5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too?


The router shown in the figure is Linksys WRT600N Router, that is
exactly the one I bought about 4 years ago but currently I operate it
at 2.5 Ghz frequency only and I have closed the 5 Ghz band. It is an
excellent router no question about it. It was written on the box to
keep it 1 meter away from the body. If you are having 5 Ghz band ON
for video streaming and even if you are sitting 1 meter away from the
device, after 4 hours I think you will feel dizziness and after 8
hours nausea. It happened with me. Never had such feeling before. When
I converted 5 Ghz video streaming to wired based, never had such
Nausea & Dizziness. 5 Ghz is in microwave range of frequency spectrum.

http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...arch_fd0=72216

On 24/05/2010 11:55 AM, wrote:
5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea& Dizziness - To You Too?


The router shown in the figure is Linksys WRT600N Router, that is
exactly the one I bought about 4 years ago but currently I operate it
at 2.5 Ghz frequency only and I have closed the 5 Ghz band. It is an
excellent router no question about it. It was written on the box to
keep it 1 meter away from the body. If you are having 5 Ghz band ON
for video streaming and even if you are sitting 1 meter away from the
device, after 4 hours I think you will feel dizziness and after 8
hours nausea. It happened with me. Never had such feeling before. When
I converted 5 Ghz video streaming to wired based, never had such
Nausea& Dizziness. 5 Ghz is in microwave range of frequency spectrum.

http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...arch_fd0=72216

Seems a little improbable. I'd want to see results of a double-blind test.

Sylvia.

On Sun, 23 May 2010 18:55:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too?
(...)
http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...arch_fd0=72216

I have a WRT600N at home which I used for testing. Nice router. I
only have one laptop that uses 802.11a so I can't claim much exposure.
To the best of my knowledge, I haven't become ill when using it.

It was written on the box to keep it 1 meter away from the body.

That's not going to work because the extra dim LED's are impossible to
see unless you shove your face into the front panel.

If you are having 5 Ghz band ON
for video streaming and even if you are sitting 1 meter away from the
device, after 4 hours I think you will feel dizziness and after 8
hours nausea.

If I wasted 8 hours in one sitting watching TV, I'm sure I would
experience adverse physical effects. Have you considered climbing out
of your overstuffed sofa, and getting some casual exercise, such as
crushing the beer cans? I solved two problems simultaneously by
installing my bicycle on an exercise stand, and pedaling furiously
while watching TV. I had some initial problems with hyperventilation,
which did cause some dizziness, but that went away as I adapted to the
effort. The only change from standard was to place the TV on the
floor, where it was easier to see from the bicycle.

There are also physiological causes of nausea and dizziness.
http://www.dizzinessandnausea.com

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 24 May 2010 12:54:18 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

On 24/05/2010 11:55 AM, wrote:
5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea& Dizziness - To You Too?


The router shown in the figure is Linksys WRT600N Router, that is
exactly the one I bought about 4 years ago but currently I operate it
at 2.5 Ghz frequency only and I have closed the 5 Ghz band. It is an
excellent router no question about it. It was written on the box to
keep it 1 meter away from the body. If you are having 5 Ghz band ON
for video streaming and even if you are sitting 1 meter away from the
device, after 4 hours I think you will feel dizziness and after 8
hours nausea. It happened with me. Never had such feeling before. When
I converted 5 Ghz video streaming to wired based, never had such
Nausea& Dizziness. 5 Ghz is in microwave range of frequency spectrum.

http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...arch_fd0=72216

Seems a little improbable. I'd want to see results of a double-blind test.

Sylvia.

Sylvia, eight hours of watching streaming video would make anyone
nauseas! bg

Personally I see yet another tin-foil hat man...

On 24/05/2010 02:55, wrote:
5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea& Dizziness - To You Too?


The router shown in the figure is Linksys WRT600N Router,

Not a real issue for this SPAMMING poster.

--
Adrian C

On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:24:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 18:55:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too?
(...)
http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...arch_fd0=72216

I have a WRT600N at home which I used for testing. Nice router. I
only have one laptop that uses 802.11a so I can't claim much exposure.
To the best of my knowledge, I haven't become ill when using it.

It was written on the box to keep it 1 meter away from the body.

That's not going to work because the extra dim LED's are impossible to
see unless you shove your face into the front panel.

If you are having 5 Ghz band ON
for video streaming and even if you are sitting 1 meter away from the
device, after 4 hours I think you will feel dizziness and after 8
hours nausea.

If I wasted 8 hours in one sitting watching TV, I'm sure I would
experience adverse physical effects. Have you considered climbing out
of your overstuffed sofa, and getting some casual exercise, such as
crushing the beer cans? I solved two problems simultaneously by
installing my bicycle on an exercise stand, and pedaling furiously
while watching TV. I had some initial problems with hyperventilation,
which did cause some dizziness, but that went away as I adapted to the
effort. The only change from standard was to place the TV on the
floor, where it was easier to see from the bicycle.

There are also physiological causes of nausea and dizziness.
http://www.dizzinessandnausea.com


If you stay within the 1 meter range, and assuming the transmitter
output several hundred milliwatts, and you do this for extended
periods of time, you are probably going to have similiar issues to
those people who use cell phones with badly designed antennae. There
are known side effects.... but they are down in the statistical noise.
Although the power levels are similiar, you don't have your head right
up against the antenna as in a cell phone. Given the fairly weak
correlation between side effects of cell phones (and they are long
term effects), and your much greater distance from the antenna, I'd
say your risk is very small.
The cell phone issue relates to brain cancer and leukemia for very
heavy cell phone users, and for specific (older) models. There are a
number of peer reviewed papers on this subject.
If you are that certain of the effects, have someone turn the
offending unit on or off so that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT STATE IT IS IN
DURING THE TEST. Do a reasonable number of tests (20) and see if you
sense better than 50/50. Your tester should also not know what state
the unit is in (double-blind) during your "sensing" period. That
requires some form of random on/off switch (10-20 pos rotary sw. with
no stops), covering all LEDs, etc. Be aware that the human mind is
easily influenced by stimulii that you might think are unrelated to
your experiment! For example, if the unit emits the slightest hum, it
will probably ruin your experiment, because you would consciously or
unconsciously associate it with your symptoms.
If you can correlate your experience with the unit being on, then
you have something to go on, and it will silence the naysayers. Then
it will be an interesting case.

Paul G.

In article ,
Paul G. wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:24:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 18:55:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too?
(...)
http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...arch_fd0=72216

I have a WRT600N at home which I used for testing. Nice router. I
only have one laptop that uses 802.11a so I can't claim much exposure.
To the best of my knowledge, I haven't become ill when using it.

It was written on the box to keep it 1 meter away from the body.

That's not going to work because the extra dim LED's are impossible to
see unless you shove your face into the front panel.

If you are having 5 Ghz band ON
for video streaming and even if you are sitting 1 meter away from the
device, after 4 hours I think you will feel dizziness and after 8
hours nausea.

If I wasted 8 hours in one sitting watching TV, I'm sure I would
experience adverse physical effects. Have you considered climbing out
of your overstuffed sofa, and getting some casual exercise, such as
crushing the beer cans? I solved two problems simultaneously by
installing my bicycle on an exercise stand, and pedaling furiously
while watching TV. I had some initial problems with hyperventilation,
which did cause some dizziness, but that went away as I adapted to the
effort. The only change from standard was to place the TV on the
floor, where it was easier to see from the bicycle.

There are also physiological causes of nausea and dizziness.
http://www.dizzinessandnausea.com


If you stay within the 1 meter range, and assuming the transmitter
output several hundred milliwatts, and you do this for extended
periods of time, you are probably going to have similiar issues to
those people who use cell phones with badly designed antennae. There
are known side effects.... but they are down in the statistical noise.
Although the power levels are similiar, you don't have your head right
up against the antenna as in a cell phone. Given the fairly weak
correlation between side effects of cell phones (and they are long
term effects), and your much greater distance from the antenna, I'd
say your risk is very small.
The cell phone issue relates to brain cancer and leukemia for very
heavy cell phone users, and for specific (older) models. There are a
number of peer reviewed papers on this subject.

I think you forgot to mention that not a single one of those papers
showed a significant connection.

Isaac

On Tue, 25 May 2010 03:12:18 GMT, Paul G. wrote:

The cell phone issue relates to brain cancer and leukemia for very
heavy cell phone users, and for specific (older) models. There are a
number of peer reviewed papers on this subject.

Thank you for changing the subject from wi-fi exposure to cellular
exposure.

You might be interested in the following graph of the incidence of new
brain and central nervous system cancers in 5 major metro hospitals:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer.jpg
Please note that it's almost constant from 1975 to 2006. During the
same time period, use of cell phones increased rather dramatically.
The cell phone was invented in 1973, but didn't really "take off"
until the early 1990's. If there was a correlation between cell phone
use/exposure, it should have shown up as an increase in brain and CNS
cancers.

Also see:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer-by-age-1992-2006.jpg
which shows the incidence of brain and CNS cancer versus age
aggregated from 1992 to 2006. Note that the bulk of the incidence is
for age 55 and up. From personal observation, most teenagers have
their cell phones glued to their ears. If RF exposure was involved, I
would expect a larger incidence among the younger cell phone users.

If you have any information that contradicts any of this, or somehow
connects 5.7GHz wi-fi exposure to any of this, I would be interested.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 25 May 2010 03:12:18 GMT, Paul G. wrote:

If you are that certain of the effects, have someone turn the
offending unit on or off so that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT STATE IT IS IN
DURING THE TEST. Do a reasonable number of tests (20) and see if you
sense better than 50/50. Your tester should also not know what state
the unit is in (double-blind) during your "sensing" period. That
requires some form of random on/off switch (10-20 pos rotary sw. with
no stops), covering all LEDs, etc. Be aware that the human mind is
easily influenced by stimulii that you might think are unrelated to
your experiment! For example, if the unit emits the slightest hum, it
will probably ruin your experiment, because you would consciously or
unconsciously associate it with your symptoms.
If you can correlate your experience with the unit being on, then
you have something to go on, and it will silence the naysayers. Then
it will be an interesting case.

You reminded me of a consulting job I had about 15 years ago. A
research lab was exposing lab rats to 900MHz RF, and looking for
physiological changes, including cancers. They were getting positive
results and were preparing to publish. However, the reviewers were
worried about how evenly distributed the RF was inside the test box.
So, I was dragged in to do the necessary measurements. I shoved a
borrowed Narda RF exposure meter into the box, and got nothing. After
some tinkering, I determined that the RF connector entering the box
was badly assembled and was shorted. There was no RF at all in the
box. All the data and positive results were worthless. Needless to
say, I was not very popular around the lab after that.

Adding more topic drift, I had a customer that claimed that she could
"feel" the radiation coming from her new computah. I did a single
blind experiment to see if she could tell if it was turned on and
found that she really could. I had no clue, so I walked down the
road, injested an ice cream (favorite brain booster), and did some
thinking. I used an ultrasonic pipe leak detector to find that the
desktop power supply was belching considerable audible ultrasonic
noise. I tested every PC power supply I had in stock, found the least
disgusting, and replaced her power supply. She claimed she could
still "feel" it, but that it was much better. I eventually buried the
xformers and inductors in RTV, which solved the noise problem. She
was one of the rare adults that did not lose their childhood high
frequency hearing.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 25 May 2010 03:12:18 GMT, Paul G.
wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:24:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 18:55:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too?
(...)
http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...arch_fd0=72216

I have a WRT600N at home which I used for testing. Nice router. I
only have one laptop that uses 802.11a so I can't claim much exposure.

If you are that certain of the effects, have someone turn the
offending unit on or off so that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT STATE IT IS IN
DURING THE TEST. Do a reasonable number of tests (20) and see if you
sense better than 50/50. Your tester should also not know what state

If you can correlate your experience with the unit being on, then
you have something to go on, and it will silence the naysayers. Then
it will be an interesting case.

Actually, that has been done. By TNO in the Netherlands.
The results have been confirmed by a study in Switserland.
In short: Some people are capable of knowing whether a
transmitter is on or off.

TNO: Effects of global communication system radio-frequency
fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects
with and without subjective complaints.
TNO-report FEL-03-C148, 2003.

Swiss: Regel SJ, Negovetic S, R??sli M, Berdi?as V, Schuderer J,
Huss A, Lott U, Kuster N, and Achermann P. 2006. UMTS Base
Station-Like Exposure, Well Being and Cognitive Performance
Environ Health Perspect: doi:10.1289/ehp.8934. [Online 6 June
2006]

On the dim side: this is 'beyond repair' ;-)

--
met vriendelijke groet,
Gerard Bok

On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:33:49 GMT, (Gerard Bok) wrote:

Actually, that has been done. By TNO in the Netherlands.
The results have been confirmed by a study in Switserland.
In short: Some people are capable of knowing whether a
transmitter is on or off.

TNO: Effects of global communication system radio-frequency
fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects
with and without subjective complaints.
TNO-report FEL-03-C148, 2003.

The full report is not available for free (few such reports are free).
Abstract is free:
http://oem.bmj.com/content/63/5/307
Conclusion: Despite very low exposure to HF-EMF, effects on
wellbeing and performance cannot be ruled out, as shown by
recently obtained experimental results; however, mechanisms
of action at these low levels are unknown.

Ummm... that's not exactly definitive. It's more like a solicitation
for more research. "Cannot be ruled out" is a phrase often used when
"cannot be proven" is more appropriate.

Commentary on the report:
http://oem.bmj.com/content/63/5/298.full.pdf
Evidence is emerging that prior beliefs about the risks
from modern technology are an important predictor of symptoms
from perceived exposures. Thus, by distorting perceptions
of risk, disproportionate precaution might paradoxically lead
to illness that would not otherwise occur.

In other words, there are some holes in the procedures that need to be
fixed before anything conclusive can be claimed. Most such studies
are epidemiological meaning that a wide spectrum of environmental,
symptomatic, and psychological problems need to be ruled out before
the blame can be definitively assigned to RF exposure. As near as I
can determine by reading bits and pieces of the original report, the
researchers measured the RF intensity (at what frequencies?) in the
bedrooms of 365 subjects, and gave them a survey to fill out to
determine their health. Since the 365 subjects were randomly
selected, it's conceivable that there were some prior medical
conditions and prior opinions on the RF exposure issue, which would
certainly appear on the survey. This is hardly a double blind study
as all the participants were deemed to have been exposed.

Swiss: Regel SJ, Negovetic S, R??sli M, Berdi?as V, Schuderer J,
Huss A, Lott U, Kuster N, and Achermann P. 2006. UMTS Base
Station-Like Exposure, Well Being and Cognitive Performance
Environ Health Perspect: doi:10.1289/ehp.8934. [Online 6 June
2006]

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.8934
In both groups, well-being and perceived field strength
were not associated with actual exposure levels.

In contrast to a recent Dutch study, we could not confirm
a short-term effect of UMTS base station-like exposure on
well-being.

In other words, there was no effects to RF exposure.

I find the procedure a bit amusing, in that subjects were asked to
refrain from taking any medications for 24 hours prior to the test
exposure. I'm one various heart meds. If I did that, my BP and pulse
would climb, resulting in some minor anxiety effects. No RF required.

3 sessions, of 45 minutes exposure each, is hardly sufficient
exposure. However, 10 V/m is not a strong RF field, where 41 V/m at
900MHz is the recommended US max exposure for the general public.
http://www.atdi-us.com/docs/wp_%20health%20safety%20and%20field%20strenght%20e xposure%20in%20ics%20telecom.pdf

On the dim side: this is 'beyond repair' ;-)

Brain washing might work. Education through advertising perhaps.
Maybe throw some public relations money at the problem. In any case
"more re$earch is nece$$ary".


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 25 May 2010 08:38:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:33:49 GMT, (Gerard Bok) wrote:

Actually, that has been done. By TNO in the Netherlands.
The results have been confirmed by a study in Switserland.
In short: Some people are capable of knowing whether a
transmitter is on or off.

TNO: Effects of global communication system radio-frequency
fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects
with and without subjective complaints.
TNO-report FEL-03-C148, 2003.

The full report is not available for free (few such reports are free).
.....[snip]....
try this site:
http://www.antennebureau.nl/fileadmi...pport_2003.pdf

Interesting report ....

Paul G.

On Tue, 25 May 2010 08:38:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:33:49 GMT, (Gerard Bok) wrote:

Actually, that has been done. By TNO in the Netherlands.
The results have been confirmed by a study in Switserland.
In short: Some people are capable of knowing whether a
transmitter is on or off.

TNO: Effects of global communication system radio-frequency
fields on well being and cognitive functions of human subjects
with and without subjective complaints.
TNO-report FEL-03-C148, 2003.

The full report is not available for free (few such reports are free).
Abstract is free:
http://oem.bmj.com/content/63/5/307
Conclusion: Despite very low exposure to HF-EMF, effects on
wellbeing and performance cannot be ruled out, as shown by
recently obtained experimental results; however, mechanisms
of action at these low levels are unknown.

Imho the most important finding by this study is, that there is a
major flaw in common thinking about HF-RF to human influence.
The common story goes: "if there is an effect, it can only be
thermal by nature". So, once you prove that there is not enough
energy to cause any extra heath, you have proven that HF-RF is
harmless.

The study shows, that there is a) not enough energy transferred
into the study subjects to cause measurable themperature rise.
And b) that with statistical significance, some people are able
to tell whether a transmitter is on or off.
That being the case, there is at least a need for the
'it's-all-harmless-gang' to provide a credible hypothesis for the
mechanisme that enables some people to 'sense' whether the
transmitter is on or off.

Swiss: Regel SJ, Negovetic S, R??sli M, Berdi?as V, Schuderer J,
Huss A, Lott U, Kuster N, and Achermann P. 2006. UMTS Base
Station-Like Exposure, Well Being and Cognitive Performance
Environ Health Perspect: doi:10.1289/ehp.8934. [Online 6 June
2006]

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.8934
In both groups, well-being and perceived field strength
were not associated with actual exposure levels.

In contrast to a recent Dutch study, we could not confirm
a short-term effect of UMTS base station-like exposure on
well-being.

In other words, there was no effects to RF exposure.

No ! There was no proven harm associated !
That's a totally different matter. This study reproduced the
dutch finding: "they know and we cannot explain why" ;-)

I find the procedure a bit amusing, in that subjects were asked to
refrain from taking any medications for 24 hours prior to the test
exposure.

I fully agree here. I would have been excluded as a test subject
because I drink 4 cups of coffee a day.
Also, people with existing RF induced complaints were excluded.
That's rather odd as as a layman I would expect some hits,
especially within this group :-)
(And on a medical note: on one side I can see why they wouldn't
accept schizophrenics in this test. On the other hand, I wouldn't
at all be surprized if one day they'll find, that the same
mechanism gets triggered in humans, by radio waves for some, by
hormones or proteines or even spontanious by others.)

On the dim side: this is 'beyond repair' ;-)

Brain washing might work.

Actually, I was referring to the fact that this discussion has
nothing to do with sci.electronics.repair :-)
Altough a sloppy microwave repairman may think otherwise.
(If still able to think at all, that is.)

--
met vriendelijke groet,
Gerard Bok

I think the safest approach is to avoid wireless as much as possible.
You know what I did, I made my home network from wireless to wired by
running Cat5e cable using a Gigabit Router. We still have 2.4 Ghz but
not for video streaming. But no 5 Ghz. I heard from others as well
regarding the havocs of 5 ghz band.

On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:55:38 GMT, Paul G. wrote:

http://www.antennebureau.nl/fileadmi...pport_2003.pdf

Interesting report ....
Paul G.

Sorry for the delay. Paying work comes first. 89 Pages before my
morning coffee. Ugh. Document is locked and cannot be copied, which
means I can't cut and paste quotes. Why make it easy? I'm lazy, so
I'll paraphrase.

1.1.1 selection of subjects. Half the subjects came from the
"Monitoring Network for Environmental Health" database of what appears
to be chronic complainers. Lovely. That's like using cancer prone
rats for cancer research. It improves the odds of a positive result.

1.1.1 selection of subjects. Subjects with coronary disease and
psychiatric illness have been excluded but they didn't measure the
blood pressure or heart rate leaving the results to be totally
subjective.

1.1.2 Experimental Setup. Oh, this is cute. Since none of the
subjects in the non-complaining group B experience any symptoms when
exposed to GSM, in order to manufacture valid results, the researchers
used the RELATIVE level of complaints between the two groups
(A=complainers, B=non-complainers). So, if everyone that isn't
hypersensitive feels nothing, the report can still claim a positive
result. Nice.

Pg 14 Figure 3.3 shows the antenna arrangement. Note that the
monitoring antenna (black blob on the end of a stick) is very close to
the antenna. That's wrong. This experiment is suppose to simulate
exposure from base stations, not handsets and is therefore using the
far field. however, the measuring device is in the near field. It
needs to be at least 10 wavelengths away from the antenna in order to
get accurate results. At 900Mhz, that would be about 30cm. At
1800Mhz, that would be about 15cm. From the photo, my guess is about
10 cm. A more logical monitoring location would be near the subjects.

Pg 23 is in the middle of a nice review of SAR heating research and
methodology. I like this quote:
Interestingly, a study by Bernardi[34] showed that the mere
presence of a non-transmitting GSM phone made a greater
contribution to the temperature increase that occurred than
the electromagnetic field.
Well yes. Also, locking the subjects inside an anechoic chamber, with
a mess of menacing looking antennas, and being asked dumb questions,
might also have a similar effect.

Also, SAR measurements were intended to be used for near field handset
exposure, not far field cell site exposure. Little of the cranial
exposure calculations shown in section 5 are valid for far field
exposure.

The procedures, selection criteria, and double bind exposure details
appear to be valid and well considered. I have some minor issues with
the types of tests and questions asked, but nothing worth detailing.

As near as I can decode the results in 11.5 Pg 59, there was a
statistically significant effect with UMTS (2100MHz) exposure with
both groups, and nothing else. Oddly, the report complains about the
"inadequate" RF exposure procedures employed by other researchers,
while I find their monitoring and measuring procedure to be equally
poor.

The Conclusions in Section 12 Pg 61 is weird. They found an effect at
2100 Mhz with 'well being' from group A (complainers) and what appears
to be me to be inconsistent effects with 900 and 1800 MHz. More
simply, they found a correlation at one frequency and both groups, but
everything else was just noise. Interestingly, they did NOT find any
increase in sensitivity among group A (complainers) as compared to
group B (non-complainers). My conclusion is roughly the same as
theirs. There MAY BE some correlation, but the results are far from
definitive.

Also, since the results were not conclusive and haven't been verified,
the "more research is necessary" catch phrase was invoked on Pg 62.



Drivel: I once proposed an experiment for RF exposure. Drag in the
usual collection of random bored volunteers and set them up for an RF
exposure test. Also, wire them up for an assortment of real time
physiological measurements. Have them answer some verbal wellness
questions to keep them occupied. After the test, correlate the
measurements with the questions and RF exposure. Yes, it's a lie
detector test. I did a crude dry run with two friends and found that
they were probably lying on about 25% the wellness questions. Since
there was no political or financial interest in validating subjective
RF exposure test methods, the full test was never performed. For a
list of projects that were funded, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 5/24/2010 10:06 PM Jeff Liebermann spake thus:

Adding more topic drift, I had a customer that claimed that she could
"feel" the radiation coming from her new computah. I did a single
blind experiment to see if she could tell if it was turned on and
found that she really could. I had no clue, so I walked down the
road, injested an ice cream (favorite brain booster), and did some
thinking. I used an ultrasonic pipe leak detector to find that the
desktop power supply was belching considerable audible ultrasonic
noise. I tested every PC power supply I had in stock, found the least
disgusting, and replaced her power supply. She claimed she could
still "feel" it, but that it was much better. I eventually buried the
xformers and inductors in RTV, which solved the noise problem. She
was one of the rare adults that did not lose their childhood high
frequency hearing.

In my youngah days, I could sometimes hear the high-pitched whine of
television receivers (horizontal scan, right? ~15kHz?). Not any more.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 5/24/2010 10:06 PM Jeff Liebermann spake thus:

Adding more topic drift, I had a customer that claimed that she could
"feel" the radiation coming from her new computah. I did a single
blind experiment to see if she could tell if it was turned on and
found that she really could. I had no clue, so I walked down the
road, injested an ice cream (favorite brain booster), and did some
thinking. I used an ultrasonic pipe leak detector to find that the
desktop power supply was belching considerable audible ultrasonic
noise. I tested every PC power supply I had in stock, found the least
disgusting, and replaced her power supply. She claimed she could
still "feel" it, but that it was much better. I eventually buried the
xformers and inductors in RTV, which solved the noise problem. She
was one of the rare adults that did not lose their childhood high
frequency hearing.

In my youngah days, I could sometimes hear the high-pitched whine of
television receivers (horizontal scan, right? ~15kHz?). Not any more.


I can hear some SVGA monitors. I've had to retire several becasue the
squeal gave me migranes.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:30:31 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 15:55:38 GMT, Paul G. wrote:

http://www.antennebureau.nl/fileadmi...pport_2003.pdf

Interesting report ....
Paul G.

Sorry for the delay. Paying work comes first. 89 Pages before my
morning coffee. Ugh. Document is locked and cannot be copied, which
means I can't cut and paste quotes. Why make it easy? I'm lazy, so
I'll paraphrase.

1.1.1 selection of subjects. Half the subjects came from the
"Monitoring Network for Environmental Health" database of what appears
to be chronic complainers. Lovely. That's like using cancer prone
rats for cancer research. It improves the odds of a positive result.

It makes the report interesting to see if the complainers (and what
a lot of us would consider nutters) actually CAN sense the EM fields.
Pity about the way they test that, and it doesn't really clinch the
case when they are just marginally better than the placebo.

1.1.1 selection of subjects. Subjects with coronary disease and
psychiatric illness have been excluded but they didn't measure the
blood pressure or heart rate leaving the results to be totally
subjective.

1.1.2 Experimental Setup. Oh, this is cute. Since none of the
subjects in the non-complaining group B experience any symptoms when
exposed to GSM, in order to manufacture valid results, the researchers
used the RELATIVE level of complaints between the two groups
(A=complainers, B=non-complainers). So, if everyone that isn't
hypersensitive feels nothing, the report can still claim a positive
result. Nice.

text extracted by ghostscript:
quote:
"The subjects within group B do not experience complaints at any given
GSM exposure and at any instance that they are exposed. Therefore it
is necessary to perform the study by means of comparing the occurrence
of complaints between groups. As elucidated in Chapter 16 of our study
protocol [26], we have calculated that with a total sample size of 72
subjects we obtain a power of 80% to find statistically significant
results regarding reported complaints between the periods with
exposure and without exposure. The proposed sample size of the
experiment has been capable of statistically detecting a difference of
5% on the cognitive tests that have been used." end of quote
I can't make any sense of this!


Pg 14 Figure 3.3 shows the antenna arrangement. Note that the
monitoring antenna (black blob on the end of a stick) is very close to
the antenna. That's wrong. This experiment is suppose to simulate
exposure from base stations, not handsets and is therefore using the
far field. however, the measuring device is in the near field. It
needs to be at least 10 wavelengths away from the antenna in order to
get accurate results. At 900Mhz, that would be about 30cm. At
1800Mhz, that would be about 15cm. From the photo, my guess is about
10 cm. A more logical monitoring location would be near the subjects.


From what I can tell, they measured the field prior to the experiment,
and use the probe close in just to make sure the system was working:

quote:
"Before the experiments, the exposure of 900 MHz GSM*fields, 1800 MHz
GSM*fields and 2100 MHz UMTS*like fields has been defined and
verified, as described in Appendix A. The field strength at the
location of the subjects has been determined not to exceed 1 V/m. "
"To ensure that the prescribed exposure is actually generated, a
monitor probe was used for field verification and logging during the
measurements. The probe is positioned in front of the antennas. "
end of quote

Pg 23 is in the middle of a nice review of SAR heating research and
methodology. I like this quote:
Interestingly, a study by Bernardi[34] showed that the mere
presence of a non-transmitting GSM phone made a greater
contribution to the temperature increase that occurred than
the electromagnetic field.
Well yes. Also, locking the subjects inside an anechoic chamber, with
a mess of menacing looking antennas, and being asked dumb questions,
might also have a similar effect.

That's probably why heart rate and blood pressure were not used.
I'd be kinda irritated, and if a chronic whiner, I'd be REALLY
nervous.


Also, SAR measurements were intended to be used for near field handset
exposure, not far field cell site exposure. Little of the cranial
exposure calculations shown in section 5 are valid for far field
exposure.

The procedures, selection criteria, and double bind exposure details
appear to be valid and well considered. I have some minor issues with
the types of tests and questions asked, but nothing worth detailing.

As near as I can decode the results in 11.5 Pg 59, there was a
statistically significant effect with UMTS (2100MHz) exposure with
both groups, and nothing else. Oddly, the report complains about the
"inadequate" RF exposure procedures employed by other researchers,
while I find their monitoring and measuring procedure to be equally
poor.

The Conclusions in Section 12 Pg 61 is weird. They found an effect at
2100 Mhz with 'well being' from group A (complainers) and what appears
to be me to be inconsistent effects with 900 and 1800 MHz. More
simply, they found a correlation at one frequency and both groups, but
everything else was just noise. Interestingly, they did NOT find any
increase in sensitivity among group A (complainers) as compared to
group B (non-complainers). My conclusion is roughly the same as
theirs. There MAY BE some correlation, but the results are far from
definitive.

Appendix E in the report has a good diagram that summarizes the
responses to the "wellness" questions.

here are the wellness questions (translated by google):
1 Dizziness or a sick feeling
2 Fatigue or lack of energy
3 Nervousness
4 Feeling of pressure or tightness in head or body
5 Quick and fast heartbeat without any reason (or pounding
stumps)
6 Headache
7 Restlessness or nervousness
8 Chest pain or breathing difficulties or
feel not enough air have
9 feel guilty
10 To feel annoyed
11 Muscle Pains
12 Rage
13 Difficulties with clear think
14 Being tense or excited feel
15 mind wanders
16 Parts of the body numbness or tingling feeling
17 Thoughts that do not eliminate pushing his
18 Parts of the body to feel weak
19 Being unable to concentrate
20 Easy your patience losses
21 Easily distracted
22 To feel hostility
23 Little attention

Iteresting that question 1 (dizziness) has such a significant
response, double that of the placebo. It does have relevance to the
original posters concerns. Questions 3,8,16,18,21 also have high
response compared to placebo. Other than q.21, they all refer to
physical sensations.
What I find odd is that the subject's responses at 2100Mhz are so
much stronger than 1800 MHz, even though they claimed to have set the
e-field to about 1V/m. Do you think that 20% higher frequency would
make so much difference?

Also, since the results were not conclusive and haven't been verified,
the "more research is necessary" catch phrase was invoked on Pg 62.



Drivel: I once proposed an experiment for RF exposure. Drag in the
usual collection of random bored volunteers and set them up for an RF
exposure test. Also, wire them up for an assortment of real time
physiological measurements. Have them answer some verbal wellness
questions to keep them occupied. After the test, correlate the
measurements with the questions and RF exposure. Yes, it's a lie
detector test. I did a crude dry run with two friends and found that
they were probably lying on about 25% the wellness questions. Since
there was no political or financial interest in validating subjective
RF exposure test methods, the full test was never performed. For a
list of projects that were funded, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners

That site has hours of laughs!

Paul G.

On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:17:56 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

In my youngah days, I could sometimes hear the high-pitched whine of
television receivers (horizontal scan, right? ~15kHz?). Not any more.

15.734 KHz or something like that. When I was about 12, I built a
Heathkit FM stereo multiplex adapter. I could hear the 19 Khz pilot
tone out of the tweeter. I couldn't figure out why nobody else could.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On 5/26/2010 7:34 PM Jeff Liebermann spake thus:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:17:56 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

In my youngah days, I could sometimes hear the high-pitched whine
of television receivers (horizontal scan, right? ~15kHz?). Not any
more.

15.734 KHz or something like that. When I was about 12, I built a
Heathkit FM stereo multiplex adapter. I could hear the 19 Khz pilot
tone out of the tweeter. I couldn't figure out why nobody else could.

Man, that's headache material!


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Thu, 27 May 2010 01:06:14 GMT, Paul G. wrote:

text extracted by ghostscript:

Good idea. Thanks.

quote:
"The subjects within group B do not experience complaints at any given
GSM exposure and at any instance that they are exposed. Therefore it
is necessary to perform the study by means of comparing the occurrence
of complaints between groups. As elucidated in Chapter 16 of our study
protocol [26], we have calculated that with a total sample size of 72
subjects we obtain a power of 80% to find statistically significant
results regarding reported complaints between the periods with
exposure and without exposure. The proposed sample size of the
experiment has been capable of statistically detecting a difference of
5% on the cognitive tests that have been used." end of quote

I can't make any sense of this!

That's what I was mumbling about. What it seems to say is that there
was absolutely no exposure data from Group B (non-complainers) with
GSM at either 900 or 1800. There was some data at 2100. Therefore,
since nobody in Group B felt anything, they'll just generate some
numbers based on the relative level of complaints between the two
groups. It's a little better than fabricating data, but not by much.
I never could figure out how they correlated their "wellness" scores.
Lots of detail on the procedure, but without the raw data to verify
that the proceedures were followed, they could have just cooked the
numbers and nobody could tell.

From what I can tell, they measured the field prior to the experiment,
and use the probe close in just to make sure the system was working:

Ok, that makes sense. Still, it's kinda dumb stuffing the probe
directly in front of the antennas, which is guaranteed to produce
weird measurements, affect the antenna patterns, and affect the
exposure levels.

Well yes. Also, locking the subjects inside an anechoic chamber, with
a mess of menacing looking antennas, and being asked dumb questions,
might also have a similar effect.

That's probably why heart rate and blood pressure were not used.
I'd be kinda irritated, and if a chronic whiner, I'd be REALLY
nervous.

If they had recorded those two, I could get a minimal indication if
the subject was lying on the wellness tests. They dropped it probably
to avoid correlating wellness scores with nervousness. If I were
doing it, I would probably dump the LCD touch screen, and run the test
orally, so I could use a voice stress analyzer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_stress_analysis

Appendix E in the report has a good diagram that summarizes the
responses to the "wellness" questions.

here are the wellness questions (translated by google):
1 Dizziness or a sick feeling
2 Fatigue or lack of energy
3 Nervousness
4 Feeling of pressure or tightness in head or body
5 Quick and fast heartbeat without any reason (or pounding
stumps)
6 Headache
7 Restlessness or nervousness
8 Chest pain or breathing difficulties or
feel not enough air have
9 feel guilty
10 To feel annoyed
11 Muscle Pains
12 Rage
13 Difficulties with clear think
14 Being tense or excited feel
15 mind wanders
16 Parts of the body numbness or tingling feeling
17 Thoughts that do not eliminate pushing his
18 Parts of the body to feel weak
19 Being unable to concentrate
20 Easy your patience losses
21 Easily distracted
22 To feel hostility
23 Little attention

I suffer from all the above even without RF exposure.

Iteresting that question 1 (dizziness) has such a significant
response, double that of the placebo. It does have relevance to the
original posters concerns. Questions 3,8,16,18,21 also have high
response compared to placebo. Other than q.21, they all refer to
physical sensations.

There's another problem. The list is too long. People taking such
tests always are in a rush (to get out of there). If the list is
presented on paper, one typically starts at the top, checks off a few
items, and then thinks "that's enough". If the list is presented on
an LCD screen, one at a time, where one is asked "Yes/No" to each of
the symptoms, the opposite happens. Near the end of the list, people
tend to feel guilty pushing no all the time, and throw in a few yes
answers for balance. Somewhere in my pile of papers is a study done
on such "check all that apply" lists, which demonstrates the effect.

Oddly, the most common real RF complaint I can recall is hearing tones
or noises. That makes some sense with the 217Hz GSM pulse rate. I've
seen ear rings respond to this. Also, an aluminum coated fire
fighters jacket. It's subtle, it's real, but it's not on the list.

What I think would have made more sense is to ask the participant
"What do they feel different from when they entered the room" and have
the researchers tabulate the results in general catagories.

What I find odd is that the subject's responses at 2100Mhz are so
much stronger than 1800 MHz, even though they claimed to have set the
e-field to about 1V/m. Do you think that 20% higher frequency would
make so much difference?

No difference, unless there are some resonance effects. I wonder if
any of the participants brought their own cell phones. It wasn't
mentioned in the test procedure. Table 6.1 shows the order of
frequency testing, which looks symmetrical in both time and block
order. Therefore, I don't think there would be a time effect (i.e.
we're late and I want to get out of here). Perhaps the Agilent RF
generator made different noises on 2100 MHz just outside the room. I
can't think of anything better.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:32:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

I think the safest approach is to avoid wireless as much as possible.
You know what I did, I made my home network from wireless to wired by
running Cat5e cable using a Gigabit Router. We still have 2.4 Ghz but
not for video streaming. But no 5 Ghz. I heard from others as well
regarding the havocs of 5 ghz band.

CAT5 or CAT6 wiring also works better. The best you can -typically-
do with wireless is:
http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi#Performance_and_Speed
802.11b 6 Mbit/sec
802.11g 25 Mbits/sec
802.11a 25 Mbits/sec
802.11a/g turbo 55 Mbits/sec
802.11n 150 Mbits/sec (the best I've seen)

However, with gigabit ethernet and CAT5/6 cable, you can easily do
about 900 Mbits/sec. That's a big plus when moving huge video files
or streaming uncompressed HD video.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:17:56 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

In my youngah days, I could sometimes hear the high-pitched whine of
television receivers (horizontal scan, right? ~15kHz?). Not any more.

15.734 KHz or something like that. When I was about 12, I built a
Heathkit FM stereo multiplex adapter. I could hear the 19 Khz pilot
tone out of the tweeter. I couldn't figure out why nobody else could.


It didn't have a 19 KHz filter in the output?


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:18:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:17:56 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

In my youngah days, I could sometimes hear the high-pitched whine of
television receivers (horizontal scan, right? ~15kHz?). Not any more.

15.734 KHz or something like that. When I was about 12, I built a
Heathkit FM stereo multiplex adapter. I could hear the 19 Khz pilot
tone out of the tweeter. I couldn't figure out why nobody else could.

It didn't have a 19 KHz filter in the output?

Yes, it did. However, I still could hear a tone, which only appeared
on stereo stations. My guess(tm) is that either:
1. I goofed in the assembly or wiring.
2. The filter was mistuned by me (highly likely as I recall tuning by
ear and breaking a few hex ferrite slugs).
3. The design had problems.
4. All the above.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:18:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:17:56 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

In my youngah days, I could sometimes hear the high-pitched whine of
television receivers (horizontal scan, right? ~15kHz?). Not any more.

15.734 KHz or something like that. When I was about 12, I built a
Heathkit FM stereo multiplex adapter. I could hear the 19 Khz pilot
tone out of the tweeter. I couldn't figure out why nobody else could.

It didn't have a 19 KHz filter in the output?

Yes, it did. However, I still could hear a tone, which only appeared
on stereo stations. My guess(tm) is that either:
1. I goofed in the assembly or wiring.
2. The filter was mistuned by me (highly likely as I recall tuning by
ear and breaking a few hex ferrite slugs).


Very few hobbyist had 'Ultrasonic Spectrum Analyzers' or 'Frequency
Selective Voltmeters' to properly align the trap. I've owned both, and
they are very handy tools.


3. The design had problems.
4. All the above.

Or:

5: It was a Heathkit. Not all of their designs were great.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.