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

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