http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/ Engadget Comments for WiFi is dangerous/not dangerous: a new saga http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 22nd 2006 9:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 22nd 2006 10:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 22nd 2006 10:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 22nd 2006 10:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
EX. My neighbors has WIFI and the signals are giving me cancer. I am going to sue for a billion dollars. ]]>Feb 22nd 2006 10:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 22nd 2006 10:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 22nd 2006 10:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
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).]]>Feb 22nd 2006 10:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 22nd 2006 11:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
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.]]>Feb 22nd 2006 11:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/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.
]]>Feb 22nd 2006 11:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
Sean]]>Feb 22nd 2006 11:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/I hardly doubt the 100mW of wifi will have any effect.]]>Feb 22nd 2006 11:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
But hey anything that makes Carleton look good is fine by me...]]>Feb 22nd 2006 11:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 22nd 2006 12:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
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. ]]>Feb 22nd 2006 1:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
"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.]]>Feb 22nd 2006 3:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/]]>Feb 22nd 2006 4:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
this is a stupid rule and I *love* that Engadget made it a story!]]>Feb 22nd 2006 7:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 22nd 2006 11:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/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.]]>Feb 23rd 2006 12:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 23rd 2006 11:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 23rd 2006 11:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
And as for Brian's statement about not recognizing Lakehead as a real university: stick it up your ass
]]>Feb 23rd 2006 7:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
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. ]]>Feb 23rd 2006 11:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
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).]]>Feb 24th 2006 6:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 25th 2006 9:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 25th 2006 11:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
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. ]]>Feb 26th 2006 6:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Feb 26th 2006 8:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
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
]]>Feb 27th 2006 1:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Mar 23rd 2006 6:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/
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]]>Apr 3rd 2006 1:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Sep 28th 2006 12:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/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?]]>Dec 12th 2006 11:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/22/wifi-is-dangerous-not-dangerous-a-new-saga/Oct 6th 2007 5:24PM