lmgtfy Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Anyone seen this? Just wondering what are your thoughts are on it? Is Wi-Fi making your child ill?
elsiegee40 Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Tin foil hats everyone! Seriously though, this has been discussed many times. There's more radiation from the average mobile phone, I believe, than from the wifi
mjk Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 WiFi Makes me ill. Sick to death infact. I always thought it was due to the vagueness of "the internet doesn't work" that caused me headaches. Now I know it's all about the RF ! 1
Joanne Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 When a local GP backed up Lewis’s suspicions about Wi-Fi being the probable cause of Jessica’s headaches, he went to some lengths to try to convince Spotbrough Copley Junior School in Doncaster to use wires instead of Wi-Fi, even offering to pay for the school building to be wired with cables. I'd be all like GO FOR IT! I want floor panels though, so that there is no risk of people tripping... yes under every desk.... yes in every classroom... Oh you can't afford the hundreds of thousands that would cost? OK I'll remove the AP in your childs classroom then. KTHXBAI.
Domino Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Oh, it's that time of year again? bullplop. BULLPLOP 1
frazzlesgrant Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I use wifi all the time and me and my 3 arms think its pretty safe
elsiegee40 Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 When a local GP backed up Lewis’s suspicions about Wi-Fi being the probable cause of Jessica’s headaches, he went to some lengths to try to convince Spotbrough Copley Junior School in Doncaster to use wires instead of Wi-Fi, even offering to pay for the school building to be wired with cables.I'd be all like GO FOR IT! I want floor panels though, so that there is no risk of people tripping... yes under every desk.... yes in every classroom... Oh you can't afford the hundreds of thousands that would cost? OK I'll remove the AP in your childs classroom then. KTHXBAI. You can just see the doctor nodding and saying "Yes, it could be the wifi, but have you tried letting your child play out of doors more often and not be stuck inside constantly...."
localzuk Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 My views on that are summed up in this one line from within its text - "As yet there is still no scientific proof that relates these diseases to radiation". Remember - WiFi has been around and popular for 15 years+, and there is still nothing saying WiFi is bad for you. Comparing it to mobile phone signals is moronic, as they operate at very different power levels, and on very different frequencies, not to mention a mobile phone is pressed against one's head when in use - an iPad isn't. Whoever gave that Doctor her doctorate should withdraw it, quite frankly. Her expertise and experience are in "Emergency Medicine and Trauma". Or, she should go and get her scientific evidence. Someone noticing a box had appeared in a classroom is not evidence. A child being more washed out than usual is not evidence. Its anecdotal.
Joanne Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I actually do think it can have effects on some people... I mean... there are 7 billion of us... someone is going to have issues with the radiation. So it is probably legit that his daughter is ill from it...
Domino Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I actually do think it can have effects on some people... I mean... there are 7 billion of us... someone is going to have issues with the radiation. So it is probably legit that his daughter is ill from it... BULLPLOP
localzuk Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I actually do think it can have effects on some people... I mean... there are 7 billion of us... someone is going to have issues with the radiation. So it is probably legit that his daughter is ill from it... I'd want proof. It could be anything causing it, and I'd want proof of the cause before deciding "yup, its all that WiFi!"
Arthur Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 ... in 2007 a BBC Panorama programme found that the readings next to a classroom laptop showed radiation at double the level only 100 metres from a mobile phone mast. ^ The article even cites that infamous Panorama Wi-Fi "study". www.badscience.net/2007/05/so-simple-a-child-could-spot-it/
Mako Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 BULLPLOP I don't know why... the more you say it, the funnier it gets. Bullplop. 1
Domino Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 ^ The article even cites that infamous Panorama Wi-Fi "study". www.badscience.net/2007/05/so-simple-a-child-could-spot-it/ Ha, the one they had to publicly withdraw as the science was so bad? That one?
Arreks Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 As a child, I was fascinated by this mysterious abyss known as "t'interwebs" - thus I found myself permanently craning my neck down looking at my phone browsing on my phone on the Wi-Fi (far too young to have a data allowance, this was back when people actually got 'credit' for their phones instead) - this constant crooked posture made me get headaches and feel ill quite a lot. So yes, I believe this article is completely factually sound and accurate.
Michael Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 My views on that are summed up in this one line from within its text - "As yet there is still no scientific proof that relates these diseases to radiation". Remember - WiFi has been around and popular for 15 years+, and there is still nothing saying WiFi is bad for you. Comparing it to mobile phone signals is moronic, as they operate at very different power levels, and on very different frequencies, not to mention a mobile phone is pressed against one's head when in use - an iPad isn't. Whoever gave that Doctor her doctorate should withdraw it, quite frankly. Her expertise and experience are in "Emergency Medicine and Trauma". Or, she should go and get her scientific evidence. Someone noticing a box had appeared in a classroom is not evidence. A child being more washed out than usual is not evidence. Its anecdotal. It depends how you look at it. No one can be 100% certain the risk is zero or very low - we can only conclude based on numerous scientific factors and other considerations. You also have to question the people who are affected, whether or not they have other underlining health issues, which may/may not contribute to the symptoms of being exposed to WiFi. I know it's completely irrelevant, (in the context of WiFi), but how long did it take scientists or experts to realise that asbestos was hazardous to health if damaged or broken? Yet unfortunately it can take many years to realise or notice a problem and unfortunately many people have died as a result. I think it's sensible to think on the side of caution, as we'll only know for certain in the next 10 years (totalling) 25, 50 years and beyond, which is probably considered a generation to be absolutely certain in conclusion what the risks really are. 1
Grey-gear Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 An interesting article, though I think they are blowing the risks (if any) out of hand. The student that was always tied after using laptops may be it the wireless or maybe that student stared at the screen to long or had the sun on the screen. Also see many governments seem to doing some kind of policies to try and cut down on the use of wifi but this could just be so they are appeasing parents after they have read about this on the Internet and found the one report out of hundreds that say Wifi is bad. Though they say research has been done on this I would believe this more if they had some company like Apple or Microsoft as part of the research team. Don't think that will happen though.
HarryMonkey Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 She had a mobile phone in 1985? Aged 10? Back in '85 a mobile phone came in it's own luggable bag, about 3 times bigger than a laptop bag, calls cost an inordinate amount, the phones weighed a ton and certainly wouldn't have been manageable by a ten year old. That is the point at which she lost all credibility.
Grey-gear Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 She had a mobile phone in 1985? Aged 10? Back in '85 a mobile phone came in it's own luggable bag, about 3 times bigger than a laptop bag, calls cost an inordinate amount, the phones weighed a ton and certainly wouldn't have been manageable by a ten year old. That is the point at which she lost all credibility. Size of a phone in 1985 Note: just one example
HarryMonkey Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 Size of a phone in 1985 [ATTACH=CONFIG]30503[/ATTACH] Note: just one example I rest my case.
X-13 Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 I rest my case. Because it's too heavy to carry all the time? 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now