- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / Health / radiation risk frombooster masts on campsite
Author Message
keith rawes
Member
# Posted: 1 Apr 2009 11:06
Reply 


Hallo everybody and I hope somebody can help me with the following queries. I live on a campsite in northern Spain where there is no landline so I am dependent on the site wi-fi system for my internet connection. This is through delfynet and the main mast is on the site office about 300 metres away with a booster mast 100 metres away. However I was getting a very intermittent connection so I asked delfynet to boost the signal and what they did was put in a further booster mast – on the roof of my house! This is a wooden house with a metal roof and a metallic insulation in the walls. And what I have found is that if I bring my little Belkin USB attenae inside the house I can't pick up a signal to connect to the internet, whereas it works fine with it perched on the outside window sill.

For the moment I am also in charge of the electricity supply to this booster mast on the roof as it has not yet been connected directly to the site's main cable and I have been turning it off whenever I am not using it – which is for all but a few minutes a day while I download e-mails etc. But now other people are beginning to turn up on the site and they want it to be connected all the time through 'my' mast..

So my questions are these:

Does the fact that I cannot get a signal inside the house mean that I am safe from radiation risk from the mast as long as I am inside?

Does turning off the electricity supply effectively render the mast harmless?

When the electricity is connected, does the radiation risk only exist when the mast is being used or is there a risk even when nobody is using it to connect to the internet?

Does the fact that the mast on my roof is a booster rather than the main mast make any difference to the radiation risk?

And a further question on behalf of a friend: does an internal WLAN network inside a house pose similar risks?

I suppose I should point out that I am being treated for cancer at the moment and have had ME for more than 20 years which has made my immune system highly ineffective..

Thanks for your help,

Keith Rawes

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 7 Apr 2009 11:22
Reply 


Hi Keith,

From your description it sounds like you have a perfectly radiation insulated place there. The metal on the roof and inside the walls will reflect away radiation coming from the outside.

About your questions:

Q: Does the fact that I cannot get a signal inside the house mean that I am safe from radiation risk from the mast as long as I am inside?

In my experience, wifi modems have very sensitive receivers and therefore, if you can't get a connection from within your house then it's reasonable to say that you are protected while in there.

Q: Does turning off the electricity supply effectively render the mast harmless?

If you turn off the booster device then, yes, it will stop operating. The main mast 300m away and the other booster 100m away probably run on their own power supply and will remain operational unless you cut the power on them aswell.

When the electricity is connected, does the radiation risk only exist when the mast is being used or is there a risk even when nobody is using it to connect to the internet?

By design, wifi masts (also called "routers" or "access-points") emit a constant beacon signal while switched on. This beacon signal is meant for computers within the signal range to detect the wifi network. This is very convenient for the users because their computers can "auto-magically" connect to the internet without any configuration on their part. However this convenience comes at the cost of this constantly pulsing beacon signal and therefore, also constant microwave radiation exposure.
Public wifi networks, like the one at your site, are setup like this, to announce themselves through the beacon signal. However, there is a way to shut off the beacon and let the wifi mast sit silently and listen for connecting computers instead. In this alternate configuration it's up to the computers to call out for the mast and then there will only be radiation when there is any information exchanged between computer and mast.
You should approach delfynet in order to suggest shutting off the wifi beacon signal. Technically it's easy for them to do. I posted a description of how on another topic on this forum: click here.

Q: Does the fact that the mast on my roof is a booster rather than the main mast make any difference to the radiation risk?

Hmm.. tricky one. The name "booster" does suggest that it is transmitting at a higher intensity but I really can't tell without more info on what types of equipment it is (make, model, antenna type etc.).

Q: does an internal WLAN network inside a house pose similar risks?

WLAN is just another name for wifi. If the beacon signal is on in the internal "router" then the risk is similar. Suggest your friend to shut off the beacon signal. The technical name for the beacon signal is "SSID" if you consult the routers user manual.

For information on how pulsed microwave signal can affect health, look up the papers from Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy like the one here. For more detail read this one here.

keithrawes
# Posted: 25 Nov 2010 19:35
Reply 


Hallo Dr Goldsworthy and many, many thanks for your reply to my queries of over a year ago. Sorry not to have been back to you before but I managed to get the mast moved from my roof and since have felt less anxiety about it. Out of sight out of mind! I've also been tied up with the radiotherapy treatment for my prostate cancer and I am pleased to report that - mast or no mast - I seem to be doing OK. Another few months on anti-testosterone injections and they reckon I should be prounced clear. Thanks again, Keith

shoes
# Posted: 22 Feb 2012 17:24
Reply 


Sorry to hear about your cancer Keith. It's been a long time since we were in touch. No point in asking how are you. All the best though. My grandson has had cancer which was only spotted when he was 7 although the evidence indicates this was present many years earlier. His treatment by Marsden though seems to be effective and the prognosis looks hopeful.
Terry O'Brien

Anonymous
# Posted: 27 Feb 2012 13:23
Reply 


Even though this is an old OP, but as sad as it is, most cancer these days is caused by and has been caused by EMR and EMF for decades. And for decades EMR and EMF has caused many other health problems, but as sad as it is, there is nothing anyone can do about it, but suffer the consequences of the dangerous long-term and prolong emanations from these electronic and electrical equipment.

The gullibilitiy of the human race is allowing a replacement for asbestos and passive smoking. The medical scientists always said that this stuff was harmless, just like they are saying today about EMR and EMF.

I've suffermed many health problems from living in the world of EMR and EMF, and I got to my tumour in the pancreas early, my enlarged prostrate, and have had open heart surgery, but this is still affecting me and is a health risk, whether anyone wants to believe it or not.

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 forum script miniBB™ © 2001-2024