Please read the enclosed e-mails with regards to the discussion about the fiberoptic system and light waves, it’s good to open up debate on this issue as we need to find a safe way forward which may not be easy, but I’m sure in this day and age we can find a solution?

 

Best wishes

Eileen O’Connor

Trustee – EM Radiation Research Trust

www.radiationresearch.org

 

From: Blakelevit @cs.com
Sent: 04 December 2006 19:05
To: Eileen @smokestackltd.co.uk
Subject: Re: light waves instead of radio waves

 

Eileen,

   Yes, it's OK to send my email to the network but perhaps attach your response and this further explanatory one too.
   The problem with going with a short-term "safer" infrastructure is that fiberoptic systems cost millions upon millions to install, typically underneath city streets and highways. (We already have a lot of fiberoptic in America.) It takes an enormous amount of political will, not to mention time, to get that enacted. On the one hand, they are permanent underground systems and in fact, fiberoptics are the ONLY way to actually create new electromagnetic spectrum. On the other hand, it will not stop the need for myriad low-level wireless interfaces if it is to marry to a wireless network. There are "mongrel" infrastructure systems in the US that attach tiny antennas to lampposts rather than require towers but all that accomplishes is a lot more low-level electrosmog, typically at window height close to people's residences. If one takes nonlinear effects into consideration, the lower levels may actually pose more problems for people, especially those with EHS. So nothing substantial will be accomplished re: RF from a mixed fiberoptic system. But a strictly cabled fiberoptic system will add spectrum and therefore communication capability that may actually require less wireless communication in general. In other words, huge amounts of just plain data can be more safely moved that way and it could de facto remove traffic -- most notably from businesses and governments -- from wireless networks. But it won't do much for cell phone systems.
   I have been lecturing/writing about infrastructure issues for over 10 years now because I work with several congressional delegations seeking solutions. The "safest" RF infrastructure -- if there is such a thing -- is tall towers located in remote areas, hopefully not in environmentally sensitive migratory bird flyways, with at least a 1500 foot setback from dwellings/businesses. Satellite uplinks should have even larger setbacks. If towers are going to be placed near other public utility corridors, then setbacks should be greater still because RF couples with 50/60 Hz wires and can travel long distances, thereby creating multifrequency exposures miles away.
    When people come to understand nonionizing radiation for the full environmental issue that it is, they will back off of unfettered, unquestioned use. Just because there is deep market penetration for wireless consumer products does not mean caution will never enter in and change people's behaviors. If people could be made to think of "recycling" the airwaves they use for cell phones, WiFi, etc. etc. the way they do plastic and metals, i.e. don't make unnecessary calls and therefore create less RF pollution, that thinking alone will alter the needed infrastructure. If people come to understand that every call they make requires that someone else get a zap of RF near the infrastructure, then calling home for the grocery list becomes not only selfish but environmentally irresponsible. It's that kind of education level that will help.
Fooling people into a false sense of safety with products that supposedly make cell phones "safer" is also irresponsible and does nothing toward long term, real solutions. It actually increases the need for more infrastructure.

Best Wishes,
Blake Levitt

 

 

From: Eileen O'Connor  
Sent: 04 December 2006 17:02
To: 'Blakelevit @cs.com'
Subject: RE: light waves instead of radio waves

 

Dear Blake

 

Thanks for this information; I wish people would get over their love affair with wireless technology ‘if only’. However, I fear that will never happen.  If the fiberoptic system is “safer” that has to be the short term solution for now until we can find a safer long term solution, we need an immediate reduction in background levels of radiation now and the fiberoptic system would help, I realise that it is not the ultimate goal but at least it would be better than what we have now.

 

I believe the light waves are meant to travel through some sort of cable, would this help?

 

Is it ok to send out your e-mail to the network?

 

Best wishes

Eileen

 

From: Blakelevit @cs.com
Sent: 04 December 2006 16:53
To: Eileen @smokestackltd.co.uk; atzmonh @bezeqint.net; thistle5 @pivot.net
Subject: Re: light waves instead of radio waves

 

Eileen,

   Using the visible light bands of the electromagnetic spectrum may not be a safer alternative to the radiofrequency bands, unless it's a completely cabled fiberoptic system -- which this certainly is not. There are people in the US who have been going in this direction for awhile now, and our Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is already discussing using the light bands for some forms of communication. Problem is that visible light is where ionizing & nonionizing radiation differentiate -- in the ultraviolet bands but possibly lower. So this system potentially intends to use ionizing radiation as a wireless communications system. Imagine what that would do to the planet. Plus, many species are far more light sensitive than are humans and are capable of seeing/sensing light in ways that far exceed our own.
   There are of course scientists who now say that from a biological perspective, the difference between ionizing and nonionizing are mostly for engineering purposes. However, no one disputes that ionizing radiation is harmful and a report was written by the US Academy of Sciences within the last year that said there are no safe thresholds for such exposures. The only safe alternative to wireless is to back away from the technology. Period. Even a cabled fiberoptic system that marries to wireless would require multiple small antennas all over the landscape and large uplink areas to satellites to function effectively.
    Don't fall for "safe" alternatives, either for consumer products or for infrastructure. "Safer" -- maybe. But not necessarily. And no mitigation devices at the consumer product level do anything to alleviate what's created in an ambient environment. People need to get over their love affair with all-things-wireless.

Best Regards,
Blake Levitt 

 

From: Iris Atzmon  
Sent: 04 December 2006 17:23
To: Blakelevit @cs.com; Eileen @smokestackltd.co.uk; thistle5 @pivot.net
Subject: Re: light waves instead of radio waves

 

Yes, I agree. I thought at the beginning that optic fibres is a safer alternative (or even safe)  until I found that it involves many small  antennas. Since I don't think the cellular companies will start to remove antennas from free will in order to give way to the optic fibres, I guess we will have a bath of all the options together + Wimax. The trouble is that people will never get over the love to the wireless technology and we cannot compete  with the financial interests...so humanity will learn the hard way, and it will take many years....and meanwhile we will try to protect ourselves as much as we can (and we hardly can) and distribute the info for anyone who cares to listen. Best regards Iris.  

 

Another safe way forward for wireless

LAN Lamps – transmission through light waves instead of radio waves

In Japan, the Ministry of Communication, in conjunction with scientists, telecommunications operators and electronics manufacturers, is in the process of forming a consortium to develop the use of visible light for the wireless transfer of large quantities of data. The new technology shall be ready to be introduced into the market within the next five years.  The consortium aims for a data transfer speed of 100 Mbps. This means the technology will also be capable of transmitting moving images in high resolution over short distances.

The new technology would provide an alternative to today’s wireless Lan networks in closed environments. The technology is based on LEDs which transmit data as waves within the visible light spectrum, which can then be received by a computer interface placed within the cone of light. The vision: Wherever you are, in a restaurant, the library or at home – just connect the lamp to an electrical cable which also carries data, switch on, and immediately start streaming videos on your screen under comfortable lighting.
Read more (in German): http://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/81551