore, almost 20% of the U.S. population gets its TV by over-the-air (OTA) broadcasts. This includes satellite TV broadcasting. On top of that, short wave broadcasting is still around; not so much in the U.S., but it’s still big in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and other more remote parts of the world.
7. The most widely used wireless standard is Wi-Fi.
Wi-Fi is certainly a heavily used wireless standard. But in terms of sheer volume of radios in use, Bluetooth is probably the more widespread. It’s in all cell phones, most cars and trucks, headphones, speakers, retail beacons, and a mixed bag of other applications. It takes two chips to implement any Bluetooth applications. That’s why billions of Bluetooth radio chips are sold annually.
8. Cell phones give you a brain tumor.
That myth has been around ever since the first cell phones emerged in the late 1980s. It’s been studied multiple times, and the outcome is that cell phones don’t cause brain tumors. Perhaps if you held the phone to your head eight or so hours a day, you may get brain damage. But today, instead the process of holding the phone to your ear and head for a voice call has been replaced by holding the phone in your hands in front of you while you text, read email, or watch a YouTube video. No cancer.
9. Wireless data transfer is always faster than wired data transfer.
Not true. Wired data communications say by Ethernet or fiber optics, is very solid and usually faster than wireless. Ethernet can do 100 Gb/s and optical is now doing up to 400 Gb/s using PAM4. With a solid link, data can be faster because it doesn’t have to deal with all of the free space link and path problems of wireless.
Wireless free space path loss is very high; there’s always noise and interference that limits the data rate. But wireless has come a long way over the years with error correction, multichannel modulation like OFDM, MIMO, and phased arrays. As a result, wireless begins to approach wired speeds. Under ideal conditions, wireless data can hit levels of 10 to 100 Gb/s.
10. Rain and snow make satellite TV, phones, and data services unreliable.
You have probably heard of this one but it not true. Actually, at some frequencies in older systems, rain does attenuate the signal. But today, most components, equipment, and systems compensate for it with good link margins. We would not be using so many satellites if the coverage were iffy. What would we do without things like GPS, worldwide sat phones, space telescopes, and military surveillance?
11. Millimeter waves will never be practical.
Maybe that was true in the past, but today mmWaves are widely used thanks to the availability of semiconductor devices to generate and process these signals. Millimeter waves cover the 30- to 300-GHz range. All sorts of systems use them, especially radar and satellite. The 802.11ad WiGig WLAN products at 60 GHz are now available. Automotive radars use 77 GHz. And many of the forthcoming 5G cellular and fixed wireless access systems use mmWaves. Researchers are working on terahertz wave technology now.
There should be a wireless appreciation day to celebrate its existence. How about every day?
Have you considered sending your child to rehab to help them overcome their addiction to the electronic screens of video games, cell phones and the like? While that may sound far-fetched to some parents who are themselves ‘screen addicts’, it’s an idea whose time has come.
Some countries consider childhood screen addiction to be a clinical disorder and have rehab facilities in which to treat the afflicted children. Too much screen time is bad for your kids’ health on many different levels and must be treated like any other addiction so the damage can be stopped, and hopefully reversed.
Sleep Deprivation
Without question the electronic screens of many devices are causing a crisis of sleep deprivation for all age groups. However, the loss of sleep is most detrimental to children. Kids need more sleep than adults due to their developing body and mind. The average child needs 10-12 hours of sleep each night in order for them to grow and develop properly, but screen time is shaving off hours of that much-needed sleep time. The average child is constantly sleep deprived and trying to learn, grow and develop on 6-8 hours of sleep per night at the most.
Children who sleep with electronic devices in the their bedroom get less sleep than those who leave the devices in another room of the home at night. Not only are the children playing games and texting when they should be asleep, but the blue light emitted from the devices hinders sleep even after the device is shut off.
All electronics, including cell phones, tablets, iPads and TVs, emit a blue light from the screen. The body interprets that blue light as daylight and the brain sends out the signal to wake up. Instead of being sleepy at bedtime, the child is now wide awake even when the electronic screen is shut off.
A kid who is suffering from sleep deprivation will typically be cranky, have an increased risk of obesity, have a short attention span, lack decision-making skills, have increased health problems, be lethargic and do poorly in school. And all of this can be traced back to too much screen time.
Obesity
The use of any device with an electronic screen seems to require the need to sit down, or at least be still, while using. The sedentary nature, combined with ads for high-calorie junk food, often leads to childhood obesity. Children are naturally full of energy and have an inborn need to run, jump and otherwise be active. When that normal desire to be active is curtailed and they sit on their haunches for hours on end, they will become overweight.
Obesity leads to a variety of health problems, including diabetes, joint problems and heart disease. Childhood obesity is an epidemic in most countries, too much screen time is the biggest contributing factor to the epidemic.
Vision Problems
There used to be a 20/20/20 rule for those who had to spend long hours working in front of their computer screens – every 20 minutes look at something 20 feet away for 20 seconds. That 20/20/20 rule was implemented to help prevent eye strain and potential vision problems in the future.
Kids won’t take their eyes off the electronic screen for 20 seconds, even if they have heard of the 20/20/20 rule. Immediate eye strain and pain can occur from staring at the screen too long; and it’s too soon to know what type of vision problems the future may hold for those kids who have too much screen time now.
Phone neck, text thumb and several other new medical terms had to be coined in order to describe the various aches and pains which are developing from too much screen time. The head, neck and wrists are often held at odd angles, and thumbs are used in ways they were never meant to be used just to accommodate an electronic device. It all adds up to childhood aches and pains which will worsen as the child becomes an adult.
Back pain, arthritis, repetitive motion syndrome and migraines are just some of the chronic and often debilitating health problems a kid who has too much screen time today may develop in the future.
Loss of Social Skills
Kids who spend too much time with electronics lack in normal social skills that are needed to help them develop into a well-rounded adult. While kids know their way around keypads, they don’t know how to talk one-on-one to another person. Social skills, people skills and the ability to interact with others of all ages is lacking in kids who spend too much interacting with an electronic device and have limited face time with people.
By not developing the ability to interact with others face-to-face, future adult relationships for the child will be impeded. Employment, romance, friendships and simple social etiquette will be limited and awkward if a child never develops normal social skills.
Aggression
Ask any child what their favorite video game is and in all probability it will involve violence. Even very young kids are drawn to games that use weapons to kill. The more violent and bloody, the more popular the video game typically becomes.
That translates into aggression as the child becomes a teenager. Studies show that teens who spend a lot of time watching violent TV shows and/or playing violent video games are far more likely to be aggressive both in the home and at school. These aggressive teens fight with their siblings and peers, argue with teachers and parents and just always seems to be an outburst waiting to happen.
Jeffrey Green writes for NaturalBlaze.com where this article first appeared. This article is open-source and free to republish in full with attribution.
Public worried about adverse health impacts
By PATRICK BLAIS
WOBURN – Local officials and citizens alike recently expressed grave concerns about possible adverse health effects from magnetic fields emitted from Eversource’s proposed 345,000 volt transmission line project.
During a recent gathering in City Hall, the City Council caught its first glimpse of the utility company’s likely final route for the high-voltage conduit, which the electricity distributor intends to bury under various local roadways around Horn Pond and by Washington Street and Montvale Avenue in East Woburn.
“I know there’s a lot of questions about what a typical construction project looks like for an underground transmission line. Safety is a top priority,” said Chad Roland, a project manager from Eversource.
Ultimately, with Eversource’s public health and electromagnetic field (EMF) expert absent from the introductory hearing, the City Council continued its deliberations until March 20.
EMF exposure
Various citizens attending the public hearing challenged Eversource’s contention the project will pose no risk to citizens through constant exposure to EMF being emitted from the 345KV lines.
One such resident was Brian Carpenter, a Washington Street resident whose home is situated within 300-feet of the proposed line.
According to Carpenter, he had researched EMF exposure at length during proceedings over the past two years before the Mass. Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), which earlier this week, was expected to finalize a decision that grants state permits approving the project route and exempting the petitioners from having to adhere to some local zoning bylaws within the impacted communities.
As the Washington Street resident explained, EMF levels resulting from the high-voltage line, and especially from the 10 “splicing” vaults spaced across the entire 8.5-mile project route, were a source of contention during the EFSB proceedings.
In particular, community leaders from Stoneham and Winchester urged the state board to mandate the use of a more advanced protective sheath around the lines to create a stronger shield from EMF emissions.
“I’ve been following this project since the beginning. I share the concerns about health issues, and I know there was other technology that was suggested to reduce the EMF. That was rejected by Eversource,” said Carpenter, who was a “limited intervenor” during the EFSB case.
“I think these health concerns are legitimate. I don’t think anyone in this room, including those from Eversource, would want this 30 feet from their house. I have my granddaughter at my house every day,” he added.
The debate over EMF exposure stems from a number of scientific studies which examine a potential link between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukemia clusters. Some research also indicates close proximity and prolonged exposure to elevated EMF can cause health problems that include nausea, inner-ear balance and vertigo issues, vomitting, and poor cognitive performance.
Though in the United States there is no official government guidelines regarding safe EMF levels, the World Health Organization (WHO) has acknowledged the findings of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiatation Protection (ICNIRP), which concludes acute exposure to static EMF above 400 microTesla (mT) can be harmful for humans.
According to Thomas Gerety, an accountant who lives at 43 Washington St., he has unearthed evidence that EMF levels by a proposed vault at Leland Park will exceed WHO standards.
Gerety, referencing a report from Eversource’s EMF consultant, urged the City Council to hit the pause button on the permit request, so city officials can examine the findings for themselves.
“He does admit we’ll exceed the World Health Organization thresholds,” said the East Woburn resident. “The doctor himself along with the World Health Organization agrees this causes childhood leukemia cancer. Does that sound familiar?”
“We’re going to spray Leland Park with higher EMFs. The surrounding communities got together and hired their own EMF experts,” he added. “Everyone should just huddle up and say, ‘[Let’s] stop for a breather’, just so everyone can get a handle on the science.”
EFSB findings
This Wednesday, the state’s EFSB was slated to vote on a tentative decision that approves the scope of the work and settles a final route for the high-voltage cable.
In that tentative decision, which is 173-pages long, presiding case officer Robert Shea conceded a growing volume of scientific research on health effects from EMF exposure has contributed to an ongoing debate about the construction of high-voltage power lines.
However, Shea, citing the fact the WHO remains unconvinced about the link between EMF and childhood cancer, explains the EFSB tries to balance public demands for uniform safety standards against mitigation that would create extreme financial hardships for utility companies.
“A number of historical studies appeared to show a statistical association between residential distances from transmission lines and human health effects,” wrote Shea, whose proposed decision was released on Feb. 14. “However, the WHO has stated the evidence for a casual relationship between magnetic field exposure and childhood leukemia is limited.”
OAKLAND (KPIX) — Is a cell tower going up in your neighborhood? If it’s not now, it may soon.
Wireless carriers are installing millions of them across the country to enable the new, faster 5G cellphone technology. While many are looking forward to faster cell service, many are also asking: Are there legitimate health concerns?
That question is keeping John Hiestand up at night. Outside his bedroom window he can see a new pole where Verizon will soon install a next-generation cell tower.
“This would be a big tower generating lots of RF outside of our bedroom window 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for many years,” he said.
It’s called a “small cell” or “distributed antenna system.” The industry says they’re safe. Many in Piedmont aren’t convinced – including the Hiestands.
“Our daughter is a cancer survivor,” John Hiestand explained.
Thirteen-year-old Sophia Hiestand has been one of many petitioning the city council to deny this cell tower.
“I mostly talked about my cancer and how it affected me, even though you’re not supposed to talk about health issues, I still did,” Hiestand said.
However, according to federal law the city simply can’t consider health concerns. It’s outlined in a small section of the Telecommunications Act, based on science from 1996, back when we were still talking on cellphones that looked like bricks.
“I find it really unfair,” said Hiestand.
If cities do consider health, cell companies can sue them.
So, with few legal arguments to deny a tower, they’re popping up outside bedroom windows and school campuses, despite objections from across the country.
“5G can be a tremendous boom to California but only if it can be put up quickly and easily,” said Hayward Assembly member Bill Quirk. Quirk co-authored legislation that would make it even harder for cities like Piedmont to object to a tower.
“You wouldn’t have to go through the planning commission, through the city council,” Quirk explained.
Quirk, a former NASA scientist, says he may resurrect the bill that was recently vetoed by governor Brown.
“I know scientifically that putting up these cell phone towers is safe,” he said.
But the International Association of Frefighters disagrees. It began opposing cell towers on fire stations, after firefighters complained of health problems.
“These firefighters developed symptoms,” says Dr. Gunnar Heuser who conducted a pilot study on firefighters at a station with cell towers.
“The symptoms included problems with memory, problems with intermittent confusion, problems with weakness,” Heuser said.
Heuser says their brain scans suggest even low-level RF can cause cell damage and he worries about more vulnerable groups like kids.
“We found abnormal brain function in all of the firefighters we examined,” Heuser said.
So, following lobbying by firefighters, assemblyman Quirk and his co-author exempted fire stations from their bill, making them one place cell companies couldn’t put a tower.
“This is the first piece of legislation that anyone is aware of where somebody got an exemption because they were concerned about health. Did they tell you at all about the study?” we asked the assemblyman.
Quirk’s response: “All I know is that when the firefighters ask, I do what they ask me to do.”
“Because they are strong lobbyists?” we asked him. His response: “Yes.”
“So if school teachers and parents had a strong lobby and they ask you to pass something that would prevent these from going up near schools, would you do that?” we asked Quirk.
His response: “If I couldn’t get the votes any other way!”
“It’s not only the firefighters, it’s the people that live within the vicinity of these towers,” Stefani said.
Anthony Stefani started with the San Francisco Fire Department in 1974. The 28-year veteran retired as the captain of Rescue 1 in 2003.
Stefani notes that current regulations don’t take into account continuous low-level exposure from these small cells 24-hours a day. He also says some fellow firefighters reported that their symptoms disappeared when they move to a station without a tower.
“More of these studies have to be done,” he says.
Many international scientists agree. More than 230 scientists from 41 nations — who have published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on electromagnetic fields and biology and health — have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal.
They cite “serious concerns” about “increasing exposure to EMF” based on “numerous recent scientific publications” linking low levels of wireless radiation to health effects.
They’re calling for stronger regulations, disclosure about wireless industry ties to regulatory agencies, and they want publicly funded studies on the health effects of EMF emitting devices/base stations (i.e. cell towers).
“I do not believe that there is any health impact on firefighters or anyone else, from cells, period!” Assemblyman Quirk asserted. However he added, “I think doing more studies is always a good thing.”
Considering the the circumstances, we asked Quirk: “Do you think that maybe you should consider putting a pause on legislation that speeds up these towers until there is definitive evidence that there is no harm?”
His’s response: “We can do a lot of studies and there are people right now believe it or not who are sure the world is flat.”
In a statement the CTIA says it defers to the experts when it comes to the safety of cellular telephones and antennas:
“According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and numerous other international and U.S. organizations and health experts, the scientific evidence shows no known health risk due to the RF energy emitted by cellphones.
Likewise, the FCC monitors scientific research on a regular basis and its standards for RF exposure are based on recommended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international standard-setting bodies. That’s why the FCC has determined that all wireless phones legally sold in the United States are “safe.” This scientific consensus has stayed the same even after the NTP’s release in 2016 of its partial findings in a study involving cellphones and lab animals.
The FCC also sets exposure limits for cell site antennas that transmit signals to phones. Those limits, like the limits for cell phones, are even more conservative than standards adopted by leading international standards bodies such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
The FCC states that typical ground exposures to base station antennas are “hundreds to thousands of times less than the FCC’s limits for safe exposure” and “there is no reason to believe that such [antennas] could constitute a potential health hazard” to nearby residents.”
The World Heath Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Though the cell phone industry stresses there are “no known health risks.”
What about the unknown? Well, back in Piedmont the Hiestands don’t want to wait around to find out.
“We are going to get some meters. We’re going to measure the micro-radiation today and then when the cell towers go up, we can measure it and see how dangerous it really is,” said John Hiestand. He says if he has to they’ll move.
“For my daughter’s health, definitely,” he said.
Piedmont was able to temporarily block permits for some small cell towers but now the company installing them for Verizon, Crown Castle, is suing the city.
Meanwhile new research set to be published next month could radically alter the debate. For the first time it establishes a scientific link between RF radiation and cancer in lab rats:
In response, the Chief Medical Director of the American Cancer Society said this first-of-its-kind government study “marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk.”
Today we are surrounded by a wide variety of high frequency electromagnetic fields. Radio, television and mobile communication technologies transmit a multitude of high frequency signals. These fields are useful for modern communication, but can adversely affect other electronic devices. Conductor tracks and wires of the devices act as antennas and the coupled electromagnetic energy can, depending on the field strength and circuit, negatively alter the performance characteristics of a device or directly destroy components. For example, we all know the “crack” of radios, when a mobile phone is nearby. In case of power supplies, the negative impact of the electromagnetic field could express itself in form of a drop in the output voltage.
To prevent this from happening, the EMC standard IEC 61000-4-3 regulates tests regarding the immunity of devices against high frequency electromagnetic fields. This article describes the general regulations of the standard, gives an overview on electromagnetic fields with their effects and names some measures to increase the immunity of electronic devices.
What are high frequency electromagnetic fields
High frequency electromagnetic fields are located in the electromagnetic spectrum in the frequency range between 100 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz). They are generally radiated from an antenna and can transmit energy and information over long distances. Due to the wide range of possible uses of high-frequency electromagnetic fields, especially for modern communication today, (e.g. radio, television, mobile communications, cordless cellphones, WLAN and Bluetooth applications) people are surrounded by a multitude of different transmission devices that operate with different transmission powers and frequencies. The frequency and wavelength of electromagnetic fields are linked by the propagation velocity (in free space this is the speed of light c) and describe the wave character of the fields. At high frequencies f, the wavelengths λ (lambda) are small and correspondingly larger at low frequencies. When propagated in free space, the wavelengths are between 3 kilometers and 1 millimeter.[1] λ=c/f
Table: Frequency bands and wavelengths
Unit of measurement of the electric field strength
The intensity or strength of the fields is indicated either in the form of the electric field strength (unit: volts per meter, V / m), or the magnetic field strength (unit: amps per meter, A / m), or in the form of power flux density (unit: watts per square meter, W / m2).[1]
Propagation of high-frequency electromagnetic fields
As the distance from a transmitter increases, the field strength decreases rapidly. In free space, the power flux density decreases with the square of the distance, which means, with the double distance the flux density decreases to a quarter. Because many antennas radiate with certain preferred directions due to their design, the intensity at locations in the vicinity of a transmitter can be very different, despite identical distances to the source. As a rule, it is not possible to deduce the field strengths at a particular location alone from the distance. High-frequency electromagnetic fields can also be reflected or absorbed by objects that are in the direction of propagation. Which mechanism predominates depends, among other things, on the material properties of the respective object. Therefore, the propagation of high-frequency fields in the real environment often differs significantly from the simple case given above; the propagation in free space.[1]
Effect on humans
Humans contain many electrically charged particles and polar molecules. Although polar molecules, such as the water molecule, are electrically neutral as a whole, they carry a negative charge at one end and a positive charge at the other. Electric and magnetic fields exert a force on electrically charged or polar particles to move. In a high-frequency electromagnetic field, the particles move very fast in time with the frequency. They rub together and heat is created. If the fields are very strong, entire cells can move due to the force effect. They align themselves in the field or migrate. Such non-thermal effects cannot be triggered by fields of radio applications, since their field strength is not sufficient for this.
Decisive for the biological effect of high-frequency fields is the energy absorbed by the body. The basis for this is the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR, unit of measure: Watts per kilogram, W / kg). It indicates the power (energy per time) absorbed per kilogram of tissue. If the body is only heated locally, the blood can dissipate the extra heat. If the whole body is heated, the skin is supplied with more blood and the heat is released by evaporation on the skin surface (sweating). Health effects can be expected if certain thresholds are exceeded and the body’s thermoregulation is disturbed.[1]
Electromagnetic Field And Health, Electromagnetic Field And Health Problems, Electromagnetic Field And Public Health, Electromagnetic Field Bad For Health, Electromagnetic Field Effects On Human Health, Electromagnetic Field Health And Environment, Electromagnetic Field Health And Safety, Electromagnetic Field Health Concerns, Electromagnetic Field Health Effects, Electromagnetic Field Health Issues, Electromagnetic Field Health Risks, Electromagnetic Field Impact On Health, Electromagnetic Field Mental Health, Electromagnetic Field Who Health, Electromagnetic Fields And Health Issues, Electromagnetic Fields And Public Health Who, Electromagnetic Fields Exposure And Health, Electromagnetic Fields Health Study, Electromagnetic Fields Health Symptoms, Electromagnetic Fields Public Health England, Electromagnetic Fields World Health Organization, Health Implication Of Electromagnetic Field, Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Health Effects, Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Health Effects
MUMBAI: Bollywood actress Juhi Chawla, a radiation awareness campaigner, has flagged concerns about 5G mobile phone technology, saying it shouldn’t be implemented without analysing potential harmful effects of radiofrequency radiation on human health.
She sought to know whether the Centre, which is implementing 5G to achieve the objectives of Digital India, has done enough research on the new technology.
The actress-cum-movie producer has written a letter to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, cautioning against the health hazards due to EMF (electromagnetic) radiation from mobile tower antennas and WiFi hotspots.
“Many well-known national and international scientists, epidemiologists and technical professors have mentioned about adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation on human health,” she stated in her letter.
Chawla, who runs the project ‘Citizens for Tomorrow’ to raise awareness about environment, said the Centre has “blindly” started working on implementing 5G technology to achieve the objectives of Digital India.
Speaking to , the 50-year-old actress said the government is implementing 5G mobile technology for better speed and network but is “blatantly ignoring” the harmful effects of radiation on human health.
“Various international scientists are against the introduction of 5G and there are studies that indicate harmful effect (of radiation) on health. This is a matter of concern,” she said.
Chawla sought to known whether adequate research was done on 5G technology.
“Has this technology been researched upon and if yes, when and where was the research done, what was the duration of this research, was the research funded and if yes, who has funded it. Also, will the research, if conducted, be published?” she asked.
In her letter, the actress claimed mobile tower antennas are installed on buildings by ignoring the Department of Telecommunication guidelines.
“In addition to this, a web of WiFi hot spots has been set up throughout the city. The radiation network has surrounded us 24×7, affecting our health,” she stated.
However, city-based environmentalist Debi Goenka said the impact of cell phone radiation has been studied extensively by the industry. All these studies have said there is no adverse impact of radiation on human health.
“However, there are several instances where people exposed to radiation have experienced health problems. In such a situation, the best way forward is to follow the precautionary principle approach, and reduce the intensity of radiation even though this may add to industry costs,” said Goenka, Executive Trustee, the Conservation Action Trust.
“I personally use headphones whenever I use my mobile, and I would advise all of you to do the same. The only thing out of our control is the location of cellphone towers.
“These have to be in locations that will minimise the continuous exposure of radiation to the public,” Goenka said.
5g And E-health, 5g E-health, 5g Health, 5g Health Issues, 5g Health Marketing Group, 5g Health Problems, 5g Mobile Health, 5g Network Health, 5g Wifi Health
A real estate transaction is typically a major financial investment and future commitment. Dealing with the bank and loan funding; coordinating inspections with realtors, professionals and current owners; the endless planning and expectations; and the sales pressure in general can be exciting but also overwhelming. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) have traditionally not been part of a due diligence real estate inspection and evaluation. This has changed in the last few years. Concerns about potential health impacts have brought up questions about significant EMF and radio frequency (RF) sources at the property, building or in its proximity.
There are so many considerations and decisions to make; does the location work for the commute to work and the children’s school; in what style should the new building be furnished; is remodeling needed; how far can we stretch the budget – the list does on and on. One really important question is: Does the building fulfill our needs for a safe and healthy home or office? We don’t want to find out after the expense of moving that the new building has elevated EMF or RF fields in sensitive areas such as bedrooms, children’s play areas or our office space.
The best time to prevent surprises later on is during the initial inspection period before all paperwork is signed and the purchase is completed. During this inspection period, different professional trades are evaluating the property and building(s) for possible shortcomings such as building defects, faulty electrical installations, roof failures, etc. However, these inspections are not designed to determine if a building or property presents low or high EMF or RF environments.
Many indoor environmental and public health research professionals feel that EMF/RF evaluations and measurements should be a part of a healthy building inspection. While the scientific community is still divided, many scientists and institutions recommend “prudent avoidance” as the safest approach. An EMF/RF evaluation at the start of the real estate transaction before remodeling begins is the best and most cost effective time to implement possible shielding methods.
Only trained and experienced professionals with the appropriate and calibrated equipment can determine the exposure in the areas of concern. AC-magnetic fields, commonly referred to as EMF, can be hidden and only detected using appropriate EMF testing services protocols and professional equipment. Certain electrical installations and lighting features, or wiring errors that are code violations can cause elevated AC-magnetic fields. These elevated EMF fields and the possible code violations often go undetected in regular home inspections that solely focus on functionality.
Why is it important for you to know about magnetic fields?
Our indoor environment has changed dramatically in the past ten years. Many wireless devices are impacting our indoor environment such as cellular antennas, TV and radio broadcasting transmitter, radar, wireless router and access points. Many are added all the time, such as video game systems, , wireless printers, baby monitors, security systems, wireless devices and appliances controlled with the latest mobile phone app. This trend will only continue. Do you believe that our recently and dramatically changed indoor environment has no effect on our health and development of our children or performance and well being of employees? Or do you feel we should be cautious, and choose to limit our personal exposure in areas where we spend a lot of time such as sleeping areas, children’s play areas and our work areas. Many organizations and countries outside the US recommend lower long-term exposure limits and precautionary action levels. Why is that so? Are they more sensitive individuals or are we unaware of the potential dangers?
At EMF & RF Solutions, we don’t speculate. We assess an area using scientific methods to provide you with the information to make an educated decision and exercise your right to choose what you want to be exposed to in your own home, building or office.
We can help create a low EMF and RF environment in your future building. The recipe to a successful outcome is following a systematic protocol in assessment, designing the mitigation plan if necessary, and verifying the achievement of the design goals. The steps for a low EMF/RF assessment, consultation and possible development of a mitigation plan consist of:
Assessment of low and high frequency background levels present on the property
Assessment of low and high frequency levels present in the building
Develop and design of a possible mitigation according to your benchmarks for sensitive areas
Consult on prudent placement in all sensitive areas
Design shielding concepts as indicated
Retain a qualified electrician to verify proper electrical installation and grounding system if indicated
Shielding implementation by qualified craftsmen
Measurements to confirm compliance to your benchmarks
Certification of the site or building
If you would like us to help you in the assessment or design of a low EMF in Real Estate, please call us at 760-942-9400 or email to:
Marc Alessi wrote a letter in the March 16 issue of the Great Neck News, gushing over the upcoming implementation of a new, powerful version of a wireless network, known as 5G. Unfortunately, his presentation failed to mention the potential negative health consequences of the system. 
Wireless, or radio if you prefer, is a strange and wonderful phenomenon. Voice, music, video, and data miraculously move almost instantaneously from one place to another invisibly through the air. How could that be? Our entire environment is an invisible fog of thousands of electromagnetic waves. The whole phenomenon has been amazing to me since I was a kid. Even though I understand it I am still in awe of the technology.
Have you considered sending your child to rehab to help them overcome their addiction to the electronic screens of video games, cell phones and the like? While that may sound far-fetched to some parents who are themselves ‘screen addicts’, it’s an idea whose time has come.
a recent gathering in City Hall, the City Council caught its first glimpse of the utility company’s likely final route for the high-voltage conduit, which the electricity distributor intends to bury under various local roadways around Horn Pond and by Washington Street and Montvale Avenue in East Woburn.
These fields are useful for modern communication, but can adversely affect other electronic devices. Conductor tracks and wires of the devices act as antennas and the coupled electromagnetic energy can, depending on the field strength and circuit, negatively alter the performance characteristics of a device or directly destroy components. For example, we all know the “crack” of radios, when a mobile phone is nearby. In case of power supplies, the negative impact of the electromagnetic field could express itself in form of a drop in the output voltage.
ever, city-based environmentalist Debi Goenka said the impact of cell phone radiation has been studied extensively by the industry. All these studies have said there is no adverse impact of radiation on human health.
There are so many considerations and decisions to make; does the location work for the commute to work and the children’s school; in what style should the new building be furnished; is remodeling needed; how far can we stretch the budget – the list does on and on. One really important question is: Does the building fulfill our needs for a safe and healthy home or office? We don’t want to find out after the expense of moving that the new building has elevated EMF or 
Many indoor environmental and public health research professionals feel that EMF/RF evaluations and measurements should be a part of a healthy 
