Wireless electricity? It's here(edition.cnn.com) |
Wireless electricity? It's here(edition.cnn.com) |
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electronic_devices_a...
Here is an overview of studies of slightly stronger radiation from mobile phones:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_he...
The World Health Organization's conclusion is that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are "possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
Our brains run on electrical signals and are affected: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8340817/Mobile-...
And finally, the assumption of safety above is that all people are roughly the same in their sensitivity. There is already a class of people completely intolerant to electromagnetic radiation of the strength of cellphone signals and sometimes live in Faraday cages to avoid headaches:
http://www.foodsmatter.com/es/personal_histories/index_es_pe...
As we increase the power of the fields, this will cause more problems for a greater number of people. Do we really have the right to impose this on others for the sake of our own, slightly improved, "wireless charging convenience"??
Edit: Your sources are terrible. Source 1: wikipedia? quote "[T]here is no consistent evidence to date that WiFi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population." Source 2: wikipedia again? Lots of stuff in here, but not a single reproduced effect on health. Source 3: "WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes from radiofrequency fields exposure by 2012." No results on that page. Source 4: a small writeup in the Telegraph with no link to the actual study. " metabolism in the brain region closest to the antenna... was 7 per cent higher when the mobile was switched on." Cool, a result! No word on whether it was ever repeated, oh well. Source 5: a nice list of anecdotes.
All in all, the article leaves way to many technical questions unanswered, making it very hard to figure out whether or not there can be health impact. That being said, an MRI scanner also uses strong magnetic fields and there are tons of safety measures for that, but the fields are (as far as I can imagine) an order of magnitude stronger than what is used here.
http://www.ewg.org/cell-phone-radiation-damages-sperm-studie...
1. Wikipedia article specifically speaks about the power levels of wifi, which is what I stress also above, saying there's a big difference between the power level in charging a car and catching a wifi signal from an already-charged device. Moreover, here is the full context of your quote:
"In response to public concern, the WHO established the International EMF Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz. They have stated that although extensive research has been conducted into possible health effects of exposure to many parts of the frequency spectrum, all reviews conducted so far have indicated that, as long as exposures are below the limits recommended in the ICNIRP (1998) EMF guidelines, which cover the full frequency range from 0–300 GHz, such exposures do not produce any known adverse health effect. [2] Of course, by the very definition of such limits, stronger or more frequent exposures to EMF can be unhealthy, and in fact serve as the basis for electromagnetic weaponry.
International guidelines on exposure levels to microwave frequency EMFs such as ICNIRP limit the power levels of wireless devices and it is uncommon for wireless devices to exceed the guidelines. These guidelines only take into account thermal effects, as nonthermal effects have not been conclusively demonstrated.[3] The official stance of the British Health Protection Agency is that “[T]here is no consistent evidence to date that WiFi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population”, but also that “...it is a sensible precautionary approach...to keep the situation under ongoing review...”.[4]"
2. As I said cellphone radiation (particularly near cell towers) is higher than Wifi and has its own studies.
3. Not true, it is known that brain sites near the phone heat up and increase metabolic rate after cellphone use, studies in Scandinavia showed that people had brain tumors more frequently on the side they used the cellhone. Although to be fair, all these studies currently suffer from recall bias. A good overview is found here:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_jwk18huJI
4. The study was done by Volkow at the National Institute of Health and reported in Scientific American, Discover Magazine and other venues. This provides more info and a link to the study:
http://microwavenews.com/Volkow.html
5. These people exist and those are their stories. Their sensitivity to electromagnetic fields is a documented condition called EHS, which admittedly has not yet been recognized in double blind studies. My point is that as the power level grows, MORE people will experience the symptoms as people's sensitivity to electromagnetic fields is a contiuum.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitiv...