WiFi is dangerous/not dangerous: a new saga

We thought the tinfoil hat brigade was busy enough going after cellphones that they'd leave other technology alone. But apparently, some of them have found time to attack WiFi, and have had their first taste of success at a Canadian university, which has just banned wireless internet access. Officials at the school, Lakehead University, have banned WiFi, saying that they want to avoid "potential chronic exposure for our students." The officials point out that the "jury’s out" on the health risks from EMF generated by WiFi transmissions, and liken the risks of WiFi to those of second-hand tobacco smoke, which were not immediately apparent to researchers. Meanwhile, the school apparently still allows microwave ovens, cellphones, televisions, portable radios and other electrical devices that may pose some undefined long-term risk, though we assume they'll get around to banning them all soon enough.

[Via Boing Boing]

[ChrisC @ Feb 22nd 2006 9:49AM]

I can't believe my undergrad alma mater is this stupid. Then again, thinking back about some of the folks that ran the show at good ol' Lunkhead U, I can believe it.

[Jnetty @ Feb 22nd 2006 10:07AM]

I be really pissed if my University took off the Wireless network.

[sdwells @ Feb 22nd 2006 10:22AM]

It is ridiculous to ban one form of wireless signal and allow, as mentioned, so many others. Granted its nearly impossible to "ban" wireless transmission seeing as our bodies are being bombarded with them pretty much everywhere we go. They'd have to literally insulate their school buildings to accomplish this ban.

[bizznitch @ Feb 22nd 2006 10:27AM]

wow...i never thought my home town would ever be mentioned on this site....but of course it's for something stupid

[Tulio @ Feb 22nd 2006 10:35AM]

Nothing but a bunch of crackpots out there. So does this mean we might start seing lawsuits in regards to WIFI.

EX. My neighbors has WIFI and the signals are giving me cancer. I am going to sue for a billion dollars.

[Justanotherperson @ Feb 22nd 2006 10:42AM]

Your skin reflects most of the electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere around you, so you can wear as many tinfoil hats as you want but being paranoid about radiation floating around the atmosphere is not a productive use of your time. To cause cellular damage, the dosage of (ionizing) radiation must be strong enough to interfere with cellular duplication. Really, you suck on your router for an hour every day and it wouldn't aversely affect your health.

[phoenixfury @ Feb 22nd 2006 10:53AM]

While they are at it, they should ban people too. They are electrical conduits and emit electrical impulses from their bodies that interfere with signals. For instance when you use rabbit ear antannea to pick up broadcast TV, if you go any where near it, it sometimes will go fuzzy, or when you touch it the signal clears right up! So surely other people's electrical energy can't be good for you.. Yeah I'm sure that causes cancer too.

[tiuk @ Feb 22nd 2006 10:59AM]

I'm embarassed that this school is in my province. I'm just glad my university has campus-wide wifi, including outdoor areas. In fact, that's what I'm typing from right now.

Sounds to me like they were just too cheap to roll out a whole bunch of APs (assuming they didn't already have a wifi infrastructure in place).

[Brian @ Feb 22nd 2006 11:20AM]

I'm Canadian and most of us don't recognize Lakehead a real university. So just ignore this post.

[Mosquito Control @ Feb 22nd 2006 11:31AM]

"For instance, there's no proof second hand smoke hurts anybody either... I swear, if I hear anymore incorrect BS about smoking, I'm going to need a cigarette!"

You realize, of course, your post is incorrect BS.

There is no debate over whether or not second hand smoke is harmful. This is accepted by everyone from the WHO to tobacco companies.
The debate is over just how harmful it is. People are beginning to realize that the cancer risk is low, unless perpetually exposed (like bar owners.) But the cardiovascular risks are starting to show themselves as more immediate.

It's absolutely hysterical that you're complaining about "incorrect BS" when you're saying there is "absolutely no risk" despite most studies showing there's at least a slight risk and those showing very, very little risk (but still some) have been very heavily criticized for being flawed.


Hey, I need help with a Nigerian inheritance, there's absolutely no risk you'll lose your money, but I need you to paypal me $5k now to help me get it.

[consumer_q @ Feb 22nd 2006 11:44AM]

Although I think 'tis a bit silly, I do appreciate the concern.
That is, there is so much EM pollution Out There that I think it is a good thing to take a step back and ponder potential problems. It may not cause cancer, but the there is a potential that it will cause ill effects (whether for humans or non-human animals).

Now, the smoking apologist post is damned funny.

[Sean Barton @ Feb 22nd 2006 11:46AM]

whats next, swapping out all of the UTP cabling for STP, "Just in case..." :)

Sean

[Josh Wardell @ Feb 22nd 2006 11:55AM]

Hah. When I was in college, our dorm had a radio tower on top and you could hear the jazz station in any set of speakers several floors below.
I hardly doubt the 100mW of wifi will have any effect.

[Threnody @ Feb 22nd 2006 11:56AM]

Step 2: Classify wireless routers/cards as a weapon, much like laser pointers at a public school. Are they planning on banning laptops with built-in WiFi? Because that might be...impossible

But hey anything that makes Carleton look good is fine by me...

[David @ Feb 22nd 2006 12:16PM]

With those tin foil hats, are you supposed to have the shiny side facing in or out? :)

[Haasim Mahanaim @ Feb 22nd 2006 1:39PM]

I suppose I am not surprised by all of the snide remarks posted here, but I am somewhat dissapointed. The minute I read a comment dismissing the effects of smoking, I knew this discussion wouldn't be going anywhere.

Wi-Fi and cell phones are convenient so nobody wants to even entertain the idea it might be harmful. And what should I expect in a culture where people delibertaely burn their skin, while aware of the increased risk of cancer, because they think it looks pretty.

[Sean DL @ Feb 22nd 2006 3:13PM]

Err...No one dismiss the effects of smoking. They dismissed the effects of second handsmoke.

"Wi-Fi and cell phones are convenient so nobody wants to even entertain the idea it might be harmful. "

Yes, and so is TV and radio and electricity. But nobody wants to even entertain the idea those things might be harmful too.

Hell, we live in a world that picked convenience over safety for hundreds of years now.

I think you should be more dissapointed in that you aren't in a log cabin right now.

[Jason Huber @ Feb 22nd 2006 4:38PM]

MIT recently did a study on tinfoil hats.. They work well, but in reverse of the intended purpose.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

[nidx @ Feb 22nd 2006 7:12PM]

I actually go to Lakehead U (5th year comp-sci). What i don't understand is that my laptop will still be sending out wireless singnals just as much if there is a wireless access point nearby as if not there is still going to be the same radiation!!!

this is a stupid rule and I *love* that Engadget made it a story!

[[e-mail] @ Feb 22nd 2006 11:36PM]

if wifi was actually dangerous i'd be mirowaved by now. I sit next 7dbi to a wifi antenna every day, no more than a meter away from it. I wonder when someone will start a big thing about FM radio waves killing us...

[granny down east @ Feb 23rd 2006 12:24AM]

I sympathize w/ Mahanaim, but that is the nature of this fallen world- something is gonna get you dead, no matter how you try to run; you cannot hide.
Back in the days of CB radios we used to sit on the Blue Ridge Parkway and broadcast a 1000-watt signal from the car to Charlotte. A friend who lived about a mile below the Parkway used to receive the TX on his stereo speakers. He used to bitch us out all the time about the interference.
I bet that signal fried our cojones and that's no lie.

[Legal lady @ Feb 23rd 2006 11:45AM]

This post makes me laugh. It seems like since microwaves and cell phones have been around a lot longer, and thus there have been more studies on them that they would be the first to get banned...rather that something the "jury is still out on." It just sounds super frustrating for their students.

[Todd Lokken @ Feb 23rd 2006 11:54AM]

I can imagine the dorm rooms at that school...basically, I'm guessing a throw rug on the floor and that's it. They don't want to put anything dangerous in there...like a coat hanger.

[Rujube @ Feb 23rd 2006 7:51PM]

I'm also a student at Lakehead. The school newspaper looked into this in November and I just have to say that this post isn't completely accurate. Lakehead didn't ban wireless...it's kind of difficult to do something like that. They are refusing to create a campus-wide wireless network. There are areas within the university where wireless connections are available. I'm not defending the university administration or their stance, believe me. I find it to be ridiculous, but I just felt that that should be cleared up.

And as for Brian's statement about not recognizing Lakehead as a real university: stick it up your ass

[Laura @ Feb 23rd 2006 11:25PM]

Ok so maybe Lakehead is a little cautious, is there really anything wrong with that!?

I may not attend Lakehead but I do know it is a fine university which is well regarded for its Paleo-DNA Laboratory and many other cutting edge programs. People who are attacking the University for the quality of education it provides are sorely uneducated and ignorant on the subject.

[Nix @ Feb 24th 2006 6:51PM]

No offense Rajube, but Lakehead is below DeVry's standards when it comes to "universities".. you might as well call it a college.

And its rather funny too, that a university like this whose reputation is already pretty much down the tubes has decided not to create a standard wi-fi network -- standard as in that pratically every other Canadian university has one.. even some colleges too.. (hence why I say Lakehead is probably worse than most colleges). Thank god these guys don't offer an ITM program.. as anyone knows, wi-fi is pretty much required for any decent ITM program. I shudder to think how EE's will be affected by this decision (anyone trying to study in the communications field anyway).

[billyz @ Feb 25th 2006 9:48AM]

Just Announced: Lakehead University will be implementing a campus wide cup & string communications system. Their engineering department is currently researching into how they can remove the string.

[Linda @ Feb 25th 2006 11:04AM]

Ok, I get that this decision is somewhat ridiculous. I just wanted to add, however, that calling the quality of education available at Lakehead University into question because of the President's decision on this one matter is a poor reflection on certain bloggers' inabilities to separate out their issues. I did my undergrad, honours, and education degrees at Lakehead and went on to do quite well in the Masters program at Guelph before undertaking a Commonwealth Scholarship for my PhD in New Zealand. Lakehead U put me in a great position to do these things, and I appreciate not only the quality of education I had in the English department, but also the quantity of personal attention available in a smaller department. Let's focus on the issue at hand, rather than insulting an institution that offers a rather unique undergraduate experience.

[jcg @ Feb 26th 2006 6:01PM]

legal lady, ever put a small animal in a mircowave? Wi-fi is working at the same frequency (2.45 GHz). So the tin foil gang probally thinks: same frequency, same danger.

The only thing they forget is that a wi-fi accespoint has something like 100 mW output. And a microwave has 1000 W. So you need 10.000 accespoints to get the same power as an microwave.

[Nix @ Feb 26th 2006 8:57PM]

uhhhh.. you graduated from the English department. I was referring to Electrical Engineering and ITM.. two programs which require Wi-Fi technology in some form or another (well every program could use it).. but EE students sometimes REQUIRE wi-fi for final year thesis projects should their projects be in the communications field).. that is how their education could be affected.

[Bounty @ Feb 27th 2006 1:36PM]

I prefer to be safe, rather than sorry. Especially since I have young children in my home.

Go back 50 years, and many of today's Wi-Fi users would probably be the same people that had their feet X-rayed for a better shoe fit:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO6.html

Here are a couple of other related links:
http://www.buergerwelle.de/body_emf-omega-news_15-11-03.html
http://www.latitudes.org/articles/electrical_sensitivity_articles.html

[Craig @ Mar 23rd 2006 6:50PM]

For anyone concerned about wifi radiation, remember that you can always adjust both the power of your router and internal/external card so that it is half, a quarter, or even less power (mine will go down to as low as 12.5%-- which still works just fine for use in my apartment). Not to mention that reduced power is another layer of security ...

[James R. Martin @ Apr 3rd 2006 1:34PM]

Before making up your mind on whether WiFi, WLAN..., may be a legitimate health concern, see:

Cindy Sage on the Lakehead University Wi-Fi decision
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=406

Wireless Action Network of New Mexico's blog
http://wireless-action.blogspot.com

[nidx @ Sep 28th 2006 12:18PM]

Still no wi-fi here .... but I did find somthing interesting ... I am taking a psych class for elective credit and turned on KisMac to try to find if there were any hidden networks .... nope .... just over 200 laptops within range trying to connect to somthing or creating fairly useless ad-hoc networks .... So much for reducing wireless radiation

[DC @ Dec 12th 2006 11:37PM]

Got any proof for any of the claims you're making?
Because there sure is proof out there that inhaling smoke is bad for you. 2nd hand smoke is no different that smoking a cigarette yourself, just in different concentrations.
As for WiFi, the fact that so much other wireless traffic is out there disproves the allegation that it's dangerous. Do DJ's at radio stations have higher chances for cancer?

[Nicholas @ Oct 6th 2007 5:24PM]

Yep...that's my school. Stupid hippies.....