An interesting article about how cellphone towers are affecting human health. Women appear to be more at risk then Men.http://www.ottawacitizen.com/h.....s/3779997/story.html

I once did a vacuum cleaner demo for a farmer...  Seems like that should be the start of a joke (it's not, though that job was a joke).  Anyway, the farmer said his cows were going crazy because of a TV tower close by his farm.  He said that they would repeatedly charge fences, walls, run in circles etc.  He was sure the TV tower was the cause.  He even boarded other farmer's cows and saw them begin to react the same way.  He'd tell anyone who'd listen, even a snot nosed university student trying to pawn off... er... sell a $2400 vacuum cleaner.  

Chubbs wonders how all the Wi-fi is affecting people too for that matter.

A well researched summary paper regarding the health effects of WiFi:  http://www.cwirp.org/files/chion_wifi_health.pdf
And a 400 page paper written just last year about it: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/RFReview.pdf
Their conclusion (on page 354) is this:

Quoted Text

the available data do not suggest a causal association between mobile
phone use and fast-growing tumors such as malignant glioma in adults

And this is what the WHO has to say:

Quoted Text

To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html

So, just because the paper stated there was no causal connection between mobile phone use and a specific cancer does not mean there aren't other ill effects from these waves.  If we look at the human brain and acknowledge that the impulses within it are electrical than is it really a stretch for one to say electromagnetic waves can disrupt those electrical impulses?

Now, I'm not saying there is or isn't disruptions, but I think this goes to a core problem with today's consumer mentality.  Companies are coming up with thousands of new chemicals and only very few of them are fully tested.  Besphinal A is now illegal in Canada as an example of a widely used substance that is harmful to human bodies.

Isn't it time to change the goal posts?  Shouldn't we say that instead of governments and injured parties having to prove beyond a doubt, that something harmed them that we should have companies having to prove their products don't harm people?

Interesting that you pick the Cancer argument and ignore the 50 years of WHO research that has shown no physical effects (beyond the body temp issue in extreme conditions) of RF signals.

The real issue here is you're asking science to prove a negative.  You're asking them to prove without a doubt that NO RF SIGNAL could EVER cause ANY ill effects.  That is literally impossible.  Following that methodology, nothing new could ever be authorized for consumers because you'd never run out of things you could test it against.  Even if you achieve this mammoth task, you'd still then have to test every possible combination of things with everything else.  There HAS to be a point where we say "This is safe enough."

Of course that doesn't mean we stop paying attention to possible health threats.  If people complained wifi made their knees ache, and studies found a correlation between wifi signals and achy knees, I'd be all for banning the devices!  The problem I see with a lot of these scare reports are the science statements quoted were unable to prove or disprove findings.  So if it might be true, it must be true??

As I said though, there must be a balance.  I'm sure you can list products till your fingers wear off that didn't receive sufficient testing before release.  I'd likely agree with a lot of them.  Unfortunately we can't make hard and fast rules about what "sufficient" means, since some products are inherently more dangerous than others.

I was just asking questions... though I did expand the post to include electromagnetic waves and not specifically just RF signals.  (For example high voltage wires) I personally don't have an issue with wifi and thanks for letting me take that evidence to Chubbs

I didn't ask to prove a negative.. just do testing to show no adverse effects... Or at least SOME kind of testing.  Your point that nothing new would ever be authorized is invalid.  There are ample tests done with animals, making sure new products don't harm people.  This hasn't stopped the skin cream companies from making new products and reaping billions of profits.  And even with cosmetics there can be more testing done.  Clinical testing for drugs involves reactions with other drugs as well.  This is done through testing.  You took the argument to the illogical extreme, and of course it is impossible to test chemical A with EVERYTHING known in the universe.

I agree totally that there needs to be a point where a product can be deemed as safe enough.  Problem is, no such standard exists period with regard to chemicals and industry at large.  No testing at all.  Companies are free to create, by accident or by design, what ever they can, mould and manipulate it for commercial use and then push it onto consumers.  Only after people get sick do governments take action.  That seems backwards.  Remember the old saying 'Ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure.'

As for hard and fast rules regarding what sufficiently safe, Governments make hard and fast rules all the time, about everything, taxes, immigration, products in stores today... that is nothing new.