A local campaigner contacted me recently to see if I knew anything about the impacts of new technologies are having on our environment.Photo: sunrise over Whiteshill earlier this week
Total energy use by home electronics rose by 30% between 1999 and 2005 from 0.6 to 0.8 MWh. The switch to digital TV is adding to the increase and will lead to even more significant increases - 22% of people now listen to the radio through their digital TV to avoid also buying a radio. This is releasing an extra 190,000 tonnes of CO2 each year. The switch to digital will also lead to more consumerism - more buying and more waste as old radios and TVs get ditched.
Plasma screens will make it worse still - in August it was reported that the demand for plasma screen TVs is creating an energy demand requiring two new nuclear power stations.....
Interestingly though Ethical Consumer researchers found with computers that the choice between a conventional, bulky cathode ray tube (CRT) and a flat screen monitor is probably the single most effective and easy environmental choice you can make when buying a new desktop computer. The biggest advantage is energy use, according to the report's authors. Less energy is needed to manufacture a flat screen, and LCD monitors operate on around half the energy of conventional ones. They also give off less heat, which can dry up the surrounding environment. In addition, flat screens emit less radiation, contain fewer hazardous and non-renewable materials and use a smaller quantity of ozone depleting chemicals, which contribute to global warming. Although flat screens do tend to be more expensive than conventional monitors, the cost can be recouped over the long term through lower energy use, and flat panels last around three years longer than CRT monitors.
And at least now there is a growing awareness about putting stuff on stand-by: most appliances on standby use 85% or more of the power they would use when switched on!! The Guardian recently reported that UK computer equipment left on at weekends and at night emits as much carbon in a year as 120,000 4x4s!! In our crazy world some of that equipment is left on 24/7 because anti-virus programs apparently need to be constantly updated - surely this needs looking at!
There are also concerns about Wi-Fi safety.
A Canadian university has limited Wi-Fi networks on campus because the long-term safety of the technology is "unproven". Read more about this here. Meanwhile an elementary school district outside Chicago has been sued for installing a wireless computer network by parents worried that exposure to the network's radio waves could harm their children. Read more here.
When I raised this issue with a colleage they said: "We should not be against all transmitters but limit them to very low powers. It will be far safer to use a wifi than a mobile phone." I hope he is right! Certainly we are not doing enough to raise awareness about mobile phone dangers - Greens have repeatedly tried to get this issue more on the agenda locally and nationally. See latest letter to press on this here.
So where does that leave us? Well I would welcome more info on this - is there anyone who could add something to this?
4 comments:
Ever gone looking for energy-efficient appliances? Did YOU know that,
above the A-G ratings, there's an A+ and an A++? If not, then that's a result of the electrical industry trying to keep business as usual.
Because nobody knows about these products, there's no market for them, and hence they don't get stocked and nobody sees them. It's a vicious circle, and it's costing the country millions of pounds in wasted energy. It's costing you money, this minute. It's killing the environment, emission by emission.
See the petition on the Downing Street website:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/efficiencyrating/
to lobby for change: clearer labelling, informed consumer choice, and an electrical industry working for us and the world, not just for profit.
Just seen this: MP calls for inquiry into risks of wi-fi - A Labour MP and distinguished cancer specialist called for a government inquiry into the potential health risks of wireless computer networks after The Times revealed that some schools were dismantling their equipment amid fears that it could be dangerous (Joanna Bale writes).
Ian Gibson, a former chairman of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, said: “We need a departmental inquiry into this situation. The Department of Health should be looking into it seriously. What we really need is another inquiry like the Stewart report into mobile phone masts.”
Dr Gibson is an honorary Professor and former Dean of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of East Anglia.
See report:
http://news.com.com/Is+Wi-Fi+bad+for+your+health/2100-7351_3-6139256.html
Some screening products are available from:
http://www.emfields.org/screening/overview.asp
These include very fine silver plated mesh for net curtains / bed canopies and carbon undercoat paint for walls. They are effective for most high frequency 'electromagnetic smog' (mobile phones & masts / WiFi / cordless
phones etc) but won't cut out 100% - and they are very expensive ie you'd be talking hundreds or thousands of pounds to fully screen a flat / house.
An important consideration in all this is that some people are definitely more 'electrosensitive' than others, probably in the same way that some
people develop chemical sensitivity and allergies. So for people who do
experience sensitivity and / or people living / working close to
transmitters / base stations, they may be a sensible option.
I think I may have developed mild sensitivity as a result of working on microwave communication equipment in the mid 80s, though the only thing I later observed living near to phone masts was sleep disturbance and recurrent infections (which could be sleep related though one of the effects
of high level microwave emissions shown in research is depressed immune function). I would certainly advise people to turn off home wireless networks at night and not to sleep near to cordless phone base stations (the same goes for all electrical equipment as some people are sensitive to mains
frequency radiation) - not to mention the need to cut CO2 emissions.
See BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6674675.stm
A Panorama investigation shows that radio frequency radiation levels in some schools are up to three times the level found in the main beam of intensity from mobile phone masts.
Post a Comment