|
16 May 07 - 01:51 PM (#2053705) Subject: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: GUEST,Jim McLean I have just been asked (as a technician) to remove two WiFi systems, access points, from a network in a school as one parent has said it disturbs her child's sleep patterns. I'm assuming the child doesn't sleep in the classroom, but this parent has managed to convince other parents that WiFi is harmful hence the school's decision to abandon wireless. Even after I switched off the WiFi there were still four other network wireless points which could be accessed but this did not convince her. I pointed out the comparable strength of mobile signals, but still no good! I gave her an analogy: it's like complaining of a slight drizzle of rain while you're swimming in the ocean. No good. All major UK universities, the reading rooms in the British Museum, Heathrow air terminal, and many, many more places are covered by WiFi. What is the answer? |
|
16 May 07 - 02:01 PM (#2053715) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: jeffp Some people are just idiots. |
|
16 May 07 - 02:45 PM (#2053762) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Leadfingers There WAS a recent report about the dangers in WiFi laptops IF held on the lap rather than on a desk , especially for young children ! In the same way that a Mobile phone MAY be a problem to a child IF held to the ear for LONG periods . |
|
16 May 07 - 04:58 PM (#2053895) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Q (Frank Staplin) An adv. on TV here showed two dogs with earphones listening to a radio station which broadcasts pop music. Torture pure and simple. Pop music can kill! |
|
16 May 07 - 05:13 PM (#2053912) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: astro It's the same idea that all chemistry kills, my what is water...? |
|
16 May 07 - 05:34 PM (#2053936) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: JohnInKansas So mama says the kid only watches TV through a lead shield? There seems to be a core people who insist on believing and propogating tales about the ill effects of almost every thing "electric," and it has proven mostly impossible to convince them otherwise by rational arguments or by rigorously conducted tests. While it is possible, if you search hard enough, to find a very few scattered reports in applicable peer reviewed publications that claim evidence of "effects," if you read the reviews and subsequent independent trials, there have been none that survive more than - usually - a few months. A very recent report by a qualified high school student who used his father's consultant credentials to get supervised access to hospital equipment and terminally ill cardiac patients claims to have demonstrated that an iPod held within 5 inches of some pacemakers can "affect" the pacemaker**. Journal reviews aren't in on this one yet, but it was reported on MSNBC so everybody knows its true. That's about the best I can do for anything that actually supports dear muther. ** or something like that? John |
|
16 May 07 - 05:48 PM (#2053946) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: astro John, you are correct in this...there is this myth that the good "ol" days were so healthy...that's why the life expectancy was so short...we live in fabled times (though somewhat troubled).... |
|
16 May 07 - 06:16 PM (#2053970) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Tootler It's extremely disturbing how one parent can be allowed to dictate to a whole school because of some unproven theory. Surely the head should have made a stand? |
|
16 May 07 - 06:30 PM (#2053983) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Jack Campin This isn't a crank worry. http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62074 |
|
16 May 07 - 06:38 PM (#2053994) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Rapparee WiFi works on radio waves, the same things that penetrate your body, house, car, and everything. The waves come from radio transmitters and even from the Universe itself!! Even the planet Earth generates radio waves! If they're harmful, why are we living so long? And why weren't we wiped out thousands of years ago? |
|
16 May 07 - 07:04 PM (#2054015) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: The Fooles Troupe "If they're harmful, why are we living so long? And why weren't we wiped out thousands of years ago? " It's a matter of relative levels. "There seems to be a core of people who insist on believing and propogating tales about the ill effects of almost every thing "electric," and it has proven mostly impossible to convince them otherwise by rational arguments or by rigorously conducted tests." It's a matter of relative sanity... |
|
16 May 07 - 07:15 PM (#2054023) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Jim McLean Tootler, I agree but the head (it's a private school) has behaved 'diplomatically', in other words he's concerned about his income, and has deffered to the parents. |
|
16 May 07 - 07:44 PM (#2054051) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: JohnInKansas Every one knows that trees sprout more prolifically and grow faster directly underneath power lines. How do you explain that if electromagnetism doesn't affect living things? Ok, so I've told you several times; but do you remember? John |
|
16 May 07 - 08:00 PM (#2054063) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: The Fooles Troupe Remember what? Funny true story. When much younger, I was in a physics class at QIT. My mate and I were using a CRO to monitor an electrical circuit. We had to twiddle knob in defined increments and write down what happened to frequency, as a resistance changed - something like that. No matter how we twiddled (you lot are cheeky!) the waveform never changed. So we called over the tutor, and he twiddled too (I've told you once!). He checked the circuit, then went away scratching his head. Further twiddling by me on my own (Stop laughing!) revealed that the wave form stayed the same frequency, but a tiny little bit of fuzz on the beautiful sine wave changed - the fuzz was much less than 5% of the amplitude. The tutor came back, looked more closely at the CRO, glared at us then rotated a knob on the CRO. Bingo! The waveform now did what it was supposed to do. You see - the couple of feet of wiring in the circuit was picking up about 40 volts of mains hum form the huge main sub station transformer on the other side of the room! And one of us two idiots had set the CRO to the wrong time base setting.... :-) Now I don't know about harmful, but I can honesty say that the experience left me with a permanent effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec |
|
16 May 07 - 08:59 PM (#2054098) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Rapparee Heck, back when I took High School Chemistry and Physics we messed with pure mercury, uranium oxide, pure sodium, potassium, and calcium metals, thousands of volts of electricity, hundreds of AMPS of electricity, gen-u-wine VACUUM tubes (which goes to show you how long ago that was!), and a whole raft of stuff that today you wouldn't touch until college. No, it wasn't so long ago that the latest discovery was fire...not that long ago. No, the latest discovery was the inclined plane.... |
|
16 May 07 - 09:16 PM (#2054111) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: The Fooles Troupe Screw - Archimedes... |
|
16 May 07 - 09:21 PM (#2054118) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: GUEST Id_jets all over the place.
WiFi harmful?
|
|
16 May 07 - 09:23 PM (#2054121) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: GUEST,TJ WiFi transmitters are very low power devices with a range of a couple hundred feet. I would suggest that the paranoids first focus their attention on the several dozen television and radio signals that are presently passing through their bodies and have been for as long as they've been alive, and when they've worried sufficiently about them, think about all the electromagnetic radiation from space that has been passing through humans for as long as we've been around as a species. Now if they wanted to ban cellphones in public places, THAT would be a great idea! :-) |
|
16 May 07 - 10:16 PM (#2054159) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Don Firth Hell, why fight it? For that matter, how can you fight it!?? Out my front window, I can see three television transmitter towers—line of sight—not more than a mile or so away. About ten blocks south of where we live, there are two more transmitter towers. Satellites in synchronous orbit beam television and telephone signals down from on high (several people in the building have Direct TV). On top of an apartment building half a block away, there is a cell phone relay antenna (several dishes on it). The building in which we live is a wireless hot-spot. There are at least five wireless routers in the building, including our own. There are several other hot-spots in the neighborhood. Microwave ovens everywhere! The sun blasts us with microwave radiation all day long, and the surrounding galaxy gets its shot at us at night. Microwaves are to us as water is to fish. Don Firth |
|
16 May 07 - 10:33 PM (#2054166) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: The Fooles Troupe Unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and the "6,000 years" stuff, human evolution took place over a very long time adjusting to the normal levels of radiation present. Dumping many times this level of man made radiation on top of that - well, scientific tests haven't yet come up with absolutely definite agreement on everything about the increased level - although I personally know of Aussie F111 fitters who walked in front of the radar while testing and got pretty sick - but common sense indicates that a degree of caution would not go astray. |
|
16 May 07 - 10:34 PM (#2054170) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Rowan Just as well neutrinos aren't on such parents' agendas, with three per second (at the last count I made) passing through every cranium on the planet. Cheers, Rowan |
|
17 May 07 - 02:48 AM (#2054257) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Darowyn In that case it's about time that the lawmakers passed a law to ban Neutrinos. While they are in the mood they could ban cosmic rays and ultra violet. And set Pi to 3 and the square root of 2 to one. the sad thing is that there are people out there who really are that stupid - or being very generous- ignorant about science and maths. Cheers Dave |
|
17 May 07 - 04:07 AM (#2054350) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: JohnInKansas Jack Campin (16 May 07 - 06:30 PM) cites an "official" demand for investigation as evidence that this is real. Many such demands are made, some of them are investigated, none of them have ever resulted in scientifically credible evidence of damage to humans. In response to the "resistance" of the scientific community, new claims frequently include a "but this is different" claim, as does the citation Jack linked: Unlike phone radiation WiFi exposes everyone in the immediate area. D.u.u.u.u.h.h.h.??????? - Presumedly the EM waves emitted by telephones and by telephone towers carry little tags that say "I'm a telephone signal" and the EM waves from WiFi emitters have different little tags, and the "ether" that carries these signals reads the tags and knows it should handle the radiation differently? While it dealt with slightly different context, an explanation of the true scriptures applicable to this discussion appears in the Mudcat Thread: Dark Matter. Be sure to check the link there for the whole story, although be aware that the transcript appears in several ancient languages. You really do need to be able to read them to be "informed." The article Jack cites also claims "several lawsuits" as evidence that this is a "real" issue. As to whether a lawsuit, successful or otherwise, has "scientific credibility," people might wish to observe the report at This Other Mudcat Thread John |
|
17 May 07 - 04:59 AM (#2054399) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Jim McLean There's a report in today's local paper that a 'computer expert' is trying to stop a school from using WiFi. He says he doesn't want his daughter to use a laptop which has WiFi enabled! No reasons are given just the usual scaremongering. I watch these parents using mobile 'phones discussing the dangers of WiFi! |
|
17 May 07 - 05:33 AM (#2054418) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: GUEST,Keinstein The field strength from modile phone handsets is orders of magnitude greater than that from WiFi, as it has to be detectable at the cell station which may be several Km away. Credible studies so far of the effects mobile phone field strengths have shown no problems: http://www.global-engineering-excellence.org/en/engineering_news/news_universities/08_2006/06_08_01_radiation.html;jsessionid=743870BAC06220FD996AD15C8858B907 so we can expect WiFi to be harmless. TV and radio aren't relevant, unless you are close to the transmitter- and even there, apart from apocryphal stories about hearing voices detected by fillings, over 80 years of experience has shown nothing harmful. You really have to sit on the antenna to be hurt. |
|
17 May 07 - 09:01 AM (#2054542) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Grab Jim, since no-one's ever managed to show that they're sensitive to Wi-Fi, why not ask the kid and her parents to help you with a simple experiment? Agree that you'll turn off the Wi-Fi, and then turn it on for one day at some random point. Then two weeks later (when the day has come and gone), ask the kid and parents to report back. You could even join forces with the school science teachers and make it a science experiment by getting the entire school involved, with statistical samples from each class to check the possibility of age having an impact. Any decent science teacher should be able to work out some better scenarios than the one above - or even better, get the kids to figure some out. Then the school can show that not only are they trying to do something about it, they're also trying to advance the state of medical science. Sadly the UK isn't much keen on children's involvement in experimental science, because they don't have science fairs like the US do, which is a real shame. Still, there are some UK awards for school science projects which are worth a look. And it'll get the school in the papers too. Graham. |
|
17 May 07 - 09:09 AM (#2054548) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: MMario Cellular phone transmissions are minutes a day wrong-o! |
|
17 May 07 - 09:16 AM (#2054560) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Jim McLean Grab, I already explained, and demonstrated, to the parent that after turning off the school's Access Point, there were still signals from neighbouring WiFis "in the classroom" and could not suggest a WiFi free area in London. I believe this parent has persuaded her neighbour to turn off his/her router at night! She doesn't respond to logic. |
|
17 May 07 - 03:31 PM (#2054857) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Don Firth Well, now. . . . Our WiFi routed is sitting on top of the wardrobe about 12 feet from where Barbara and I sleep. So far, we haven't noticed any effects, other than Barbara's developing a sixth toe on each foot and I'm growing a third eye in the middle of my forehead. Don Firth |
|
17 May 07 - 03:42 PM (#2054861) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: beardedbruce "I'm growing a third eye in the middle of my forehead." That is a sign of advancing mystic wisdom. Now, if it had been on the side of the head... |
|
17 May 07 - 07:25 PM (#2055030) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Grab I believe this parent has persuaded her neighbour to turn off his/her router at night! Jeez, that's going some! You have my sympathies, dealing with a nutter of that magnitude! |
|
17 May 07 - 08:58 PM (#2055074) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: GUEST Running your tongue over - copper-coins has a VERY LOW LEVEL of transmissons
Someone in this thread is a "dupe" (read the deffiniton of "dupe)
sick, Sick, and SICKER. |
|
17 May 07 - 10:52 PM (#2055142) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: The Fooles Troupe don't you mean snick, snick, snicker... |
|
21 May 07 - 03:19 AM (#2057420) Subject: BS: WIFI Networks - dangerous to children? From: nutty A BBC Panorama programme is suggesting that WIFI networks in the home and at school are as dangerous to children as mobile phones are. Many people have WIFI in their homes so, IF there is danger, this is something that they should be aware of. Anyone got any info on this? Messages from new thread transferred in. |
|
21 May 07 - 04:25 AM (#2057444) Subject: RE: BS: WIFI Networks - dangerous to children? From: Captain Ginger The programme makers appear to have clutched at the most sensational aspects of some rather unscientific research on this one. Doubtless the issue will be picked up by the Daily Mail et al, but the reaction from many scientists seems distinctly sceptical. |
|
21 May 07 - 04:49 AM (#2057454) Subject: RE: BS: WIFI Networks - dangerous to children? From: JohnInKansas ... as dangerous to children as mobile phones are ... Lots of research has been done on the "dangers of mobile phones," to adults and children, and the conclusion of virtually all of the credible research is that they are only dangerous to children if they use the phone to call a local (child) pornographer. I suppose they could use their computer via Wi-Fi for the same purposes, so it's quite true that the hazards are about the same. John |
|
21 May 07 - 06:27 AM (#2057496) Subject: RE: BS: WIFI Networks - dangerous to children? From: Liz the Squeak It's all about radio waves and there was a thread previously on this subject - a school removed its WiFi because a parent had complained or something. Marie Curie thought radiation wasn't very dangerous until she died of a disease associated with prolonged exposure to it. LTS |
|
21 May 07 - 08:59 AM (#2057584) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Grab as dangerous to children as mobile phones are So not at all, then...? Re different types of radiation, see this link for details of the electromagnetic spectrum. WiFi is 2.4GHz (2 * 10 Also see this NASA link for a good description of the relationship between wavelength and energy. Curie is believed to have died from exposure to high-energy radiation following her work with X-rays. That's the reason hospitals have shielded booths for radiographers, and why they don't give too many X-rays to someone in a short space of time. For high-power microwave/radio output, the only known effect is heating. Emissions levels in Wifi and phones are set low enough that this is highly unlikely to be significant ("low" really *is* low!). There *are* people who claim to be electrosensitive - that is, allergic to EM radiation in the same way as you might be allergic to pollen. To date, tests have not shown that they actually are - in other words, they could not report when they were or weren't being exposed to EM radiation. All tests so far have been small-scale studies though, so it isn't completely impossible. The largest study on this so far has just ended and the researchers are checking their data, so we should have a better idea soon. Graham. |
|
21 May 07 - 09:04 AM (#2057589) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Grab An interesting summary of electrosensitivity Graham. |
|
21 May 07 - 09:15 AM (#2057603) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: GUEST,Mr Marigold Bluetooth isn't very good you either.. but its your own fault if you don't bother to brush properly twice a day |
|
21 May 07 - 09:19 AM (#2057607) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: The Fooles Troupe I though it would have been Harold that said that... |
|
21 May 07 - 09:35 AM (#2057614) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: MaineDog Oh,come off it!! Everyone knows that the RFI sources we know about are not the ones that are going to get us, because we can do something about them, like wrap ourselves with aluminum foil every time we have to drive by that mega-watt TV tower down on rte 128--. We can stop going to Cape Cod because of the PAVE PAWS radar there, we can stop going to airports because they have radars and vhf transmitters, we can get rid of our microwave ovens, and our electric blankets, we can rip off the monitoring devices from around the necks of the elderly, we can trash all the baby room monitors, etc, but what about all the secret spy devices big brother has hidden in our cars, our houses, our WAL-MART sneakers, our public bathrooms, our churches, and those web cams at local ski areas and tourist attractions, all these things will kill us sooner or later! We can only live in fear of all this until the fear kills us. MD |
|
21 May 07 - 09:46 AM (#2057625) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: The Fooles Troupe You never hear the bullet that kills you... because you're DEAD! |
|
21 May 07 - 10:37 AM (#2057656) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: JennyO I have noticed that I have been blinking more with my eyes lately...... |
|
21 May 07 - 10:43 AM (#2057664) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: The Fooles Troupe Those damn Satellites again! |
|
21 May 07 - 12:02 PM (#2057736) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: JennyO Quick, where are the foil hats? |
|
21 May 07 - 01:13 PM (#2057775) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Don Firth Curses! Foiled again!! Don Firth |
|
29 May 07 - 10:28 PM (#2063708) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: Stilly River Sage Here they are, Jenny. Several styles to choose from. http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ I can't believe either that one parent who is clearly a few cards short of a deck is able to dictate to the entire school what their Internet wifi policy should be. It strikes me as an environment where not much will get done at that rate. SRS |
|
30 May 07 - 07:19 PM (#2064438) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: The Fooles Troupe I seem to remmber that Myth Busters did a test on foil helmets too. :-) |
|
30 May 07 - 07:49 PM (#2064469) Subject: RE: Tech: WiFi harmful? From: GUEST,meself "I'm assuming the child doesn't sleep in the classroom ... " I gather you haven't been in a classroom in a while ... |