Some startling recommendations from a study accepted for publication by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an industry professional group, and written by highly credentialed engineers. California Engineer William Hammett says in his cell tower presentations to cities that IEEE has examined the research and found no effect at or below FCC limits. Here is another IEEE example showing how wrong he is. Figure 7 attached.
Sent by Joel Moskowitz, PhD
Electromagnetic Radiation due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies: How safe are we?
Naren, Elhence A, Chamola V. Guizani M. Electromagnetic Radiation due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies: How safe are we? IEEE Access. 4:1-21. 2019. DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2976434
The electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted out of wireless communication modules in various electronic devices have been identified by researchers as biologically hazardous to humans as well as other living beings. Different countries have different regulations to limit the radiation density levels caused by these devices. The radiation absorbed by an individual depends on various factors such as the device they use, the proximity of use, the type of antenna, the relative orientation of the antenna on the device, and many more. Several standards exist which have tried to quantify the radiation levels and come up with safe limits of EMR absorption to prevent human harm. In this work, we determine the radiation concern levels in several scenarios using a handheld radiation meter by correlating the findings with several international standards, which are determined based on thorough scientific evidence. This study also analyzes the EMR from common devices used in day to day life such as smartphones, laptops, Wi-Fi routers, hotspots, wireless earphones, smartwatches, Bluetooth speakers and other wireless accessories using a handheld radio frequency radiation measurement device. The procedure followed in this paper is so presented that it can also be utilized by the general public as a tutorial to evaluate their own safety with respect to EMR exposure. We present a summary of the most prominent health hazards which have been known to occur due to EMR exposure. We also discuss some individual and collective human-centric protective and preventive measures that can be undertaken to reduce the risk of EMR absorption. This paper analyses radiation safety in pre-5G networks and uses the insight gained to raise valuable concerns regarding EMR safety in the upcoming 5G networks.
Excerpt re 5G
Due to the extremely high density of BSs [base stations, i.e., cell antenna sites], street light access points, separate indoor BSs, relays and Massive MIMO [multiple input multiple output] technology employed in 5G, a person will be exposed to very high levels of PFDs [power flux densities], whether he is indoors or outdoors, or whether or not he is using any wireless devices in close proximity. In other words, it may be suspected that even the ambient PFD which a person is exposed to in most situations throughout the day may fall under the category of â€˜Severe Concernâ€™ according to the Building Biology Standard, â€˜Far above normalâ€™ according to the AMA [Austrian Medical Association] standards, and may be higher than the precautionary action level recommended by the BioInitiative Guidelines. If 5G networks are deployed without careful analysis of expected exposure levels, almost all people in the area of coverage may be exposed to dangerous levels of PFD, the outcomes of which, in the near future, may turn out to be calamitous.
People should be made aware that the EMR from using day to day cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are harmful to human health. The levels of radiation observed in most cases such as phone calls, internet browsing on laptops and smartphones, using wireless routers and hotspots, Bluetooth smartwatches and smartphones are unsafe when compared with radiation limits determined by medical bodies. According to current medical literature, various adverse health effects from exposure to RF EMR have been well documented. For now, wireless technologies must be avoided as much as possible. New and innovative wired solutions which provide the same level of user-friendliness should be encouraged.Â Intervention of government and medical bodies with the main purpose of protecting human health is of utmost necessity to ensure good economic development without compromising the health of the population. Countries must adopt the guidelines suggested by medical bodies which take into account both thermal and non-thermal effects of EMR. At present, all individuals must take preventive and protective measures to protect themselves from harmful EMR exposure.
Open access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9016183
Radio frequency exposure guidelines
The FCC exposure limits for the general public range from 2 million microwatts per square meter (at 30 megahertz frequency) to 10 million microwatts per square meter (at 1,500 megahertz or higher) which is equivalent to 0.2 - 1 milliwatt per square centimeter.
The ICNIRP guidelines adopted by more than 50 countries allow from 4 million (at 800 megahertz frequency) to 10 million microwatts per square meter (at 2,000 megahertz or higher).
In contrast ...
The Building Biology guidelines consider less than 0.1 microwatt per square meter to be of "no concern"; from 0.1 to 10 microwatts per square meter, "slight concern"; from 10 to 1000 microwatts per square meter, "severe concern"; and more than 1000 microwatts per square meter, "extreme concern."
The BioInititative's precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed radiofrequency radiation is 3 to 6 microwatts per square meter.
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
IEEE 2019 paper, recommendations 3-20.png (245K) Download Attachment
Thanks for this.
In reply to this post by Fog Top
Fog Top - Thought you might be saddened to see the editors "retracted" this.
SHAME on them!
Well, it says that it was retracted due to errors in a particular section, which may be true. Looks like an interesting article, regardless.
On December 6, Elle [via ES] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Fog Top - Thought you might be saddened to see the editors "retracted" this.
> SHAME on them!
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|