baby monitors give off deadly radiation

[papaya]

in news of the world there is a section saying (p39. Feb 19th)

"...babies are being put at risk of cancer by hi tech cot monitors which emit deadly radiation.....consumer group Powerwatch has urger parents to ditch digital (DECT) monitors...."
goes on to say that "emissions, even if the monitor is not in use can reportedly reach 6 volts per metre - twice as strong as those found within 100 metres of mobile phone masts...."
...."lab tests have also linked the radiation to potentailly fatal brain tumours, breast cancers, headaches and disturbed behaviuor patterns in kids...."

Can anyone offer any reassurance to stop me feeling bad about having used a digital monitor for the past 13 months.....!!!

---------------------

Hello!

We've noticed this thread is quite old and thought it might be helpful to point to our our baby monitors buyer's guide which has some helpful advice on audio, video and sensor pad monitors.

If you do decide having a baby monitor is the right choice, take a look at our reviews to find the right one for your family.

Hope that helps! MNHQ

I agree totally stacey

at least the first reply to that wasnt someone shouting at me! lol. glad im not the only one!

i would just suggest if your dd wants to play with your mobile stacey, switch it off - that's what i do - just to be on the safe side, as the jury is still out and their brains are still developing. it may not be the most dangerous thing but it doesn't hurt to be careful.

HTE, I use the word radiation because that's what it is.
You're a software engineer, so therefore you did logic ?
You say that your parents suffered "from" a mast ?

How can you know this ?
You merely know that when they moved they got better, there are thousands of possible reasons.

You are aware that the "sharp" waves are no such things, merely being several smooth sinusoidal waves pushing in the same direction at about the same time.

The Vatican radio transmitter was not digital, and was operating at a huge power level, and even then no one seems to have found victimes.

Water, if heated to an extreme temperature will cause great harm. Doesn't mean we should ban the stuff.

DominiConnor:
I prefer the term "electro-magnetic field" to describe the output from a transmitter such as a DECT or cellphone. I think the term "radiation" is far to broad.

I know my parents were harmed by a 3G cellphone mast because:
First:
It was installed 28 metres away from their living & working quarters (self-employed) and the main beam of the mast hit their former house at body level. This is because their former house is built on a slope and the neighboring building (a pub) hosting the mast, is further down the slope.
Second:
When the mast installation was started, my dad kept a detailed diary. The exact time the mast was switched on, my parents experienced a rush of headache and nausea.
The headaches and nausea suddenly stopped when the mast was temporarily switched off for maintenance a couple of hours. The headaches and nausea returned when the mast was switched on again.
How did my parents know when the mast was on or off? They did'nt until the telecom operator handed over the mast-activity log. By comparing the operators log and my dads diary, we found that the incident times matched:
mast on = headache + nausea.
mast off = no effects.

When I referred to the distinction between "smooth" and "sharp" PATTERNS in the signal, I was describing the difference in analog and digital signal modulation. Not everyone reading this discussion is a techie, so I used a simple description of the signal patterns over time.

In simple terms:
If you look at a graph of a digital signal over a time period, it looks alot like a "fishbone" image with precisely defined spikes in it.
In contrast, a pure analog signal looks more like a "hillside" picture with "smooth" wave patterns rising and falling.

Alot of the research I've looked into shows that "spiked" signals act as a stressor to living cells as I explained in my first post.

Imagine the lights flicking on and off constantly. It would surely stress you out, would'nt it? Even though your eyes cannot detect every single "cycle" in the lightwaves emitted from the lightsource, you can still detect the annoying on/off pattern.
Well, evolution has not given us senses to directly "see" of "feel" (like vision or touch) electro-magnetic fields of the frequency that fx. DECTs and cellphones use, because those kinds of fields have not existed in nature at any significant level.
Due to the absence of such natural electro-magnetic fields, it seems like our cells evolved a means of inter-cell communication based on electro-magnetic fields, as well as chemical-communication.
Today, man-made electro-magnetic fields, millions of times stronger than our evolved threshold, have exploded in use and they are disturbing our bodies internal communication.
We are seeing the effects of this stressor in our societies right now.

"radiation" covers the whole spectrum from infra-red to ultra-violet. If you want to talk about effects on the human body, it is necessary to be a bit more precise about the frequency. For example, ultra-violet light (higher frequency) has a different effect on the body than visible light (lower frequency).

I have seen some old research on the effects of emr on the human body, and as far as Im concerned, the jury's still out.

3G uses technology like frequency hopping, where the signal is broadcast in chunks at different frequencies. This does lead to sharp changes in frequency.
the fact that this can be modelled by a series of smooth sinusoidal waves is irrelevant here.

I think the term "radiation" is far to broad.
Doesn't affect what people who know about this area call it.

.By comparing the operators log and my dads diary, we found that the incident times matched:
Which would all make sense, until you wonder why your dad started the diary ?

Not everyone reading this discussion is a techie, so I used a simple description of the signal p
atterns over time.
No, you used an incorrect term to make your point sound better. I am a techie, and would never occur to me to use the term "sharp", even to non-specialists. It smacks of you taking too literally the simplified version of waves used in books for people who do software rather than hardware.

Alot of the research I've looked into shows that "spiked" signals act as a stressor to living cells as I explained in my first post.
Spikes have more power, but you need to read more about the practicalities of real operational electronic gear. All equipment emits spikes.

Imagine the lights flicking on and off constantly. It would surely stress you out, would'nt it?
Actually lights are flashing on and off constantly. You done any physics ?
You seem to have some technical education, I recommend Feynman's book on QED as a nice gentle introduction.
Also at a more gross level, strip lights usually do flash almost visibly, and that produces all sorts of bad effects.

Due to the absence of such natural electro-magnetic fields, it seems like our cells evolved a means of inter-cell communication based on electro-magnetic fields, as well as chemical-communication.
What ?
Where did you read that ?
The only place I've come across this idea is in Star Wars, where the Force is generated this way.
I'm not sure if anyone told you this, but Star Wars is fiction.

We are seeing the effects of this stressor in our societies right now.
No, we are seeing effects.
There are thousands of possible causes, including the strip lights I mentioned above. We know for a fact that these cause measurable levels of stress.
We know that people evolved to live in very small groups, probably 2-3 dozen tops. Other sizes, and lack of being in such a group can screw your mind big time.
We are exposed to vast numbers of chemicals, many of which are known to have psychological effects, and a good number where we don't actually know.

People live longer than we were evolutionary optimised for. Although this is good, fear of premature mortality is rife.

You could go on for days.
Merely saying that stress and microwave radiation have some vauge correlation undermines your assertion that you are any sort of techie.
Even the most basis statistics course covers false positives like this.
If you look at the incidence of diabetes in different countries you will find a very strong correlation with the popularity of Jennifer Aniston.
Does she cause diabetes ?
No.
(well I don't yhink so, but hell that's more plausible than your argument)

woah, domiconnor, that is a very aggressive post!

I am a UMTS consultant (that's 3G phones) so I hope you won't say that I don't know what I am talking about?

3G can involve sudden changes of frequency and phase.

I have tested a running base station without any ill effects, but I wouldnt care to live on top of one. Also, different people can be affected in different ways by the same stimuli. I wouldnt write off hte's parents experiences, Id rather see a lot more research in this field.

I think that most research to date has been done with (probably less harmful) GSM, not UMTS systems, though I admit I havent read up on it.

I'm sorry if I was aggressive, was responding to hte's rather bizarre "logic".

It's not implausible that enough power can cause severe damage, up to and including frying the target, as we both know a chunk of the early history of this technology was an attempt to create death rays.

As you say, the effects vary a lot, and this when I see two people with the same symptoms, I rather expect to see a cause with more deterministic effects.

There isn't enough research in this field, true.
Indeed the fact that the government makes big money from this technology (billions in £g licences) it's hopeleslly implausible that they'd sponsor honest research. They stick to the standard arts graduate line of "no evidence".