+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31
Wireless Networks Thread, Parent concerns about wifi safety in Technical; The council of Europe is not as official as it sounds. It is not part of the European Union functions....
  1. #16

    elsiegee40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    10,793
    Thank Post
    1,789
    Thanked 2,180 Times in 1,615 Posts
    Rep Power
    771
    The council of Europe is not as official as it sounds. It is not part of the European Union functions.

  2. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    16
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    6
    There was a very good program on BBC the other day that covers it in a friendly format. BBC iPlayer - Bang Goes the Theory: Series 6: Episode 5

  3. #18

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    That report is a ridiculous pile of FUD. Less testing was done on poly-unsaturated fat than has been done on wifi, yet that is legal and in *everything*.

    A precautionary approach is fine, but practicality dictates that sometimes we have to 'risk' things. There's a chance that letting kids use hacksaws in DT can lead to them cutting their hands off, but we let them do it. There's a chance, however slim, that wifi can cause cancer, but we should continue to use it as the benefits outweigh the risk.

    Children are killed in car accidents every day, yet we don't go around banning cars.

  4. #19

    Oaktech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Bournemouth
    Posts
    2,806
    Thank Post
    774
    Thanked 547 Times in 427 Posts
    Rep Power
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by pete View Post
    I particularly like the fact that the evil wireless looks like a linksys wap54g, which is indeed evil, but not for the reasons in the cartoon.

  5. #20

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,093
    Thank Post
    592
    Thanked 1,953 Times in 1,351 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Children are killed in car accidents every day, yet we don't go around banning cars.

    It's for the same reason as smoking not being banned.

    Taxes.

  6. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    It's for the same reason as smoking not being banned.

    Taxes.
    Plus banning cars would pretty much cripple the country. Public transport's pretty much stretched to its limit at the moment as it is - not to mention pricey.

  7. #22

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Plus banning cars would pretty much cripple the country. Public transport's pretty much stretched to its limit at the moment as it is - not to mention pricey.
    Ah, but public transport wouldn't be so costly if everyone had to use it...

  8. #23

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,093
    Thank Post
    592
    Thanked 1,953 Times in 1,351 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Plus banning cars would pretty much cripple the country. Public transport's pretty much stretched to its limit at the moment as it is - not to mention pricey.
    I've always said "Ban cars [including buses]. Force companies to develop things not reliant on fossil fuels."


    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Ah, but public transport wouldn't be so costly if everyone had to use it...



    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


    is funny 'cos you think the government aren't greedy.
    Last edited by X-13; 19th April 2012 at 10:07 AM.

  9. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Ah, but public transport wouldn't be so costly if everyone had to use it...
    You mean if they had an absolute monopoly rather than only a partial one, they wouldn't raise prices?

  10. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    16
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    6
    Getting a bit off topic now guys

  11. #26

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    You mean if they had an absolute monopoly rather than only a partial one, they wouldn't raise prices?
    The Isle of Man has a monopoly, and it is cost effective and efficient there...

    Quote Originally Posted by chackett View Post
    Getting a bit off topic now guys
    Nah, that's just your imagination - public transport often has wifi onboard now...

  12. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire
    Posts
    2,190
    Thank Post
    13
    Thanked 226 Times in 216 Posts
    Rep Power
    66
    You will more than likely find more of the parents that not have wireless at home and dont even realise its wireless they have at home.

  13. #28

    jinnantonnixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In the Calamatorium.
    Posts
    1,970
    Thank Post
    113
    Thanked 490 Times in 336 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    283
    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewL View Post
    You will more than likely find more of the parents that not have wireless at home and dont even realise its wireless they have at home.
    True enough. Also DECT phones, which do not have the power adaptive technology of mobile phones.

    Of course, measuring the "power" of wireless devices (wifi, phone masts, laptops, phones) is meaningless unless you include the distance at which they're measured, and the distance at which you normally find yourself from these devices. The inverse square law applies to radio waves, meaning that a low power device (mobile phone for instance) held to your head causes an order of magnitude more absorption than a much more powerful phone mast a quarter of a mile away.

    I would wager that those "concerned" mentioned by the OP own and use mobiles.

    Wikipedia is normally reliable for non-contentious issues, but as always take what you read with a pinch of (low sodium) salt.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireles...h#Wireless_LAN
    Last edited by jinnantonnixx; 19th April 2012 at 10:46 AM.

  14. #29

    AngryTechnician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,730
    Thank Post
    698
    Thanked 1,212 Times in 761 Posts
    Rep Power
    394
    I like to point out that as well as DECT phones, many baby monitors work on the 2.4GHz spectrum, and no-one's banning baby monitors.

    The problem is that as soon as people bash something like "wireless network radiation" into Google and see 4 million results, they assume the worst, even though the quality (and relevance) of those results is quite poor. As a counter to that, put in "wireless network perfectly safe" and you get 67 million results. Now, I'm not claiming that quantity of Google hits on a specific term means they are safe; on the contrary, it shows how meaningless such a selective search can be, but that's the sort of thing a lot of people base their opinion on.

  15. #30

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,933
    Thank Post
    1,339
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 1,106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    594
    I tend to say "basically, the information which is out there and trustworthy says that there is no causal link which can be established but that doesn't mean it is 100% safe, in the same manner that eating burnt toast might not be safe (ooohh ... PPKs are carcinogenic?)"

    There are some guides about mobile phone usage with young children and that is related, to some extent, to the proximity of the device to developing cells ... going to speaker phone or things like Skype on a computer can be argued as a method of dealing with that.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18th July 2011, 11:22 PM
  2. [Video] 1960's Public Information Film about motorcycle safety
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 24th January 2010, 12:44 PM
  3. Parental Consent to use the internet at school
    By mark in forum School ICT Policies
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 24th June 2005, 11:18 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •