Feeds

back to article Can we have a proper study of Wi-Fi, please?

Well done, Sir William Stewart. Only four weeks ago, we called for serious research into wireless radiation. The good news: Sir William Stewart - chair of the Health Protection Agency - has said that the time has come to do this research. My only problem with this is that I honestly doubt any useful information is going to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Well I think I know what I'm gonna do

I'm going to go round switching on all the RF devices I can find.

I'm gonna enable *every* Wireless router I can find.

Look, I feel I know what I'm talking about, considering I'm doing pretty well in my sciences (I taught myself).

WiFi is not going to kill you. Unless of course, you seriously mod the router to stupidly high power levels, and then live with it sat on your lap.

Although, there is an upside to all this, if RF kills. Those chavs who spend most of the time yelling into their mobile phones will all die off. Oh goodie.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Title

dont DECT mobile phones run on the same 2.4ghz frequency?? and seeing as though both my WIFI access point and DECT Access point reside in the same cupboard, yet my DECT phone will operate much further away... so logically pumping out a stronger signal...

I wonder how many of the WIFI haters would like to go back to corded telephones at home...

pah... stuff like this just makes my life a nightmare (network admin at school!)

0
0

Re:Title

Yes,

DECT is actually worse than wi-fi in many ways - mainly because it's always on at full power levels - whilst wi-fi power levels increase when files are being accessed.

Most WIFI haters don't use cordless telephones for precisely this reason and I suspect that the "I wonder how many of the WIFI haters would like to go back to corded telephones at home..." can probably be answered by ALL.

As a network admin at a school you should be considering the safety of the kids primarily, not how much more work it will give you. Sort out your priorities.

0
0

Ban DHMO!

No you can't ban it, I need it. :P Just shows how crap can be used against the unaware (should that be dumbed down?) general public!

Oh and bring back Tomorrows World :)

0
0

Loonies

"The symptoms disappear when they are away from microwave sources (or electrical sources if they are severely electrosensitive"

Where do they go to avoid electrical sources - the bottom of an abandoned lead mine?

The human body is an unbeliveably complicated system, inhabited by lots of other lifeforms, some of which it doesn't fully tolerate. Everyone will have a range of twinges, aches, itches and snuffles going on most of the time. Currently I personally have a cold sore, and itch nose and I feel a bit lethargic.

That's the "normal range of operation" - it happens to everyone. If you start trying to diagnose you'll go nuts and start thinking your mobile phone is giving you cancer.

0
0

Life, don't talk to me about life!

If the only thing you have to concern yourself about is the fact that you suffer from a headache while in the prescence of a mobile phone or wi-fi AP and this doesn't have any long term affects on your quality of life... then you have a very good life. Accept that and be thankful.

There are many terrible diseases and afflictions that cause vast amounts of pain and suffering for people on this planet that we still don't completely understand and cannot cure even after years of research and money have been allocated to them... cancer is probably the best example, but sadly there are many, many more.

The more we spread the planet's scientific research capabilities across an increasing amount of topics the thinner those capabilities get. Soon we will be so busy curing everything that we cure nothing.

Where are the Panorama and Horizon episodes that cover cancer? We just don't get those any more because they aren't 'pop-culture' enough.

153,491 people died of cancer in the UK alone in 2005.(http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/mortality/?a=5441)

Funnily enough I couldn't find any mortality rates for 'electrosensitivity', but I'll go out on a limb and guess it was less than 10 - unless of course someone can prove 'electrosensitivity' is a major cause of cancer.

Yes, thousands of people are actually dying of cancer! Shock!

And we still can't reliably cure it! Shock!

And we even know that there are controllable aspects of our lives that increase incidence - tobacco, sun exposure, diet etc! Shock!

And we still smoke and sunbathe and eat unhealthily! Shock!

But there aren't many Panorama episodes about it! Now.. that really is shocking!

Lets get some perspective here! What a waste of everyone's time and lives all this wi-fi, mobile phone FUD is. We have bigger and more important things in this world to worry about, but I guess they are just too big for the amateurs at Panorama to take on if this last outing is anything to go by.

They could have broadcast 30 minutes of static and actually benefitted society more.

(I used cancer as an example, I have no particular personal agenda in choosing it)

0
0

Martin Sharp

I Always Trust Anything I Read From People Who Use Initial Capitals Too Much!

0
0
Silver badge

BadScience.net

Loads more stuff there - if anyone's still interested!

0
1
Anonymous Coward

@Rob

"Although preferring not to replay to those who don't always grasp the context of what is written (pubs are much better for this sort of thing :)

I never said that there was, I was referring to user perception. They are perfectly happy to sit in front of a CRT until you mention the electron gun at the back of the tube. Then they start to get upset and having issues (usually regarding monitors as TVs are perceived as entirely different technology)"

Yes, you don't seem to grasp the context. Your example was just an bad example. The worries about CRTs was so fixed by the time of the study referred to, that there was more harmful radiation coming out of the back of the monitor (the side, often, without glass) towards the next row of people sitting at computers behind the monitor. People surfing for hours at home often sit on the side with glass instead, so they are often well protected. Can It be more simple?

Most people here would be naive about the technical science. I find even experts/researchers/scientists are often naive/arrogant (naive, which is why we still have researchers, think about it, why we need them). I am so skeptical from the conduct I have seen in scientific research, I assume that we merely no less than everything, and we should objectively look for what we don't know. I am so skeptical, I will not even join the skeptics associations, too many..., convenient and bad science, and limited and closed logic that they use to discredit things. An answer is not valid unless it is the right answer..Explaining things away through flights of thought, is "flights of fantasy". I wonder what they would be classified under my Phyc reference books. Yes, i am being tough, but I am sick and tied of seeing all this sort of drivel over the years, and wish people could remain more objective without losing their brains. Concrete evidence is concrete all the way down, sometimes you have to drill to find out, until then it is best to remain open.

I met the engineer responsible for setting up the original GSM research in Australia that found an effect on cells. I can't even remember the detail, but what i do remember is the publicised reaction, I did not say public reaction. We had lots of people from telecommunications trying to criticise this in the media, we had politicians conveniently trying to argue it down. Sometimes in media reporting, you get an sense that people are trying to spin against something, cover it up, and it is more obvious that something is off, this was one of those times.

All energy is not delivered equally. It is not just energy level that is of concern, all radio devices are not equal, because they shape the wave, direction, and frequencies through an range of techniques that really need to be validated as to their effects on an wide range of materials (in us) and environments, by honest, objective and thorough, non industry funded, sources. So, testes on one magnetic field or radio transmission type, does not necessarily carry to another type, the results on molecular bonds could be different. If there is an problem, we will have an better idea if there is overall advantage to be gained by extra safety measures or not.

People are often to self interested in protecting themselves, and yet we consider that industry and government are not, and people go out to bat for them. What is worse than "red under the bed", "Reds in the bed" and denying they are there. Anybody ever remember the debunking hum drum, and research, associated with the words "big tobacco". Yes, scientist and skeptics aren't gullible, right?

Did anybody follow that report I linked to, of villagers 'dropping like flies" as they tested an new Wi-max tower? Does anybody know what happened with that, how it turned out?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32320

0
0
Anonymous Coward

For those still following

For those still following, Powerwatch have fully explained their perspective on the science and supporting arguments for why it was _not_ bad science, in a rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column (though it is obviously also relevant here)

This is available from the following:

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070529_panorama_extra.asp

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.