The WLAN blues

The WLAN blues

Philadelphia, the city of fraternal love, has it all. Many in San Francisco want it ...

wirelessly wide-band internet access ( W-LAN ) seems too beautiful to be true. At

relatively low costs, everyone can go online anywhere in a city. The whole city

WLAN antennas must be installed.

An argument for city -wide WLAN is that it is the digital gap :

The poorer they are, the more limited your access to the Internet and its information

resources. Cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco actively try to close

digital gap. An option is WLAN.

But when weighing up the options, there is practically nothing to hear about the potential health

risks. The saturation of an entire city with WiFi contributes to the existing burden of non -ionization at

radiation. This load, called electrosmog of some consists of long -term

exposure to low concentrations of non -ionizing radiation from known sources

such as radio and television signals, electronic and electrical devices and the ubiquitous cell

Telephone.

W-LAN

Local networks ( Lans ) connect computers, printers, modems and other

devices. Conventional LANs produce the connections physically using wire cables. Messages

between computers and the other devices in the network are managed by a device

called router .

A wireless LAN makes the wire cable superfluous by using a router that and transmits

radio signals receives. To use a wired LAN, you must connect the computer or something else

device in a socket. From the socket, a wire leads to the bouter, which the accomplished

signal traffic between the devices in the network.

With a wireless LAN, each device is structured in the network so that it can send a signal

to the router and receive signals. WLAN routers typically have a range of A

hundred to several hundred foot. The range can be increased by adding a Booster

This increases the signal strength.

As with all radio signals, the closer they are to the transmitter (the router)

stronger the signal. Cell phones work according to the same principle. The difference is the

mobile phones work on a different frequency and emit a stronger signal than wireless

lans.

radio frequencies

mobile phones work with frequencies in the range of 3 to 30 GHz, similar to microwave

ovens. Wireless LANs work with a tenth of this area - 0.3 to 3 GHz, the area of ​​

UHF television programs. ghz stands for Gigahertz, a standard measure

of high frequency radiation ( rfr ) - electromagnetic radiation generates by

Send an electrical alternating current through an antenna. The higher the GHz,

the faster the electricity changes.

The frequency alone does not measure the potential effect of RFR. How they would do it

think the strength of the signal also plays a role. The strength of a signal is measured

in watt , a standard size for electrical energy. For example 100 watt

light bulb is lighter because it releases more energy than a 60-watt light bulb.

think of the effect of waves on the beach: small waves far apart (low strength, low

frequency) Versus large wave close together (high strength, high frequency). The

the former should have less effects than the latter.

The high frequency load is measured based on the SAR-specific absorption rate. Sar is

either expressed in milliwatt/kilograms (MW/kg) body weight or milliwatt/cubic

centimeter (MW /cm2) of the exposed body area: the size of the shaft and how much of it

Your body hits it.

Health risks

wifi enthusiasts reject health risk because of the starting performance and SAR from

The exposure is significantly below the minimum standard for mobile phones. But cell

telephone standards are pressed in use for the short -term load of a mobile phone

to your head. In addition, the standards are set on the basis of the thermal (heating) effect

the radiation.

Non -thermal effects of mobile phones are documented in exposure below the current

US standards, including

- memory loss,

- sleep disorders,

- slowed motor skills and response time,

- reduced immune function,

- spatial disorientation and dizziness,

- headache,

- reduced sperm number,

- increased blood pressure and pulse,

-DNA break and reduced DNA repair capacity and

- cell increase.

A second problem is that cell phone exposure is sporadic, while WiFi

The exposure is constant. A more precise comparison is the effect of the cell phone

radio antennas. These antennas send and receive high frequency signals

constantly.

The signal strength of an antenna is only comparable to that of a mobile phone

range. The exposure is not the short bang of a cell phone, but a persistent bath of weak

strength rfr. In addition to the health effects documented for mobile phone use,

Exposure to mobile antennas

- increased blood pressure and pulse,

- sleep disorders,

- emotional effects such as increased depression and irritability,

- Memory loss and mental fog,

- fatigue and dizziness, and

- increased risk of cancer.

Because of these effects, the International Association of Fire Fighters (AFL-CIO)

2004 decided that they will not allow mobile phone antennas on fire station.

RFR hypersensitivity

Much of the discussion about the health effects of high -frequency radiation is formulated as concern about people

that are hypersensitive. hypersensitivity is the technical term for allergies

and similar overreactions of the immune system. But instead of pollen, rfr

hypersensitivity is a reaction to non -ionicizing substances

radiation. It seems that a few pitch birds are affected, while the rest of us prevent

hook.

Research by Olle Johansson and Örjan Halberg from the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm

suggests something else. They examined cancer incidence in Europe and the USA

and found a remarkable connection between the increase in certain types of cancer during the

20. Century and exposure RFR, measured by radio and television programs.

What the hypersensible really represent is an extreme in a complex landscape of

effects and risks. Like any other environmental advressor, RFR affects some

people more than others. And as with other environmental advressors, the larger the

overall burden, the greater the risk of being one of the "few pitch birds".

wireless Lans contribute to the existing RFR pollution. Just like burning more fossil fuels

adds more SMOG, more RFR adds more electrosmog. You don't have to

Express your home or city of increased stress by WLAN. There is a

Practical alternative: a wired LAN. The hype could make it appear less comfortable and

more expensive. But what is good sleep worth? Or reduce your risk

cancer?

resources

International Association of Firefighters. 2004. Position on the health effects of

high frequency /microwave radiation (RF /MW) in fire brigade facilities of

base stations for antennas and masts for the transfer of mobile phones

broadcasts. Access at http://www.iaff.org/safe/content/celltower/

CelltoWertverfinal.htm.

Johansson, Olle and Doug Loranger. 2005. Electrosmog. Your own health and

fitness. Radiation on November 29, 2005. http://yourownhealthandfitness.org/

radiation.html.

sage, Cindy. 2005. Comment on San Francisco TechConnect Community Wireless

broadband initiative. Sage Associates: September 2005.