UK doctor puts the smackdown on WiFi fearmongers
By Cyrus Farivar 
posted Dec 12th 2006 10:27PM
posted Dec 12th 2006 10:27PM
Ok, folks, listen up: this whole WiFi health thing is starting to get a little out of hand. In response to an issue that The Times reported on late last month, where some UK schools were pulling the plug on their local wireless networks due to health concerns, the newspaper has now done a bit more investigating into its health effects, perceived or otherwise. It interviewed various pundits on both sides, but one of the most powerful arguments was made by Dr. Michael Clark, of the UK's Health Protection Agency, who said: "As a comparison, a child on a mobile phone receives up to 50 per cent of guideline levels. So a year sitting in a classroom near a wireless network is roughly equivalent to 20 minutes on a mobile. If WiFi should be taken out of schools, then the mobile phone network should be shut down, too - and FM radio and TV, as the strength of their signals is similar to that from WiFi in classrooms." Further, there are also concerns about electrosensitivity -- people who claim to be physically injured due to electromagnetic waves that propagate from WiFi equipment. As both The Times article, and WiFi expert Glenn Fleishman suggest, one simple way to determine whether or not this is actually true would be to conduct a double-blind test. Honestly, you government experts and anti-WiFi folks, would that be so hard?Read - The Times
Read - Wi-Fi Net News
[Via Techdirt]
To quote John Stossel, "give me a break".
Damn Straight!
Its about time someone took a stand against this Wifi silliness!
Thank you Dr Common Sense.
all i can say is wtf!?
its "Manbearbig"
I'm super serial guys, Wifi can like kill you and stuff
This reminds me of when I was a kid and my mother used to tell me not to look into the microwave door because it can hurt me. It's all BS. I am no medical doctor, but from my understanding of WiFi, and any wireless communication signals, the wavelengths involved are too big to even affect humans. Walls are even "invisible" to longer wavelengths that cell phones, cordless phones, and WiFi use. In other words: these signals pass through our bodies as if we weren't there.
Please correct me if I am wrong. I have not read any medical studies on this or anything. My opinion is based solely on physics and the properties of electromagnetic waves.
You've got the right stance Earl, but somewhat lacking in substance. 2.4Ghz, the frequency used for microwave ovens, wireless phones, wifi, and bluetooth, is actually the perfect wavelength for making H2O (yep, water) molecules vibrate, which is what heats up your leftover KFC and dries out your fries in the microwave.
These waves are on the order of 2-3 centimeters I believe.
But still, unless you're surrounding yourself with magnetrons from a bunch of microwaves.. you're fine. Its the intensity that matters, not to wavelength.
actually, if you stare into an improperly shielded microwave, you can get cataracts and the like. 2.4 ghz is good for heating up the fluid in your eye's lens, which has no blood flow and thus no cooling system.
Actually your wrong, bodies can affect WiFi signals quite a bit. The water in your body can do alot to dampen a wifi signal. In my experience in the IT world I have seen a -15db difference with my body between my laptop and the WAP and vice versa. Also wifi is not "invisible" to walls, I deal with my companies wifi network daily and there is a noticeable difference when you place a WAP on one side of the wall and your laptop on the other.
You are right, I didn't actually bother to see what frequency cell phones and WiFi receive/emit in. Microwaves I knew were short. This is the reason for the wire screen on the door with the holes in it. Someone can see their food being cooked, while not cooking their face. Visible light has a much smaller wavelength than microwaves, so microwaves don't get through the holes.
Knowing that cell phones and WiFi work at these wavelengths, then it could very well be dangerous for us. But that is only if the source has a high enough intensity, like you said.
Now it doesn't seem that far fetched for this radiation to damage some DNA. But I would seriously doubt that WiFi is strong enough to penetrate our bodies enough to cause any major damage (ie. cancer). If that was the case, we wouldn't be able to go outside when the Sun is up.
It also seems that what can cause cancer changes every other month. I couldn't imagine going back to a life before cell phones or WiFi anyway.
LOL, so those guys are telling me to throw away my Wi-Fi adapter?
So I guess I cant blame this rash I have on the wireless router in my room and should go see a doctor >_
The end of the world is coming and its all because of WiFi.
Quick, get the foil hats!!!
Wrong again Earl. Most 'cordless phones', the home phones, work at the 2.4GHz freq, not 'cell phones'
We all have a terminal disease anyways. It's called life.
Call me when they have a cure for that whose side effects don't include death.
Why should the Sun be dangerous? It's a powerful radiator only on optical, infrared and UV (which will still be blocked by the ozone layer). Higher energies from the core lose their energy on the journey to the surface, and normal stars don't really radiate RF.
On another topic, I have a friend who really is sensitive to electromagnetism. I don't know how it applies to electromagnetic radiation because in that case she could't live in light, but she can't stand being near to any electrical appliance. By her words, her skin begins to tickle and she gets a heavy headache.
While this issue could be total bullshit, we still don't know the full effects of EMR.
Never heard of skin cancer? Spend too much time outdoors without proper protection (clothing, sunblock... etc) and you run the risk of getting it.
Yeah it emits mostly in the visible, which is why our eyes are adapted to see visible light.
Our Sun is a blackbody and emits in all frequencies: gamma, x-ray... to radio.
We now enter a digital age of natural selection. If you can't cope with high energy electromagnetic waves... you are eliminated.. all part of evolution :)
I have been wondering about all of this, I thinks its harmless, unless you don't properly shut down a cell site before you work on it, you should be fine.......
OK let me get this straight. You guys suggest doing an experiment were half the kids get high doses of electromagnetic radiation and another group of kids do not?
Yes, I am sure this will certainly get by ethics. Hey, are you going to volunteer your kids for the study? Oh, how come?
Well Lokheed, a test with mice would be sufficient I guess, or start with plants if you really think that's necessary.
If the tests show no harm to those subjects, you can move on to mice, cats, volunteers etc. That's the usual path to follow.
I sleep next to my wireless router... its on the shelf above my bed,.. ive not noticed anything.. it helps me sleep, but thats just the nice humming sound it makes.
Seriously though.. Wtf?
I realized this after another poster pointed out that WiFi is in the microwave frequency range. Like I said, I didn't bother to look up which frequencies these things emit in. I just assumed it was radio waves, which is my fault. I guess it would have been better to use something that can penetrate most walls. I guess that there are already enough radio waves in the air that interference will be an issue.
I know, I'm a non-pro astronomer. I don't mean to boast with my knowledge, just pointing out. But the Sun does not emit strong x-ray or gamma, it's just a main sequence star. And skin cancer is caused by ultraviolet rays. From Wikipedia: "The high-energy photons (gamma and X-rays) released in fusion reactions take a long time to reach the Sun's surface, slowed down by the indirect path taken, as well as by constant absorption and reemission at lower energies in the solar mantle."
Lower than UV radiation isn't harmful, otherwise even light would hurt.
So when my neighbours unprotected network shows up on my laptop at home, can I sue him for cancer?
Well guys, I am going to have to differ with this opinion, A while ago I was reading about a study done in india, with the help of the us nsf, they were trying to figure out why the cancer rates in the us and western world is higher, one idea was the generations of exposure to electromagnetic, uv, microwave radiation or something like it i think, japan is one of the most advanced in technology, but it seems the food they eat are some of least processed in the world, compared with the western world. So I believe the idea that electromagnetic and other radiation exposure does hurt, think about all the radio,wifi,cell phone,tv, and other signals we are dalily exposed to, but what matters most is, we are what we eat!!! Also dont forget the sun, if your dna is damaged and you pass that copy on to your offspring, it only gets worse!!
This is so stupid it sounds like a really funny idea for a Spongebob Squarepants episode. LOL!
The US spent over 160 Billion dollars after a few people thought living under electrical towers caused cancer and birth defects. That was 160 Billion wasted dollars, fed completely on a public whose science education is so deficient that the can be duped into thinking the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs and man existed at the same time.
Other recent studies have blasted apart the "cell phone cancer" folks, I'm sure much to the dismay of useless "electromagnetic protection" manufacturers everywhere.
The thought that a wireless router can be harmful to your health (other than by causing you to sit prone at a computer all day) is ludicrous. Echoing an earlier poster - unless you're sitting in the middle of a bunch of cell phone tower emmitters all day, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Problem with doing a test is that no one will fund it. The industry will, but only if they're sure the results will be what they want, like the big Danish study on cell phones recently that concluded they don't cause brain cancer. Only thing is, they defined a regular cell phone user as someone who uses their phone once a week for six months. Now why do you suppose they did that?