Re: OT: can antennas for wireless Internet cause damage to health?

[Norm <maillist@xxxxxxx>]

A simple Google with dna emf returns approximately half a million hits.  
Yes some of them come from permanent residents of wacko land but not 
all. Yes one can go through the hits and discredit each researcher 
individually but,  many of the  researchers reporting emf is not 
harmful  can be considered suspect and producing reports favourable for 
the organization paying for the study.
The general theme of the more serious ones is low intensity emf 
interferes with DNA.  Anything that interferes with the dna in a human 
must be treated with caution.  The time frame for the effects to show up 
is longterm and possibly spans generations, to blithly say that emf does 
not cause harm is wrong, to say there are reasons for concern and the 
effects should be monitored and studied more is responsible.
EMF comes from too many sources and these sources are too useful for our 
modern life style to even suggest a ban, but until the full effects over 
several generations are know it is appropriate to use emf with caution.  
Years ago no one would have imagined that the long term effects of 
sunlight could possibly be harmful - now we know that too much exposure 
to ultra violet can be harmful.
I believe that the effect of the one transmitter that started this 
thread in itself is not harmful but when it is added to the overall 
background one needs to consider it may have a cumulative effect and 
could ultimately be harmful.
I suspect few on this list are old enough to remember xray boxes at shoe 
stores.  One could put their feet in these boxes and view the bones in 
their feet - anybody care to guess why they are not used today?
IF emf were a "new chemical" developed to day it is reasonable that it 
would be in the category of having to prove it had no harmful side 
effects before it could be used.  The challenge of having to prove it is 
not harmful is a very high hurdle to climb.