Are Wireless Networks Safe?

Wireless technologies have suddenly proliferated in the US in the past five years. WiFi, WiMax, Bluetooth, WLAN and a score of other wireless technologies have quietly exploded onto the scene almost everywhere. The first phase began with the advent of WiFi at Starbuck’s in the neighborhood and corporate wireless local area networks (WLAN) in the workplace. By 2001, consumers, largely due to the urging of broadband providers like SBC and Comcast, were feverishly hooking up wireless routers instead of the traditional wire-based Ethernet network in their homes.

The big idea was that mobile users could get connected anywhere: users could surf the Internet and send or receive email from almost any location, simply by activating the wireless detector on their laptop. Mobile users could finally be totally free! Web surfers suddenly found themselves un-tethered, freeing themselves from those nasty wires and the cost of installation of twisted pair wire throughout their home. This new era of individual empowerment raised a fervor of excitement not unlike the early days of the Internet.

But did anyone ask the question: “Are these wireless networks safe?” Most wireless networks operate at a frequency of 2.45 GHz, which means that these transmitters send out radio waves at 2,450,000,000 cycles per second. This is the same frequency at which microwave ovens operate. It turns out that this frequency is ideal for cooking food as it was discovered that 2.45 GHz uniquely excites water molecules to such an extent that it causes them to heat. This is called the thermal effect of radio frequency (RF) radiation. Like humans, most food has high concentrations of water and high-powered microwave ovens will cause food to heat at a very quick rate and voila – dinner’s cooked!

Explosion of Wireless Technologies

Wireless networks are only one example of the myriad of RF technologies which have exploded onto the scene over the past fifteen years. Just since 2003, one-hundred twenty-five thousand new cell towers have been constructed. The number of cellular phones in the US has exploded from 10 million to more than 150 million in the US. Cordless phones, microwave ovens, security alarms, wireless computers and peripherals, remote control toys, baby monitors and even pest devices are standard appliances in the typical US household. Other wireless technologies like blue tooth, GPS, satellite, radar, AM/ FM radio and police/fire/ government emergency communications increasingly fill the airwaves all around us. All of these are examples of RF technologies, which share a common heritage, as they generate radio waves across a frequency spectrum from 300 Hertz (cycles per second) to 300 Gigahertz (billions of cycles per second). Whereas all these technologies deploy various intensities and frequencies, when evaluating the safety of wireless networks, they can not be ignored. Besides the complex interaction of these many frequencies, the sheer numbers and intensities must raise concerns. Even more troubling: could the current implementation of WiFi, which promises to add another 100,000 towers nationally, be a tipping point for the public health?

The Advent of Electrosmog

Using data from the World Health Organization (WHO), experts estimate that the intensity (power density) of radiofrequency (RF) fields in the average US community has risen by between 50-100 times just since the year 2000. Experts are calling this radio frequency proliferation – electrosmog. Many are now beginning to ponder the larger question: “Is it really safe to be continuously bombarded by the millions of tiny invisible waves, arising from the rising levels of electrosmog, as a result of all these RF fields?

New Waves

During three billion years of human evolution humans have never before experienced exposures to these man-made frequencies until the late twentieth century. Now, in any US town, thousands of wireless transmitters create radiofrequency (RF) fields, or microwave (MW) signals, which seamlessly pass through our bodies, potentially disrupting the finely-evolved electromagnetic human organism. Until now humans have only been exposed to naturally occurring electromagnetic fields (EMF), which range from 0 to 30 hertz. These extra low frequencies (ELF) prove critical to biological function, cellular growth, endocrine function, cancer protection and to the integrity of the central nervous system. How will the new waves affect our core biological functions?

Game Change: Non-Thermal Bioeffects

If the only biological effects from RF-fields arose from the thermal characteristics (heating of tissue) of radio waves, then the story would be simple and our safety concerns about wireless networks put to rest. However, the story is not so neat and simple. Since the early years of RF adoption when it comes to pubic safety, the FCC, which is chartered with regulating RF and Microwave transmitters in the US, has been singularly concerned about the ‘thermal effects’ of RF radiation. Meanwhile hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies have demonstrated a variety of biological effects at ‘non-thermal’ levels. Yet, the FCC and more generally, the US Federal Government have been staunchly dismissive. US Federal regulators remain focused only on thermal hazards, where there is a universal consensus that RF radiation can cause significant biological damage at levels above 4 Watts per Kilogram squared (4 Watt/ Kilogram2). As a result, both the FDA and FCC have adopted guidelines for cell phones and other wireless technologies which limit the extent of heating to the brain, or body tissue. Exposure limits for humans, which was calculated by engineers (not scientists, or doctors) in 1985 was based on ensuring that brain and whole body tissue would not heat more than one degree per hour. For instance, the standard for the head exposure from cell phones, which is called the Specific Absorption Ratio (SAR) is currently set in the US at 1.6 Watts/ Kilogram2. Thus those using a cell phone, pressed to the head are hypothetically protected by this standard from the ‘thermal effects’ of RF radiation – at least if they don’t use a cell phone for more than one hour continuously.

But while the FCC has doggedly clung to this narrow scientific view of RF thermal effects, which was originally conceived and propagated in the 1950s on behalf of the US Navy by Herman Schwan, a former Nazi physicist, the science has moved on. Intrepid and independent scientists like Ross Adey, Neil Cherry, John Goldsmith, Robert Becker, Anna Liakouris, Stanislaw Szmigielski, David Savitz, Henry Lai, Nancy Wertheimer and dozens of others have produced a powerful body of literature which stiffly challenges Schwan’s outdated, theoretical construct for RF/ EMF biological effects.

Exposure Standards for Wireless Networks: What Standards?

What about wireless networks? What are the exposure standards for the continuous waves transmitted by WiFi and home-based wireless routers? Surprisingly, the US government admits that it still has never actually set specific US standards for exposures to RF radiation from any kind of wireless transmitter. Instead the FCC, which is responsible for regulating the millions of US-based RF/ Microwave transmitters, claims to have only ‘adopted’ standards, for human exposure. Moreover the few standards the FCC adopted only apply to a select group of RF transmitters, which do not include low-level wireless networks. Surprisingly these standards were developed by two non-governmental organizations neither of which is noted for having expertise in biological sciences, or public health: the IEEE (International organization of Electrical Engineers) and ANSI (a technology standards organization). The current standard adopted for regulating human RF-exposure from cellular phone transmitters recommended by the IEEE, which is a membership-only, international body of engineers (not doctors, or biologists) is 580 microwatts/ cm2. This standard stands among the highest in the world and is more than 50 to 100 times higher than the public health protection found in Russia (10 microwatts), China (6 microwatts), Italy (5 microwatts) as well as dozens of other countries. Not surprisingly the US standard is so far above typical WiFi transmitters that the FCC classifies WiFi and wireless routers as unregulated transmitters. The FCC states explicitly that it has no interest in these RF-devices unless they are causing interference with electronic equipment. According to an FCC spokesperson, human health is not even a consideration. One wonders why the US has chosen one internationally-based and two non-government organizations with little or no competency in the biological sciences, and both of which have potential conflicts of interest for setting US exposure standards for RF/ Microwave radiation.

Beyond Intensity: the Broader Wireless Threat

The total extent of the wireless threat may be even more daunting. Many scientists have found that the intensity (power density) of RF fields may pose only one facet of many potential hazards caused by these invisible radio waves. The complexity of RF-fields and their interaction is driving researchers to examine a variety of possible health impacts arising from 1) unique frequency windows; 2) signal modulation (combined signals); 3) pulsed waves; 4) the huge variety of simultaneous frequencies; and 5) long-term, continuous human exposures. A cadre of scientists has demonstrated increased biological impact on humans, which is frequency-specific. For instance, one signal sent at 300 hertz might be relatively safe, but another at 2.45 Gigahertz could be devastating to a number of human biological systems. Scientists, who have studied various ‘windows’ of frequency, have observed varying impacts on melatonin production, triglycerides, incidence of cancer, chromosome/ DNA damage and various brain chemistry changes.

Other researchers believe modulated (combined frequencies) may hold the key to bioeffects from wireless; while others point to the unique hazards from pulsed signals. Still other researchers are concerned about the impact of the wide-variety of radio frequencies to which we are now all exposed. At any given moment, most of us living near the coast are being simultaneously penetrated by dozens of frequencies, including military radar (2-7 Gigahertz), AC electricity (60 Hertz), cellular networks (900 Megahertz, 1800-1900 Megahertz plus 217 Hertz modulated signal), satellite (3-15 Gigahertz), cordless phones (2.45 and 5.6 Gigahertz) and now WiFi at 2.45 Gigahertz. The full implications of the burgeoning electrosmog are still poorly understood.

Finally, what about the health impact of wireless networks transmitting continuously, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and fifty-two weeks a year? Shockingly, neither the FCC, nor any US agency has ever set, or adopted standards about the safe duration of exposures. This is important as dozens of peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated a ‘dose-relationship’ of RF radiation on humans. That is, scientists have established that there is a cumulative effect from wireless radiation which depends in part on the length of the exposure as well as the intensity of the field. This means that even though any given wireless transmitter may emit very low-levels of RF radiation, falling well within Federal standards, chronic-long term health effects from continuous exposures may unfold due to the total dose of radiation from the signal, which is dependent upon the duration of the exposure. When the original exposure standards for RF were set back in the 1980’s, there were only a handful of human (epidemiological) studies, addressing the long-term effects of RF/ Microwave radiation. However, by the late 1990’s dozens of studies outlining the direct health effects of wireless radiation had raised a warning on RF fields, even at very low levels. Still the US Federal Government has failed to revise standards, nor notify the public of the emerging science.

Scientists and Physicians Challenge “Received Wisdom”

While the US Government continues to dismiss biological impacts from low-level RF fields, thousands of scientists and medical professionals strongly challenge their view that the only effect from RF is the thermal effect. In direct opposition to the ‘received wisdom’ of the 1950s theories of classical physicists, the emerging scientific evidence is staggering and the signs are everywhere. There are now hundreds of epidemiological studies (human studies), in vivo (animal studies) and in vitro studies (laboratory) that show substantial biological effects from RF fields even at very low levels (far below those levels that cause heating). There is also a burgeoning body of anecdotal evidence from the medical community. The Freiburger Appeal which was generated by concerned physicians and medical professionals and signed by more than 30,000 in Germany and Austria explicitly links cell phones, cordless phones, cell towers and other radiofrequency technologies with the following health impacts:

• Learning, concentration, and behavioral disorders (attention deficit disorder, ADD)

• Extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, ever harder to influence with medications

• Heart rhythm disorders

• Heart attacks and strokes among an increasingly younger population

• Brain-degenerative diseases (e.g. Alzheimer‘s) and epilepsy

• Cancerous afflictions: leukemia, brain tumors

The EPA Raises the Alarm

In 1990 the EPA raised serious concerns about the biological impacts of electromagnetic fields and low-level RF radiation and even issued a draft resolution proposing the classification of RF/ EMF fields as a probable human carcinogen. The 156 page report titled, “An Evaluation of the Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)” was circulated within other government agencies and raised tremendous controversy with industry groups. The implications of having RF radiation classified as a probable carcinogen lay the US Government wide open to tremendous liability and possible lawsuits from the hundreds of thousands of military personnel who suffered “Gulf War” type symptoms, which have been linked to radar, microwave communications and RF weapons used in every conflict since the Korean War. Sources say that the EPA resolution was ultimately silenced by officials in the White House, apparently on the basis that such a classification of RF/ EMF as a class B1 carcinogen would “scare the American public.” The EPA draft resolution was ultimately leaked to the press but due to lack of media interest and public attention, the public health warning fell on deaf ears, thus opening the doors for the rapid proliferation of wireless technologies and growth of then fledgling cellular industry to a more than $1 Trillion juggernaut.

Links to Cancer and Central Nervous System Impacts

There is now evidence of clear links between RF fields and a plethora of mystery illnesses that have exploded onto the scene since 1980, including central nervous system (CNS) disorders like Alzheimer’s, Autism, ADD and depression, as well as seven ‘new age’ cancers. The explosion of cancers which have escalated over the past 20-30 years has long concerned public health officials and researchers but there is now evidence that most have apparently been focusing in the wrong direction. Scientists have long received generous funding to discover cancer types and mechanisms of “initiators” like chemicals, sunrays, viruses and fungi, but few public research dollars have been deployed to look at the “promoter’ effects RF radiation. Led by research pioneers Robert Becker, M. A. Visintainer Jack Hasson, there is now ample research which confirms the prolific growth-enhancing capabilities of RF radiation. While RF radiation has been used successfully to promote regeneration of bone mass and cellular division, it has also been shown to cause rapid growth of tumors, both benign and cancerous. Some predict RF radiation is so effective at promoting cellular growth that it might ultimately turn out to be the ‘universal promoter’ of cancer growth.

RF-Fields Roles in Cancer: Promoter, Initiator and Traitor

Besides its promoting effect, RF radiation also plays a crucial role in both initiating cancer and severely undermining the body’s ability to fight cancer. For instance, RF fields have been shown to interfere with the pineal gland which regulates hormone production and distribution. Apparently, continuous exposure to low-level RF fields generated by WiFi, cellular networks, cordless phones, baby monitors and security devices disrupts the production of melatonin and serotonin by the pineal gland when we sleep. While serotonin helps regulate our moods and such deficiencies presage depression and unexplained mood shifts, Melatonin helps regulate our Circadian rhythms, which are crucial to regulating our internal biological clock. Yet even more critical is melatonin’s role as a chief scavenger of free-radicals. These aberrant invaders are known to cause cellular damage and accumulate, creating pre-cancerous conditions. Without sufficient melatonin production, the body loses a chief defense against the accumulation of precancerous cells, which includes damaged cells, chromosomes and DNA material. Thus in the war against cancer, RF-fields act like at traitor, undermining our inherent defenses against cancer.

RF radiation also plays a third role in the cancer equation. Studies show that even low-level RF fields damage DNA and break chromosomes. As such, these materials accumulate in the body, acting as cancer-initiators and actively create a pre-cancerous environment for future cancer growth. In sum, RF fields play three crucial roles in the development of cancers. Studies show they 1) initiate; 2) promote; and 3) undermine the body’s cancer defenses.

Since 1970 more than three-hundred scientific studies have painstakingly outlined the extent of the threat embodied by a wide range of biological effects unrelated to the thermal effect of RF fields. The health impacts span across key human systems: neurological, cardiovascular, reproductive and the immune system. Further biological impacts which deal with disruptions and damage at the cellular/ molecular level are also outlined. Finally links to a broad range of cancers are implicated by the science. Here is the overview of key health and disease impacts outlined by internationally-recognized scientists, showing links from exposures to RF/ Microwave radiation:

Cancer

• Leukemia

• Brain Tumor

• Breast Cancer

• Prostate Cancer

• Testicular Cancer

• Melanoma

• Lymphoma

• Eye, Cervical, Pharynx, Esophagus,

Relevant Citations: (Robinette et al (1980), Milham (1985, 1988), Szmigielski (1996), Hocking et al (1996), Dolk et al, (1997 a, b), Beale et al (1996), Grayson (1996), Thomas et al (1987), Lilienfeld et al. (1978), Zaret (1989), Davis and Mostoff (1993), Hayes et al. (1990), Tynes et al. (1996), Cantor et al. (1995), Goldsmith (1997); Repacholi et al. (1997); Stang et al. (2001); Hardell et al (2000); Muscat et al. (2000); Johansen et al (2001); Prausnitz and Susskind (1962); Szmigielski et al. (1988); Maskarinec et al. (1993); Tarone, Hayes et al. (1991); Bullman et al. (1994); Lin et al. (1985); Garland et al. (1990) and Chou et al. (1992)

Neurological Activity

• Neurodegenerative diseases: Alzheimer’s, ALS, MS

• Cognitive: alters brain activity, including memory loss, headaches, concentration

• Increased permeability of blood-brain barrier

• Increase suicide risk

• Microwave Syndrome: nausea,

• Impairs sleep and learning; alters reaction times

Relevant Citations: Gordon (1966), Deroche (1971), Moscovici et al. (1974), Lilienfeld et al. (1978), Shandala et al. (1979), Forman et al. (1982), Frey (1998), Frey et al (1975), Alberts (19767, 1978),Oscar and Hawkins (1977); Von Kiltzing (1995); Mann and Roschkle (1996); Bordley et al. (1999); Huber et al. (2000); Preece et al. (1999); Eulitz et al. (1998); Freude et al. (1998); Hladky et al (1999); Koivisto et al. (2000); Krause et al. (2000); Lebedeva et al. (2000); Lamble et al. (1999); Mild et al. (1998); Hocking (1998); Baranski and Czerski (1976); Johnson-Liakouris (1998); Hardell (1999); Frey et al (1975); Alberts (1977, 1978); Oscar and Hawkins (1977); Salford et al (1994); Baris and Armstrong (1990); Perry et al (1991); Van Wijngaareden et al (2000); Silverman (1973).

Reproductive Activity

• Increases miscarriages and congenital abnormalities

• Reduced fertility

• Increased fetal/ embryo lethality

• Reduces sperm counts

• Impacts plant growth and cellular structure

Relevant Citations: Weyandt et al. (1996); Kallen et al. (1982); Larsen et al. (1991); Ouellet-Hellstgrom and Stewart (1993); Flaherty (1994); Magone (1996); Balodis et al. (1996); Brown-Woodman et al. (1989); Nawrot, McRee and Galvin (1985); Magras and Xenos (1997)

Cardiovascular Activity

• Increased Heart Disease and heart attack mortality

• Significantly increases blood pressure

• Alters heart rhythm

Relevant Citations: Braune et al. (1998); Bortkeiwtcz et al. (1995, 1996, 1997); Szmegielski et al (1998); Forman et al (1986); Hamburger, Logue and Silverman (1983); Savitz et al (1999).

Immune System

• Impairs immune system

Quan et al (1992); Dmoch and Moszczynski (1998); Bruvere et al. (1998)

Hormonal/ Genotoxic

• Breaks DNA strands

• Chromosome aberrations (dose response); cell proliferation

• Calcium ions significantly altered;

• Reduces melatonin production; enhances free radicals

• Changes in thyroid, pancreas, ovaries, testes and hormonal balance

• Doubles c-fos gene activity (a proto-oncogene); increases tumor necrosis factor

• Reduces pituitary production of Thyrotropin (thyroid stimulating hormone)

Relevant Citations: Carlo and Schram (2001); Tice, Hook and McRee; Ali and Behari (1994); Lai and Singh (1995, 1996, 1997); Phillips et al. (1992, 1993); Balcer-Kubiczek and Harrison (1991); Garaj-Vrhovac et al. (1991); Mattel et al. (1999); Byus et al. (1988); Litovitz et al. (1997); Phelan et al. (1992); Burch et al. (1997, 1998); de Seze et al (1999); Scarfi, Lioi, d’Ambrosio et al (1996); d’Amrosio et al. (1995);

If we can trust the science and the observations of the medical community, the evidence is definitely there to call into question the safety of wireless networks. A broad body of scientific and anecdotal evidence concludes that continuous human exposure to RF-fields from wireless technologies is not safe. Moreover, there is not one scientific study that refutes this. Just how big the public health threat might be is still unknown, as the Federal Government mysteriously stopped funding the science on the perils of RF-radiation by 2000. Yet the proliferation of abnormal, man-made radio waves, invisibly pouring out from millions of microwave transmitters, are clearly interfering with the electromagnetic integrity of the finely-evolved human organism. Science has shown that these RF-fields are disrupting our body chemistry at the cellular level and across multiple systems. Yet most of us still aren’t making the connection.

Why aren’t we making the Connection?

One explanation is that the causal mechanism of harm from RF/ Microwave radiation is invisible and time delayed. The health impacts are insidious and invisibly buried in the morass of modern health issues, for which the cause of each commands a myriad of alternative explanations. Furthermore, cynics resist the idea of a simple, comprehensive explanation to the meteoric rise of breast cancer, melanoma, cognitive effects, unexplained anxiety, depression, Alzheimer’s, Autism, ADD, suicide, Leukemia, Lymphoma and other ‘new age’ illnesses, all of which are predicted by the science on RF-fields and closely parallel the explosion of the mass commercial adoption of wireless technologies beginning in the 1980s. Yet there is overwhelming scientific research that supports this view.

Impediments to Action and Public Awareness

While the evidence piles up, two powerful impediments cruelly block governmental action and public awareness. First, the stakes are unimaginatively high for both government and industry admitting bioeffects and human hazards from ambient RF-fields. By acknowledging the presence of bioeffects from non-thermal RF-fields the US Government stands to lose in at least three ways:

1) The US Federal Government opens itself to huge financial liabilities from the victims and families, who have suffered disease and health impacts like ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ from occupational exposures to radar, sonar, microwave communications and RF-weapons in the field of battle, intelligence gathering or other government-related activities, including national security.

2) The US Federal Government opens itself to profound criticism for failing to protect the general public, as many of the scientific studies demonstrating human hazards were published before long before 1995. Thus the Federal Government has knowingly put the US public at risk for more than ten years, during which we have just undergone the most prolific build-out of commercial wireless infrastructure in the history of civilization.

3) In the event that a moratorium is ultimately established on wireless build-out, or a roll-back of technologies, triggered by more stringent regulation takes place, either of which might be prescribed for adequate public protection, the US Federal Government would both reap the blame for any negative economic impacts and find itself potentially overwhelmed by a general economic instability in the US.

The stakes may be even higher for the wireless industry. Estimates place the value of wireless industry and ancillary technologies at more than $1 Trillion worldwide. The US is a major player in this sector and US Venture Capitalists have allocated billions to the future expansion of the wireless revolution. Any public admission of health impacts from these technologies could be disastrous.

The second major impediment to action and public awareness is the insider’s perception that the science is divided. While experts on the human organism in the biological sciences and epidemiological disciplines widely agree with the RF-driven bioeffects; scientists in the physical sciences like engineers and many physicists staunchly deny non-thermal bioeffects, mainly based on rigid theories borne in classical physics. Yet, these theories depend upon outdated mechanistic assumptions of how the human organism operates and run contrary to emerging science around the subtle and complex energetic capabilities of humans and other animals.

Meanwhile as scientists square off in the ivory tower, carrying on their arcane, academic debate of theory versus observed science, the general public remains uninformed and unaware – and at risk! The problem is that no one is warning us of the potential harm from wireless technologies and as a result we aren’t on the lookout for the RF-field connection to our ailments. While most of us believe that we are being protected, the Federal Government is conflicted and paralyzed.

The Federal Government is Conflicted

There has been profound conflict on the RF-issue within the US Federal Government for some time. At various times the FDA, EPA and other agencies like the NIEH (National Institutes of Environmental Health) have tried to sound the alarm and warn the public of the hazards of RF/ EMF fields. But the FCC, the US Military, the State Department, the White House and even the US Congress have been intrepid, by quickly stamping out any acknowledgement of the RF public health threat, whenever there is a glimmer of arising scientific evidence to the contrary. In this regard the US Government has shown itself to be eerily methodical and highly efficient at obscuring its actions from the public. (See the addendum to this missive for a brief history).

As a result of the internal conflict combined with a strong propensity to embrace the status quo, the Federal Government has doggedly rejected the powerful body of emerging scientific evidence on RF-fields, while doggedly hanging onto the received wisdom of classical physicists, which denies any possibility of non-thermal RF-bioeffects. As long as the science can be painted as somewhat divided, the FCC and other regulatory agencies can indefinitely play the ‘rope a dope’ game, which is evident by their continued failure to revise standards in light of new science.

For the telecommunication sector, soaring corporate profits, or worse: the very survival of the burgeoning commercial wireless industry could be at stake if the Federal Government recognizes RF health impacts. One can easily speculate as to what the strategy and response to studies identifying ‘potential health effects,’ might be from powerful interest groups like the wireless providers, manufacturers, content providers, computing companies, defense contractors or utilities? How will Verizon, T-Mobile, Cingular, ATT, Sprint, Apple, Motorola, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Cisco, Intel, Sony, or Microsoft react to the possibility of human health effects from wireless technologies? If history provides any insight, the story of the CTIA and George Carlo provides a chilling glimpse.

In response to a lawsuit in 1993 brought by David Reynard of Tampa, Florida against the cellular industry for a fatal brain cancer as a result from cellular phone usage, a consortium of cellular telecommunications companies, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) announced a $25 million study to assure the American public of the safety of cell phones. The lawsuit had been widely publicized on The Larry King Show on CNN. The CTIA chose Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist at George Washington University, who had previously sided with industry on two major controversial issues. Earlier, Carlo concluded there was minimal public-health risk for breast implants produced by Dow Corning. Previously, on behalf of the Chlorine Institute, he had concluded low levels of dioxin did not endanger the public health.

In 1999, after nearly $29 million of funding, George Carlo shockingly began to speak out on the disturbing findings of multiple studies, which supported biological impacts from cell phones like DNA damage and cancer links. The CTIA soon withdrew funding and the project was quickly scrapped. The naïve Carlo was caught off guard, as he had innocently believed that the industry really did want to know the truth about the extent of cell phone health impacts. Ultimately George Carlo’s reputation was greatly tarnished. He found himself strangely undermined with the press and within the academic communities and completely ostracized from the CTIA. Dozens of studies to which Carlo had committed CTIA resources were shut down, and a potentially-rich body of science, which promised to confirm the hazards of wireless radiation were lost forever due to lack of funding. It was later discovered, millions of dollars on public relations, spin and information/ damage control – and not the science. It is believed that the wireless industry still maintains a war chest for PR and disinformation purposes in order to control public perception on possible ‘bombshells’ on health effects.

Of course, damage-control is relatively seamless for the wireless industry. Industry groups like CTIA can simply point to the fact that their members are fully complying with the FCC’s ‘adopted’ standards (as weak as they may be), while deftly wielding the shield of ‘scientific ambiguity’, inculcated by the never-ending, scientific debate on non-thermal effects of RF-radiation. Such ambiguity empowers well funded PR organizations to douse raging fires of truth with bucketfuls of confusion and doubt. Sadly, the self-preserving FCC will echo the doubt. In the end, scientific evidence disappears into ashes almost as soon as it appears.

Early Warnings

For those not already convinced of the gathering public health threat from WiFi and other wireless technologies, validation may be close at hand. The public health experiment is already on and signs of early warnings may soon be surfacing. Dozens of US cities have already deployed WiFi and we will soon witness the impacts first hand, if we take the time to look. For most of the public, diseases, including most cancers, Alzheimer’s, heart attacks and strokes, may take years to develop. But three highly vulnerable groups stand to show health effects early on. Children, pregnant women and those with weakened immune and central nervous systems will likely be among the first to experience significant tangible bio-effects from continuous exposures to WiFi.

Children are the most vulnerable because their brains and skulls are not yet fully developed and scientific studies have shown this makes children able to absorb more RF radiation than adults. Also, children’s head size and many of their internal organs approximate the 2” to 8” wave size of the more popular microwave frequencies including classic cellular (900 Megahertz), PCS, (cell phones at 1800 to 1900 Megahertz), and WiFi at 2.45 Gigahertz. When radio waves interact with objects that approximate the amplitude (height) of a radio wave, there is an enhanced resonance-effect, which is thought to magnify the absorption potential of the microwaves. Children will also be among the first to show increases in cancer, as leukemia is one cancer that can develop quickly and children are at the highest risk. Finally, there will be other signs early-on that parents and teachers will be able to observe. Lack of concentration, tendencies toward ADD and hyper-activity are just a few of the many cognitive impacts predicted by the science on RF-fields. If we carefully watch towns like Mountain View, California, and track the incidence of these ailments, prior science predicts that we may observe as much as a doubling of leukemia, hyperactivity, ADD, concentration and other cognitive issues in children within just two years.

Pregnant women and their unborn children will be also rank among the vanguard to be affected by massive WiFi deployments. Dozens of studies across the RF frequency spectrum, ranging from 60 Hertz to 3 Gigahertz, show profound increases in miscarriage and birth defects from RF fields. Two studies of physiotherapists showed an increase in miscarriage for those exposed for only a few minutes a day to RF-fields by as much as eight times the expected rate. What could complicate the analysis will be the fact that most towns and cities with WiFi deployments, already have sophisticated and widespread cellular infrastructure in place. Thus it may be difficult to tease out the ongoing effects from the existing RF-fields, except for those few who live within areas with spotty cell coverage and who do not already have a home-based wireless network. If municipalities act quickly to identify these potential control groups before WiFi deployments have matured, the impacts of WiFi on the public health can be isolated. Otherwise, just like watching slowly boiling frogs, WiFi bioeffects may be lost in the morass of the wireless proliferation.

Finally, those who already have electromagnetic sensitivities or immune disorders like Chronic Fatigue, MS, AIDS or HIV, will likely experience immediate effects. One group at significant risk is those with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS). EHS is an emerging syndrome brought about by exposures to electromagnetic and RF-fields. EHS is currently a well-kept secret, which may affect as much as 3% of the population in developed nations.

Sources say that millions of people worldwide may have fallen sick from exposure to the burgeoning load from RF/ EMF fields, which have been proliferating since the early 1990’s from wireless technology deployments like cellular, cordless and WiFi. In Sweden, where Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) is closely watched and is now recognized as a medical disability, it is estimated that nearly 5% of the population may be sensitive to RF/ EMF fields. More than 300,000 are now disabled from these radio waves in Sweden.

One estimate pegs millions of Americans as electromagnetically sensitive with as many as one million already disabled by these invisible radio waves, which were previously thought to be harmless. The affected suffer a wide range of symptoms, including memory loss, severe headaches and head pain, skin rashes, disorientation, joint pain, nausea, lack of concentration and other cognitive effects when exposed to RF fields and electromagnetic fields (EMF), which are now found almost everywhere. A 1999 study of electromagnetic sensitivities revealed that about one million Californians self-reported sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, while some 125,000 claimed to be disabled from the pernicious waves. Extrapolating those numbers to the US population would mean there may be as many as nine million electro-sensitive people and about one million Americans disabled by the effects. The disabled are clearly victims of EHS. Like the proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’, millions who suffer debilitating effects from RF/ Microwave fields may be silently signaling the greater public health impact that may already be afoot.

While WiFi deployments stand to make refugees out of the EHS sufferers, immune-challenged people may also experience profound declines in their health. Studies of Chronic Fatigue, chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities are consistently finding links between both the central nervous system (CNS) impacts and suppression of the immune system. Even HIV and AIDS patients, who have so far miraculously staved off these diseases with modern anti-viral drugs, may soon find their immune systems overwhelmed by RF-fields, which have been shown to suppress T-Cell production and disrupt immune systems in general.

So we return to the question, “Are Wireless Networks Safe?” The FCC was the Federal agency empowered by Congress to be the authority on making this judgment according to the Environmental Protection Act of 1969. As a result, the general public mostly believes that we are indeed being adequately protected from health impacts, arising from wireless technologies. By inference, most assume that these RF/ Microwave technologies must be safe. Yet it is doubtful that the public is fully aware of the FCC’s spotty track-record in protecting our public health. Surprisingly, the FCC has not only consistently refused to accept the evidence put forth by more than 500 scientists, which enumerate dozens of bioeffects arising from non-thermal levels of RF-radiation; but has made no effort to validate, or refute the findings through replication studies. Moreover, once the FCC had adopted the narrow, thermal-effects only view of RF-fields back in the 1980’s, they have never once revised that view, which has caused them to overlook the possible impacts from the complexity of low-level RF-fields and their interactions such as the:

• emergence of unique lethal frequency windows within the RF-spectrum

• unique bioeffects from modulated signals (combined signals), coupling and reflectivity

• increased bioeffects from pulsed waves versus continuous waveforms

• overall health impacts from the sheer numbers of and the huge variety of exposures to simultaneous RF frequencies

• impact of long term, continuous human exposures

One wonders if the FCC is the right agency to be watching out for us and making determinations on behalf of the US public health. Besides the fact that the FCC is largely made up of engineers and bureaucrats, and not biologists, or medical professionals, this quote from the FCC’s website is indicative of the level of their diligence in protecting the public’s health from RF-exposures:

The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to evaluate the effect of emissions from FCC-regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment. At the present time there is no federally-mandated radio frequency (RF) exposure standard. However, several non-government organizations, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) have issued recommendations for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields.

The internet and WiFi has become a necessary tool of living in this day and age. Those who say otherwise are in denial.

Given the importance of the internet, are you people insane? You actually want a government department running our access to the internet? Have you seen how a city, state, or federal office is run? Given the incredible speed at which technology becomes obsolete and the complexity of a city wide network, you actually want a beaurocracy and politicians to manage our web access? Running, upgrading, and maintaining a network requires some of the smartest and highest paid people. You will not find quality professionals working at civil service salaries when silicon valley is down the street. Maintaining such a network also requires fast response times to address the complex and often unpredictable issues that may arise such a large network. A government beaurocracy do not do anything fast.

But most important of all, I do not trust the government with so much access to our data, especially now that we see how expendable our civil rights are in the name of national security. At worst, Google and Earthlink just wants my money.

Instead of always blindly fighting big business, think about the alternative.

Networks can be technically designed in ways that don't actively track usage. For location privacy, its the difference between carrying a map and guidebook around or wearing a tracking device - push vs pull. Libraries have a great tradition in our society of protecting the privacy of their patrons. Also governments don't have the same incentive to monetize the privacy of their citizens in the way for profit groups have.

Always blindly accepting the first solution provided doesn't make good sense in business or policy. San Francisco can easily do much better than what has been offered by EarthLink and Google.

We are in the beginnings of a new information society - let's direct our destiny.

Let’s look at some of the alternatives of a city owned and managed WiFi network. For example, using the cities fiber infrastructure; first, we have to assume there is fiber in front of everyone’s home and that’s a pretty big assumption.

But let’s play along for a minute, consider that someone is going to have to come to every house and somehow get the fiber from the utility pole (or under the ground) to inside your home.

You also need to consider that having fiber inside your house does you no good unless you have equipment to plug into it. The last time I looked; my TV, phone and computer does not accept fiber connections. Nor am I willing to replace or augment them so they can handle a fiber connection.

That means the city (or someone) will need to convert the fiber to regular cable using what’s called a “transceiver”. I should also mention that this fiber is called “long range” fiber. In other words, it can go very long distances. Do you know what means? I do, in short it costs a lot of money.

What will it cost the city to get the fiber from utility pole to your house? Before I even guess, you might be asking yourself why our current phone company has not moved forward with this. I can guess why, it’ll cost north of $2000 dollars per household. With 329,000 households in San Francisco, that’s $658,000,000.

Phone companies have conducted fiber studies in select small towns through out the country for the past two decades. I have yet to see one phone company commit to move forward.

One last thing about fiber, like any other cable, you’re tethered to it. This means you will not be free to leave your home and continue surfing the Internet. If you want to get to the Internet, you’ll be stuck as I am right now writing this.

So let me get this straight, Mayor Newsome cut a deal where every San Francisco resident gets free WiFi service, but apparently this is not good enough. I don’t know about you, but I pay north of $40 dollars a month and I think free is a better option.

Rose thinks we should put the brakes on this plan and evaluate other alternatives. What alternatives? Who is going to foot the bill for city wide WiFi network, the city? As someone else pointed out in the comments, do you want the city to run this network? Do you really think the city can do a better job then a company whose core business it is to provide Internet access?

According to this article, Supervisor Jake McGoldrick thinks that EarthLink is not allowed to make money with advertising. I’m sorry Mr. McGoldrick, but just how do you propose they make money? Apparently EarthLink is footing the bill, I think they should be entitled to make money any way they can. Especially if I get FREE Internet access.

Didn’t the city already put out a bid for WiFi network? I have no idea how many companies responded but I would guess that many did. I suppose EarthLink and Google we’re chosen because they offered the best deal.

With respect to EarthLink and Google obtaining my information and targeting ads at me. I don’t really care! Let them tell me where I can get a decent meal around the block from where ever I happen to be. Please tell me there is a sale going on a local dry cleaner so I can save a little cash. I would love to know that a local restaurant just opened up a few blocks away.

In my opinion, Bruce Wolfe needs an education in technology and more importantly economics. Mr. Wolfe points out that Google would not install a WiFi only solution for its residents (if it were a city). Google (Headquartered in Mountain View) did in fact roll out a WiFi solution for all Mountain View residents. And guess what, I here it’s free.

Mr. Wolfe points out that Fiber is a better solution then phone lines. That last time I checked, most phone lines run “on” fiber. In fact, most telecommunications infrastructure is a combination of phone lines (copper) and Fiber. I have no idea what type of lines Google or EarthLink may use, but it really does not matter. Phone lines (copper) have been around for over a hundred years, now if that’s not reliable, robust proven technology, then I don’t know what is.

This article left out the opportune word, FREE. In other words, every San Francisco resident will have Internet access for free. So I guess I don’t understand what the problem is.

Re: wiring the city for fiber, my only point is that WiFi won't reach everywhere (highrises, basements), won't be free to everyone (unless you want low speed) and may not be the only or the best technology for the future. Will most homes have fiber connections in 10, 15, 20 years? I don't know. Will there be costs of bringing it into the home? Sure (as there was with coaxial cable when the city was wired with that 25 years ago). I think this is basic civic infrastructure, like water and sewer service, and ought to be run by the and controlled by the public.

Re: Privacy, are you more worried about SF City Hall (which we can watch) watching you -- or Google/Earthlink, which we can't possibly monitor and which may well some day be working close with the FBI or US military (secretly?) I'll go for City Hall any day.

-- Tim Redmond

The network is free, period. It’s 300k of free bandwidth. I don’t know how much bandwidth people typically need, but for me, all I do is read email and do some surfing. 300k is plenty fast considering the price. If you want more bandwith (1 mb) then it’ll be something like $21 dollars a month, less then half for what I pay and its much more then I need.

WiFi will not reach 30 stories up, nor will go through the earth to basements. But that’s a physical limitation. Most cell phone radio waves won’t go very high either. In fact, tall buildings need to be painted with signal from inside the building, sometimes on every floor. It all comes to physics.

10, 15, 20 years from now, there will be technology which will allow us to go higher and through the earth. No matter what, it will always be cheaper and more efficient to do so wirelessly then pulling cable.

What’s more, the city will take forever; I do not want a bureaucracy running the network. Stalling on this will cause us to press the reset button. That’ll be another 3 years of waiting. Seems to me, we have viable solution at our doorstep and the price is right.

Regarding Privacy, forget it, we have known already. My Internet provider can be Comcast, EarthLink, Time Warner, ATT, it doesn’t matter. Suffice it to say, they know exactly how much data we all pull down everyday and where we all surf. Do they care, no. First of all, it’s probably against the law for them to do so. Second, they have much better things to do. Third, I would much rather have the authorities go through a private company (another link in the fence) then have direct access to me. This seems like common sense to me, no?

Well, userid, only really wants to listen to himself talk. He didn't listen to a word I said. Too bad one has to resort to throwing mud based on ignorance.

300kbps gets you nothing these days. Try multitasking like downloading your excessive Windows updates in the background while trying to check your webmail and IM and Twitter at the same time or some combinations of services that requires web bandwidth. At 300k, it's a real crawl.

But the real issue here is that all of South Korea, Japan, Amsterdam and various other cities/countries have been able to beef up their citywide nets to double-digit Mbps speed without much fuss. That is all I am saying here.

Also, no phone lines run on fiber. Backbones run on fiber. Except for cellphones and VIOP, we all still have copper running down under and over our streets. Even cable is still copper.

Userid, really needs to get his/her facts straight before spewing out accusations that he/she really doesn't understand except for some academic blog reading on the subject.

Try out for some licensing or college education on the subject or even asking some questions about what the overall plan is and the details that the Mayor tried to put forth that ultimately forced the demise of Earthlink's chances at wireless survival.

It sometimes pays to be a little diplomatic.