On 2015-09-08 16:23 Glen Turner wrote: > The inverse-square law suggests that transmitters which are further away -- > wifi, radio base stations, etc -- aren't a concern for disease.
Just as a nitpick, an antenna doesn't normally radiate according to an inverse-square law. In particular, TV transmitting antennae such as those at Gore Hill in Sydney are engineered to direct the available power according to need, so for example they would transmit more towards the western suburbs and relatively little toward New Zealand. Also ground effects very close to an antenna can result in small areas of very high or low signal strength. > They might be a concern for a sensitivity, but that's a very generous > statement. The sheer number of people suddenly claiming a sensitivity after > so many years of mobile towers makes me doubt on the condition. I agree that EM sensitivity and health risk are separate issues. The latter seems to be much more of a worry with medical opinion supporting both pro & con positions, complicated by vested interests. But it's also true that EM radiation can be easily and reproducibly shown to have some biological effects, whether or not they cause cancer and/or sensitivity. Even if there's no physical basis to perceived RF sensitivity and the people interviewed in the Weekend Herald article are suffering from psychogenic conditions, I think they should still be taken seriously. Maybe there's some commonality between "EHS" and windfarm "illness", maybe a rejection of modernity, or the unknown, or simple distrust of the authorities who impose these technologies (particularly when huge commercial interests are at stake). Think James Hardie, the tobacco manufacturers, the long procession through ICAC re mining licences.... David L. _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
