- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / is wifi worst than sun radiation?
Author Message
# Posted: 1 Jun 2015 16:09

I wanna tell someone at my college that they should remove the wifi dishes they placed everywhere in my building , I want to cover all arguments , so far there is a question that I can't answer

Isn't the sun more harmful than radiation ?

I feel bad around electrical devices , yet when everyone says that and they bring scientific proofs I feel like giving up , maybe I'm crazy , stupid or paranoid .
Please if you reply , do it briefly because I really can't read much off the computer and get confused by info overload .

I just wanna know what should I say so I wouldn't be dismissed as a weirdo and be seriously considered and please answer the sun question .
thank you.

# Posted: 2 Jun 2015 02:07

Very different kind of Radiation.

Consider this: Sky gets over clouded, it rains, No Sun, often for days,weeks or on end.

Wi-Fi, and ALL Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation: On 24/7/365.

Competition, Hardly!
Best regards.

# Posted: 3 Jun 2015 19:54

You are NOT crazy, stupid or paranoid.
The sun shine is not man-made.It has been there for centuries, during which time mankind has has time to adapt to it, whether by developng tanned skins, or learning to go into the shade, covering the skin, or applying skin protection

The Wi-Fi is manmade. We have not asapted to it over rthe centuries.

And anyway , as rightly Agnes says, the frequencies are completely different.
Wi-Fi uses 2.4GHz , or 5.8 GHZ . They are in the microwave frequency band of the electromagnetic spectrum.
People who compare the sun with the frequency used by Wi-Fi are clueless, and they do not know one end of the electromagnetic spectrum from the other!

Just wondering. You are at college. Is that higher education? Can you order
scientific papers or books via the college library?

# Posted: 3 Jun 2015 20:13

|HaHa - Go to the SSITA website [ Safe School Information Technology Association.

Watch the videos, Read the information.

# Posted: 3 Jun 2015 20:25

Look at this item on the stopsmart meters.org. uk website .

Down load and print the letter.
Open letter by British medical doctors: Health and safety of Wi-Fi and mobile phones
http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/British-doctors-letter-wifi- 10-July-2013.pdf

[edit by admin: "M", please don't copy/paste large chunks of text that's in a URL that you've linked. This creates a "wall of text" which makes it hard for others to read the forum pages].

# Posted: 3 Jun 2015 20:27

HaLa, sorry ,I mis- typed you name.I have vision problems - streaming eyes.


# Posted: 4 Jun 2015 19:08

Hala, Look here
at the website for Electrosensitivity UK [ES-UK]

and especially the items that are listed for Dr. Aschermann
They are English translations ofvarious documents that she has written.

She is a German medical doctor, who is a qualified neurologist psychiatrist, psycho therapist. This doctor does believe that radiation from phone masts, mobile phones, Wi-Fi causes problems.
This doctor has done a lot to help electrohypersensitive people.

Look at the ES-UK news letters.


# Posted: 5 Jun 2015 15:17

Thank you so much M and agnes , I will try to include the information you gave me and the studies on pubmed , it appears that all the studies who are against wifi radiation is long term , while those that say it causes no harm are short term , but i only looked at 2 so we'll see .

Yes higher education , and there are lots of books but unfortunately i don't understand the first thing about physics just shallow things for common people but i might not hold my end in a scientific argument

for instance this article http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/09/17/wifi-and-radiation/

I'll try to keep you guys updated but I've been ignored before , maybe the key is presidency
thanks for your help again.

# Posted: 5 Jun 2015 16:31 - Edited by: Henrik


In the link you posted to "scienceblogs", Matt Springer makes a common physicists mistake, or perhaps a "convenient oversight". He correctly points out that the energy of a single microwave photon is weak, but he forgets that the density (the amount) of microwave photons hitting your cells at once is huge!

For example, when you see someone measuring for ionizing (radioactive) radiation with a geiger-counter - each "click" from the geiger-counter is one radioactive photon. So, not very many of them flying around, although each photon can potentially do biological damage by itself.

Now over to non-ionizing radiation like microwaves, where each photon has too little energy to break a molecule. What could possibly go wrong? Lets look at how many microwave photons are hitting you at once.
Its well known that when multiple low-energy coherent photons hit a cell, their cumulative energy can physically move it around, but also do physical damage to the cell in the process. This is used in medical science to position individual cells for imaging and is known as "optical tweezers".
It works because of the so-called "approximate photon density per cubic wavelength" that is an expression of the photon pressure which is what excerts the physical work in the optical tweezer. A few examples:

X-Ray: 0.000000000000000000000001
Sun ultraviolet radiation: 0.0000001
Cell-tower: 1000000000000000
Cellphone: 100000000000000000000
(wifi falls between cell-tower and cellphone)

Its been pointed out that when the photon density is more than 1 photon per cubic wavelength, which is clearly the case for wireless microwave radiation, then individual photon energy is irrelevant.

In a talk given in 2008 by british scientist Dr. Grahame Blackwell, he calculated the photon density from a GSM cell-tower and compared standing where the main beam of the cell-tower hits ground-level, to having 1000 World War 2 searchlights pointed right at you. So you get the picture: although each photon is weak, you're in a tsunami of them when you're exposed to wireless technology microwave radiation.

In 2011 a scientist named Bill Bruno wrote a paper on this which backs Dr. Blackwell's observation up nicely here:
Recommended reading.

So, is Sun exposure worse than Wi-Fi ? Do the math.

best wishes,

# Posted: 6 Jun 2015 03:26

For the layperson like me, I just know how microwave radiation makes me feel compared to the radiation of the sun. I feel sick, nauseated, exhausted, weak, confused, and experience terrible pain when exposed to too much of the former. The sun on the other hand, more often than not, makes me feel better, stronger, and more energized. Even if I get "too much" exposure, I just feel tired, dehydrated, and sunburned at the worst. The sun's radiation is the source of life, it nourishes life; microwave radiation breaks it down and hastens its decay.

# Posted: 28 Sep 2015 13:12

I know I haven't posted for a while but I still haven't submitted my research , still working on it and getting depressed alooot. anyway
thanks for replying and the links everyone

Henrik ,
Matt springer said :
because of the quantum nature of electron energy levels, you can't just stack 100,000 microwave photons to cause a 1 eV transision. You have to actually have a 1 eV photon. (Technically there is such a thing as a multiphoton transition, but it's a strongly nonlinear process with a probability that's already very low for 2 photon transitions and exponentially worse as the number increases. 100,000 is out of the question.)

how do you answer to this ? he says the energy can't be cumulative .

I also wanna know , the photon density you spoke of , you mean the amount of energy per cubic cm (How is that different from SAR ) how much total radiation is absorbed in the body

I'm imagining microwave radiation as tanks hittig a door at a frequency of 2.4 ghz while wifi is paper which can't knock out the door , because the wave length is longer and therfore weaker but if we tie that paper in a bundle then it will be enough to knock off the door , so the question is can I confidently argue that the wifi powers combine or am I far off?

I also think there is more than just energy to do harm to the molecules , it seems that the radiation frequency can control the secretion of brain chemicals and stop some like melatonin

although I'm not quite sure how if it doesn't have the energy .

nowadays there seems to be research or crusade really to prove that wireless radiation is good for us


so if it was weak to not cause any bad effects how can it be strong enough to cause good ones !

# Posted: 28 Sep 2015 20:36 - Edited by: horsevad

Matt springer said :
because of the quantum nature of electron energy levels, you can't just stack 100,000 microwave photons to cause a 1 eV transision. You have to actually have a 1 eV photon. (Technically there is such a thing as a multiphoton transition, but it's a strongly nonlinear process with a probability that's already very low for 2 photon transitions and exponentially worse as the number increases. 100,000 is out of the question.)

how do you answer to this ? he says the energy can't be cumulative .

I don't know who "Matt Springer" is, but although the above is correct in a strict physical context it is rather irrelevant in a discussion regarding bioreactivity of microwaves.

Living systems are not physically closed systems in energy equilibrium. You cannot unquestioningly transfer physical and thermodynamical principles developed for closed systems in energy equilibrium to biological systems.

The absurdness can intuitively be comprehended through a little example:

Suppose I hit you with some kind of stick, with an energy low enough not to break any bones: Do you think it would be worse to be hit 100000 times (from your example) than only one time? Do you think 100000 hits (each with an energy below bone-breaking level) would be enough to kill?

The above example is, in laymans terms, the answer to why energy which cannot be cumulative in a static physical experiment most certainly can be cumulative in a biological context.

The mechanisms of such effects are mediated by a diverse array of different effects, but a selection of the effects which has been scientifically replicated includes:

* Direct electron transfer in DNA-molecules
* Vibrational resonance in macromolecules leading to breakage
* Voltage-dependent calcium channel activation
* Modification of the angle between hydrogen-atoms in water molecules leading to changes in water diffusion rate, surface tension and binding kinetics.
* Modification of the Larmor precession of atoms and molecules in biochemical substances leading to changes in reaction rates. (... and thereby facilitating a situation were a higher than usual amount of ROS builds up in the organism)
* Changes in binding kinetics for biomolecules due to exogenic electromagnetic field interaction with polar molecules forcing a rotational synchronisation to the ELF components in the exogenic field.

My suggestion would be for you to apply for a supervisor for your project who is fully competent in systems biology and quantum electrodynamics. It has almost established itself as a bad joke where some physicist or electronic engineer with an almost complete lack of basal understanding of systems biology continues to propagate wildly obsolete ideas of biological issues.

With the amount of scientific evidence available at present time bioreactivity of microwaves in nonthermal intensities can no longer be questioned by any person capable of understanding scientific research. What is still discussed, as so little is known at present time, is the exact extent of the biological significance of the observed bioreactivity.

In laymans terms: We know that the present situation with widespread environmental exposure is dangerous, but we do not have the knowledge to predict whether the deaths will be counted in hundreds, thousands or millions.

To paraphrase Clint Eastwood: Each time a person puts a mobile phone to their head they REALLY should ask themselves the question: "Do I Feel Lucky?"....

//Kim Horsevad

# Posted: 30 Sep 2015 18:16


I suggest that you contact Professor Olle Johansson at Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

He is a medical doctor, a neurologist who has done a lot of work on electro sensitivity.

Email him
Dr. Johansson at


# Posted: 1 Oct 2015 13:14

The thing is I spoke to an engineer with a supervisory position at my university before , It was about removing the wifi from the so called study area , which lies in the underground floor surrounded by aluminium walls making it a faraday cage and with a recommendation to have the new library being built hard wired .

and guess what , neither requests were granted !

I learned that if a point goes without refutation then that renders it true. now this time after irradiating the whole university I would like to present something subjective .

the bioinitiative report has been criticized for showing biased studies that hasn't been replicated and for proposing unproven mechanisms such as that DNA is a fractal antenna , we do not disagree on the symptoms as EHS people but the explanation for these symptoms differ , for example Dr. andrew goldsworthy explains all this as related to calcium ions http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Biol-Effects-EMFs-2012-N Z2.pdf

so what am I am I supposed to say again ?

when you're surrounded by people without symptoms , even I , whenever my symptoms subside when I am relatively emf free I think that this might all be a hoax , but I surely wasn't happy about how I went back from college and slept all day and was unable to concentrate anymore .

I need sound accurate data that refutes what physicists say in layman's terms

because like SIZZLE said I know its bad , I just don't know how to explain it .

one time I was explaining to my fellow students and one said isn't the sun shooting more emf . I couldn't answer scientifically which is why this thread is here.

my sister once asked me why I'm ok with the air conditioner and ceiling fan but not with the plugged fan when they are actually all plugged even within the walls and they all take 220 volts and I couldn't say anything which means she is right .

Now HENRIK the article you put on phones and photons I found major flaws in it http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0086

thanks for your help though

and thanks so much m for all your links , I will see about contacting the professor and hopefully he answers

# Posted: 2 Oct 2015 01:57

There are two renounced scientists who can easily answer your questions.

My first suggestion is that you contact Dr. Magda Havas.
Dr. Havas is a Very Well Known Canadian fearce opponent of Wireless Microwave Radiation Technology, and she has been fighting it for Many years.
Her contact details are here:
Phone: 705 748-1011 ext 7882
Fax: 705 748-1569
Website (general): www.magdahavas.com
Website (academic): www.magdahavas.org

Environmental & Resource Studies,
1600 West Bank Drive, Trent University,
Peterborough, ON, Canada, K9J 7B8
She has held a number of conferences on the subject both in Canada and in the USA.
Write to her!

The other Scientist is the World renounced Swedish professor Lennard Hardell, who is one of the most prominent scientists on Brain cancers in the world.
His blog details are here:
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD
Department of Oncology
University Hospital
SE-701 85 Örebro

Both these 2 have done magnificent work to try to inform the public about the potential Environmental health harm Wireless Microwave Radiation has on people, animals and even nature.
So, to the ink-pot, tell them about your problem and ask them where to find totally credible research to prove your case.

There is a logical reason why even the reluctant WHO has had to classify EMF as a 2b Carcinogenic Environmental agent, and trod on the grass, their Telecommunication Sponsors feed on, with the danger of losing their funding.
And their classification was Just A Compromise, after they had tried to bury "The Bad News" for years, by not publishing them.
Best regards.

# Posted: 5 Oct 2015 23:32

Dear Hala,

I'll begin by commenting on the "flaws" on the photon paper which will then provide context for responding to the criticisms of the BioInitiative report.

The problem with the "flaws" you presented, is that they are described by a physicist. With all respect to well-meaning physicists, I'd like to point out that:
#1 Physicists deal with linear reactions in dead matter (or "non-living" if you prefer).
#2 Because of that linearity, physicists demand perfect reproducibility of experiments.

Its likely with implicit reference to #2 when the sceptic physicist, Mr. Leikind, says that Dr. Bruno "credulously accepts poorly supported claims of non-thermal effects".

On the contrary: the evidence for non-thermal effects is very strong. I dare say that its beyond dispute. Its arguably not yet to the strength of minimum 95-98% scientific certainty which the physicist has been taught to expect - but when you have an agent like microwaves, to which the entire population is chronically exposed, then demanding absolute scientific certainty before accepting that there is harm from such exposure, is just batshit crazy (you can quote me on that).

In short: physicists don't understand Public Health - and tragically, the current "safety guidelines", that are held in place by public health authorities, were made up by physicists. I do literally mean: "made up" since they offer no biological rationale (they assume you're dead) nor any health relevance apart from making sure you won't get cooked.

With non-linear biological systems you expect some variance and inconsistency in replicated experiments, because you are dealing with living things, like cells, which to a degree are able to react and adapt to their environment. I think this is a relevant point in understanding the rationale of the BioInitiative report which is about biology and Public Health instead of the physics of dead matter, like the "heating only" rationale of the current guidelines. Insisting on exact replication of all studies is perilous since it ignores the reality of biological variance and the adaptability of life - or as biophysicist Dr. Gerard Hyland put it: "these [ICNIRP] guidelines neglect the most discriminating feature of all, namely the 'aliveness' of those exposed".

But back to the paper.
Mr. Leikind's claim of Dr. Bruno's misunderstanding about thermal energy is, as I see it: irrelevant. The whole point of Dr. Bruno's paper is: the amount of photons hitting a biological target at once. Bruno cites the well-known "optical tweezers" where a beam of light (high density of coherent low-energy photons combining to exert a physical force) is used to move a cell around. An important point is that the cell in the optical tweezers can sustain damage (called "opticution") but Mr. Leikind strangely insists that the damage must be due to a thermal effect.

A study cited by Dr. Bruno (but that Mr. Leikind obviously didn't look at) examined cell damage from optical tweezers (Rasmussen et al. 2008) says this:

"A local temperature increase in the [optical tweezer] trap has been suggested, but experiments and calculations have shown that in aqueous samples, the heating is typically less than 1°C. Other possible mechanisms include multiphoton absorption in biological material and the formation of singlet oxygen."
Source: http://aem.asm.org/content/74/8/2441.full

So the above, using higher energy photons than microwaves, found no actual thermal effects. But the part about "formation of singlet oxygen" - which is a free radical capable of serious biological damage - is where things get interesting because a recent review (Yakymenko et al. 2015) showed overwhelming evidence of oxidative damage from low-intensity microwaves:

"It indicates that among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, in general, 93 confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems. A wide pathogenic potential of the induced ROS and their involvement in cell signaling pathways explains a range of biological/health effects of low-intensity RFR, which include both cancer and non-cancer pathologies."
Source: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557

As I see it, the damage is not by an absolutely direct effect, as the physicist would insist on, but a complex biological side-effect of the microwave exposure as is convincingly shown in the scientific evidence. As a side-note: how this positions us legally against the microwave-polluting industry is another question that I hope someone will look into.

The Yakymenko review tells us one thing: although people around you aren't having the same acute symptoms, they are, however, definitely suffering oxidative stress. In my opinion, people that react quickly to exposure already have a high oxidative stress load. I think its just a matter of time before most people start experiencing microwave sickness symptoms but at present no one is attempting to screen people for vulnerability. The best we can do is protect ourselves and children, since they are likely more vulnerable, and pray that it doesn't turn out to be as bad as we fear. However when I look at common health indicators I see a rapid decline in population wide health like sleep disorders, infertility, cognitive disorders, hormone disruptions (to name a few) - all of which have been linked to low-intensity microwaves.

About the Sun: its a ridiculous argument since the amount of Sun radiation within the frequency range used for telecommunications is small. That's why telecommunication can work at all: that part of the spectrum is naturally very quiet - otherwise the Sun would swamp all attempts to transmit a signal. Also, we evolved in that quiet, but now, with telecom signal everywhere, it has become a quintillion* times louder.

* = 1000000000000000000

# Posted: 24 Feb 2016 17:29

lot of info here....

# Posted: 11 May 2016 15:23

very harmful compared to sun . even mobile signal radiation is very harmful ...

# Posted: 2 Dec 2017 17:32

EVOLUTION.... We evolved in sunlight..We can survive this. Our bodies repair and grow at night only, cos they can avoid the effects only then. We are exposed to microwaves all night long cos phone carrier waves never sleep even when they are doing nothing useful. This destroys our bodies effective reproduction and causes maturation and identification problems causing addiction to false electrical signals.

Historically there was nearly 0% cancer or our immune systems would be deter evolved to cope with this current epidemic. Now its 50%. This is DEMOCIDE!

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.

These forums are running on bulletin board software miniBB™ © 2001-2022