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

[takveen@gmail.com]

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

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.

[Tony Hwang]

takveen@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...arch_fd0=72216
>
> 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.
Hi,
I have been around RF spectrum of all sorts all my life.
Nothing bothered me. I guess you're allergic to m/w oven as well as
cordless phone and cell phone? I had WRT600N and it is back up stand-by
box now. By any chance are you trolling? Hope not.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:38:16 -0700 (PDT), "takveen@gmail.com"
<takveen@gmail.com> wrote:

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

The same rubbish was posted to sci.electronics.repair and precipitated
the usual endless discussion on cell phone exposure. T'is trolling
methinks.

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

[DanS]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:jijqv5lr76qmqltq32v6l1h9jva03mvogg@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:38:16 -0700 (PDT),
> "takveen@gmail.com" <takveen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...blic.aspx?sear
>>ch_fd0=72216
>>
>>5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too?
>
> The same rubbish was posted to sci.electronics.repair and
> precipitated the usual endless discussion on cell phone
> exposure. T'is trolling methinks.

Maybe trolling, but I have experience RF induced nausea and
dizziness.

.......it wasn't from low-power WiFi stuff though, I was in a
tower building that had a lot of different comm equipment in it.

I was re-running our coax along the ceiling wireways from the
bulkhead entry to the other side of the room because the sub-
contractor didn't do it right (suprise, suprise). Granted, my
head was 1 foot away from high power (one was 20,000W)
transmission lines of different frequencies, but the effects
were completely real. I was only in there 20 minutes before I
started feeling nausea and dizzy. So bad I had to leave. At
first, I thought it was something I ate, it went away after I
left the building, but when I went back, and 20 minutes later, I
was feeling it again.

[DanS]

John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:vaivv5d28hqs2cinau98j6kgst1i5cf5n9@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:33:08 -0500, DanS
> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
> <Xns9D866149444F5thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>:
>
>>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
>>news:jijqv5lr76qmqltq32v6l1h9jva03mvogg@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:38:16 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "takveen@gmail.com" <takveen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.progneer.com/wp/informati...public.aspx?se
>>>>ar ch_fd0=72216
>>>>
>>>>5 Ghz Routers Cause Nausea & Dizziness - To You Too?
>>>
>>> The same rubbish was posted to sci.electronics.repair and
>>> precipitated the usual endless discussion on cell phone
>>> exposure. T'is trolling methinks.
>>
>>Maybe trolling, but I have experience RF induced nausea and
>>dizziness.
>
> The cause was almost certainly something else.


Have you ever been in a tower building with 10s of thousands of
watts of RF power being TX'd on multiple freq's from 6M to
microwave and had your head 1 foot from all the transmission
lines for more than 20 minutes ?

If not, then STFU MR. Know-It-All.

[Bob]

On 28/05/2010 15:58, John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:52:21 -0500, DanS
> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
> <Xns9D866EB8187EAthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>:
>
>> John Navas<jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:vaivv5d28hqs2cinau98j6kgst1i5cf5n9@4ax.com:
>
>>>> Maybe trolling, but I have experience RF induced nausea and
>>>> dizziness.
>>>
>>> The cause was almost certainly something else.
>>
>> Have you ever been in a tower building with 10s of thousands of
>> watts of RF power being TX'd on multiple freq's from 6M to
>> microwave and had your head 1 foot from all the transmission
>> lines for more than 20 minutes ?
>
> Does long-range radar meet your criteria? ;)
Did you follow all the safety rules to limit exposure? Long range RADAR
tends to use the frequencies which can cause damage at lower levels of
exposure.
see TABLE C-I. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LEVELS
A. RF FIELDS
<http://www.nato.int/docu/stanag/2345/sta2345e.pdf>

Service Doctors take it seriously.
ROLE OF THE PHYSICIAN
a. A person brought to a physician because of a suspected RFR
overexposure is invariably frightened and agitated. Reassurance to the
patient will be helped by knowledge of the amount of overexposure. The
determination of whether or not an overexposure had occurred requires
careful analysis by experts trained in RFR measurements and dosimetry.
Many times there is actually no overexposure at all. If no overexposure
has occurred, it is only necessary to treat the patient for the anxiety
reaction.
b. If an overexposure has occurred, an appropriate history and physical
examination should be obtained. The patient should be questioned about
what was felt during the overexposure. Did the patient experience a warm
sensation in the region of his body exposed to the RFR beam? If this is
not the case, the likelihood of an adverse effect is very much lower,
unless the individual has a neural deficit in the region exposed. The
symptoms occurring before and after the overexposure, in addition to
those occurring during the overexposure should be recorded.
c. The physical examination should include an ophthalmologic exam,
especially for lenticular opacities. If there is any evidence of
possible damage, the patient should be referred to an ophthalmologist.
The skin should be examined for areas of erythema and for surface burns
in the vicinity of metallic objects. A neurologic exam should be
performed to ascertain any paresthesias or paralysis.
d. Laboratory tests should be performed in accordance with the
likelihood and the severity of the overexposure. If there are any
cardiac symptoms present, an ECG should be performed. If there is
suspicion that internal organ damage has occurred, appropriate serum
enzyme levels
determined and urine analyses should be conducted. If there are
significant neurologic symptoms, it may be helpful to obtain an EEG
and/or a MRI examination.
e. Treatment of conditions arising from RFR overexposure should follow
the same care and attention given to symptoms of any other suspected injury.
>
>> If not, then STFU MR. Know-It-All.
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:33:08 -0500, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

>Maybe trolling, but I have experience RF induced nausea and
>dizziness.

Ditto. I spent quite a bit of time in an anechoic chamber. After
about 3 hours, I got rather light headed. However, it wasn't the RF.
The foam had absorbed some noxious cleaning solvent.

Whenever I go to a high power TV/FM/commerical mountain top site, I
get a nasty tooth ache. It's quite consistent and limits the amount
of time I can spend up there. I've considered having the filling
replaced with something non-metallic (and which doesn't contain
mercury).

On the same mountain tops, I find that my eyes sometimes hurt. It's
not the altitude or glaucoma as I don't have the same problem on
mountain tops without transmitters. The eye is the most heat
sensitive part of the body, and apparently I'm seeing some effects.

I'm also certain that there are long term effects to RF exposure. When
I first started in the RF biz, I had a full head of hair, a steady
hand, a positive attitude, and a substantial bank account. After 40
years in the RF biz, the hair is almost gone, the hand is shakey, my
attitude is decidedly negative, and the bank account depleted.
Obviously, this was all due to RF exposure.

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

[DanS]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:4stvv5dk2bh3g3o4e94i2q8rfk7d0o9ss5@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:33:08 -0500, DanS
> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:
>
>>Maybe trolling, but I have experience RF induced nausea and
>>dizziness.
>
> Ditto. I spent quite a bit of time in an anechoic chamber.
> After about 3 hours, I got rather light headed. However,
> it wasn't the RF. The foam had absorbed some noxious
> cleaning solvent.
>
> Whenever I go to a high power TV/FM/commerical mountain top
> site, I get a nasty tooth ache. It's quite consistent and
> limits the amount of time I can spend up there. I've
> considered having the filling replaced with something
> non-metallic (and which doesn't contain mercury).
>
> On the same mountain tops, I find that my eyes sometimes
> hurt. It's not the altitude or glaucoma as I don't have
> the same problem on mountain tops without transmitters.
> The eye is the most heat sensitive part of the body, and
> apparently I'm seeing some effects.
>
> I'm also certain that there are long term effects to RF
> exposure. When I first started in the RF biz, I had a full
> head of hair, a steady hand, a positive attitude, and a
> substantial bank account. After 40 years in the RF biz, the
> hair is almost gone, the hand is shakey, my attitude is
> decidedly negative, and the bank account depleted.
> Obviously, this was all due to RF exposure.
>


Wrong Jeff.......this never happened to either of us.

John Navas says it doesn't happen, so I was imagining
everything, as were you.

[DanS]

John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:nemvv5ts7jon28rku5s3ddrdr9p1g10d9h@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:52:21 -0500, DanS
> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
> <Xns9D866EB8187EAthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>:
>
>>John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>news:vaivv5d28hqs2cinau98j6kgst1i5cf5n9@4ax.com:
>
>>>>Maybe trolling, but I have experience RF induced nausea
>>>>and dizziness.
>>>
>>> The cause was almost certainly something else.
>>
>>Have you ever been in a tower building with 10s of
>>thousands of watts of RF power being TX'd on multiple
>>freq's from 6M to microwave and had your head 1 foot from
>>all the transmission lines for more than 20 minutes ?
>
> Does long-range radar meet your criteria? ;)
>
>>If not, then STFU MR. Know-It-All.
>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the
> man.'

I presented my evidence, which you just casted aside because you
are a narcissistic a**hole.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 29 May 2010 08:48:43 -0500, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

>Wrong Jeff.......this never happened to either of us.

I wish it didn't. My tooth really does hurt. According to
discussions with a local dentist, the amalgam used is not particularly
conductive and is fairly resistive. More like a dummy load than a
conductor. So, in an high RF field, it gets warm. The dentist
suggested that what I'm feeling is a slight thermal expansion of the
filling, putting pressure on the nerve. We were able to reproduce the
symptoms by placing a heat probe on the filling.

>John Navas says it doesn't happen, so I was imagining
>everything, as were you.

Well, as a leading authority, he doesn't have to prove his assertions.
Unfortunately, I don't have the same level of authority and therefore
must prove what I claim. If he says it doesn't happen, then I must be
wrong.

I'm fairly sure that moderate doses of high level RF is harmless. For
example, I just finished an extended rag chew on 440MHz using a 35
watt radio with the antenna located about 3 ft from my head. I don't
feel any different and am quite sure it hasn't affected my... ummm...
what were we discussing?

It's the little things that cause problems. Time to start a campaign
against the dangers of local oscillator (LO) radiation. The typical
clock oscillator and LO might radiate about 1 mw of RF at various
frequencies. However, there are literally billions of these devices
in the US, spraying a dangerous RF "smog" everywhere. 1 milliwatt
might not seem like much but when multiplied by perhaps 100 billion
oscillating devices, we have megawatts of RF. Much of this insidious
LO radiation is concentrated in the populated areas. For example, in
a crowded football stadium, 50,000 cell phones, each radiating perhaps
1 mw of RF, will produce the same exposure as a 50 watt high power
transmitter. The average home might have 100 assorted oscillating
devices, each with an LO running 24 hours per day. I suggest a
national campaign be started, warning the general population of the
dangers of LO radiation, and demanding that the government do
something about it.


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

[DanS]

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:01d2069arsrd69evte9tkl5mv8qc65b9ph@4ax.com:

<SNIP>
For example, in a crowded football
> stadium, 50,000 cell phones, each radiating perhaps 1 mw of
> RF, will produce the same exposure as a 50 watt high power
> transmitter. The average home might have 100 assorted
> oscillating devices, each with an LO running 24 hours per
> day. I suggest a national campaign be started, warning the
> general population of the dangers of LO radiation, and
> demanding that the government do something about it.

Seriously ? (Or said tongue-in-cheek ?)

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 29 May 2010 11:15:17 -0500, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
>news:01d2069arsrd69evte9tkl5mv8qc65b9ph@4ax.com:
>
><SNIP>
>For example, in a crowded football
>> stadium, 50,000 cell phones, each radiating perhaps 1 mw of
>> RF, will produce the same exposure as a 50 watt high power
>> transmitter. The average home might have 100 assorted
>> oscillating devices, each with an LO running 24 hours per
>> day. I suggest a national campaign be started, warning the
>> general population of the dangers of LO radiation, and
>> demanding that the government do something about it.
>
>Seriously ? (Or said tongue-in-cheek ?)

Seriously, your should never take anything I suggest seriously.

I lied. It's more like 10 microwatts, not 1 milliwatt if it meets FCC
part 19 incidental radiator, and about 100 times worse after some
mechanical case or shield damage.

Let's do the math and see how badly I screwed up. LO radiation is
typically about -60dBm at the antenna. If there are multiple leaks,
it might climb to maybe -50dBm.
-50 dbm = 0.00001 milliwatts = 10 microwatts = 1*10^-8 watts
50,000 such cell phones would belch:
5*10^4 * 1*10^-8 = 5*10-4 watts = 50 milliwatts
(not 50 watts). If each cell phone radiated 1 mw, then we might have
a problem. In addition, the LO is not always powered on in a cell
phone, where the battery save algorithm only turns it on during the
proper time slot. Exposure would have to be reduced by the duty
cycle.

Extra credit for estimating the total LO radiation for the continental
USA. Figure on about 100-500 billion devices.

Perhaps we should try calculating how much 2.4GHz energy is delivered
when we're out in the noon day sun to see if a tin foil hat is
required. Total energy is about 1000 watts per square meter, mostly
in the visible light region. Still, there's plenty of power in the
microwave region.

I'll do the math when I return from from lunch and a bike bicycle.



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

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:39:14 -0400, Kimmy Boyer <KimaBoyer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>My bet is that you suck as a businessman.

None of your business, man.

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