Is Wi-Fi making your child ill?

[sted]

is suggest there is still more radiation in the atmosphere from all the nuclear testing done in the 50's and 60's and chernobyl/mile island than youre likely to pick up from wifi. Im sure some people are more sensitive to em emissions than others (on a similar track i can tell when anything electrical is on in a building (or smallish space) and one of our cablers can apparently tell the difference between a psu for a netgear ap and other aps by sound/em emissions alone ) but tbh unless someone can conclusively prove anything people are not going to stop using wifi its too far ingrained to be easily removed.

[abillybob]

but tbh unless someone can conclusively prove anything people are not going to stop using wifi its too far ingrained to be easily removed.

 

I'm thinking there's a gap in the market here... Make new type of Wireless connectivity for networks, then get the media hype going that it's a new wifi with no radiation's anywhere ever. MAKE IT RAIN ££££££££££££££££££££.

[synaesthesia]

True, but importantly should anything go to legal systems, they will have to investigate things and experts will (hopefully, perhaps I'm being naive though!) be involved.

[sted]

True, but importantly should anything go to legal systems, they will have to investigate things and experts will (hopefully, perhaps I'm being naive though!) be involved.

 

the problem as i see it is that to do a proper scientific study you would need control groups of people who had never in their life been exposed to em radiation(so no tv/radio/wifi/mobile etc so basically they would need to shove them somewhere like antarctica or the aussie dessert) but otherwise lived the same lifestyle as someone who does. Its a practical impossibility. You would also need to do the test over decades if not entire lifetimes to be sure the results were representative. Legally im not sure you could prove it either way not to mention corporate interests look at what happened to scientists trying to ban leaded petrol where the cause/effects were more clear cut Clair Cameron Patterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Joanne]

the problem as i see it is that to do a proper scientific study you would need control groups of people who had never in their life been exposed to em radiation(so no tv/radio/wifi/mobile etc so basically they would need to shove them somewhere like antarctica

 

LOLNOPE

 

Internet Service Providers (ISPs): Argentine bases have WiFi provided by Argentinean internet provider Speedy a fiber cable on polar plateau planned to finish in 2009

 

Country code (Top level domain): .AQ

 

Data access to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is provided by access via NASA's TDRS-F1, GOES & Iridium satellite constellation. Marisat F-2 provided data communications until it was retired in 2008. For the 2007-2008 season, the TDRS relay (named South Pole TDRSS Relay or SPTR) was upgraded to support a data return rate of 50 Mbit/s, which comprises over 90% of the South Pole's data capability, which is used primarily for scientific data return.[1][2]

 

See Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station#Operation for more info.

Argentine bases in general: Marambio Base has wireless internet and 2 mobile phones servers

 

Orbcomm satellites pass over Antarctica which can relay short messages to and from transceiver units to email or XML over HTTP.

[Andrew_C]

It is in the Torygraph; how much credence do you think it deserves?

[3s-gtech]

Light is EM radiation, certain frequencies of which have been linked to cancer (of course), so finding someone who hasn't been exposed to EM radiation is tricky. We could try mole people, but they're probably dosed with Radon from granite, so basically we're all doomed. Or not.

[Mako]

basically we're all doomed.

 

[truebluesteve]

The was a Channel 4 documentary on the same subject about 5 or 6 years ago which was equally full of bad science and speculation - which came out days before we were about to have our very first wi-fi system installed! The advocate in that program was some guy who walked around waving a device which from what I can remember, just gave the signal strength for a particular frequency - which was unsurprisingly, quite high near a mobile phone mast.

 

If a link is ever discovered will everyone be turning off their wi-fi and cordless phones at home - or their mobile phones for that matter? I don't think so. People know smoking can kill you but they still do it. Most of us are so reliant on this tech today that we will take the risk.

[jinnantonnixx]

I found an old thread on the 'Council of Europe' scare-o-grams from a few years back.

http://www.edugeek.net/forums/behind-red-door/76298-email-recieved-about-proposed-complete-wireless-ban.html

 

To echo an earlier comment, it is The Telegraph and as such cannot be cited for anything other than entertainment purposes.

 

Of course, the kids are carrying around wifi devices all the time - their phones. This is important - we mustn’t forget our physics here. The inverse square law means that somebody sitting in a wifi hotspot for a full year will receive the same radiation dose as that from a 20 minute phone call (with the phone held near the head). I find it curious thinking to concentrate on a device at a greater distance than devices constantly carried near the body.

 

Follow the money. See who gains to profit, through consultancy or woo-devices, from investigation into fresh fears over demonstrably safe equipment.

Edited May 13, 2015 by jinnantonnixx

[Pottsey]

They do seem to be a very small selection of people sensitive to Wi-Fi or EMF. Just like the very small group of people who cause street lights to flicker when they walk under them or who cause watches to stop working once they put them on. Very rare but it does happen. Saying that I don’t believe Wi-Fi or EMF is bad or harmful for the average person.

[elsiegee40]

Interestingly the photo purporting to be the learned Dr monitoring wifi radiation (but actually taken in front of an unconnected cabinet of switches) has been removed from the article by the Telegraph. Has someone had words?!

[pcstru]

They do seem to be a very small selection of people sensitive to Wi-Fi or EMF. Just like the very small group of people who cause street lights to flicker when they walk under them or who cause watches to stop working once they put them on. Very rare but it does happen.

Only in anecdote. In the real world, these claims seem to disappear when investigated.

 

I had a teacher phone me asking if the WAP in their classroom could be moved because of health concerns. I was curious when he said "the one above my head" because we don't have phones in classrooms. The CLI number showing on my handset was a mobile number.

[Pottsey]

I thought some of those had been investigated and proven real? Perhaps I am wrong but if it is real it is not widespread. Not got time to look at work, might read up on it when I get home. I do know two people who cannot wear watch's as they just stop working. One tried dozens.

 

EDIT: Why do WAP's have warning on them not to be mounted within 20cm or a very short distance of people? Surly that suggest there could be a risk at point blank range. Perhaps risk is to strong a word but a suggestions of some sort of side effect.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Pottsey

[localzuk]

I thought some of those had been investigated and proven real? Perhaps I am wrong but if it is real it is not widespread. Not got time to look at work, might read up on it when I get home. I do know two people who cannot wear watch's as they just stop working. One tried dozens.

 

The Wikipedia article has a nice number of papers linked - Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Basically, under double blind conditions, there's no proof of EM hypersensitivity.

[truebluesteve]

I thought some of those had been investigated and proven real? Not got time to look at work. I do know two people who cannot wear watch's as they just stop working. One tried dozens.

 

I saw a documentary ages ago and they used placebos (i.e told them there was wi-fi when there wasn't) and it seems that it was pretty much all in their heads (no pun intended). One person they investigated had lined most of his flat with tin foil and wore a kind of tin foil scull-cap. It was very difficult to take him seriously and he clearly he wasn't aware of the health concerns around aluminium foil!

[sted]

EDIT: Why do WAP's have warning on them not to be mounted within 20cm or a very short distance of people? Surly that suggest there could be a risk at point blank range. Perhaps risk is to strong a word but a suggestions of some sort of side effect.

 

probably to cover themselves if any problems are found later same as coffee cups have caution hot on them it means you cant sue as you were warned

[CHR1S]

 

Wow, just wow.....

 

Later that term, at a parents’ evening, he noticed a Wi-Fi router near Jessica’s desk in her new form classroom. As it turned out, Monday was the day of the week the whole class worked on laptops.

 

So they turned the WiFi off the other 6 days a week? Ok 4 but im being pedantic!

 

Try to keep your mobile switched off and don’t use it unless you need to. Keep it in flight mode when it is on and never carry your mobile close to your body, even on standby.

Don’t use Wi-Fi for internet. Instead use an Ethernet cable and buy a router with no wireless capacity or disable it. Disable Wi-Fi on your computer or tablet by disabling the wireless card via the control panel or putting it into flight mode.

Replace cordless landlines with corded ones. Most cordless telephones give off radiation whether they’re in use or not.

 

If your going that far, pop round your neighbours and switch their phones, wifi, baby monitors off. Im sure they will be more than welcoming.

Never get in a car or taxi again, they can have built in GSM devices like trackers and SOS buttons. Don't get on busses or trains either, they have WiFi too.

 

Don't mix with other people, they carry phones too and germs.

 

Dont go in shops, they use wifi and cordless phones for most things.

 

While we're at it, don't use a microwave or live in stone built houses.

 

Dont go on a plane.

 

Dont break anything, you might need an xray.

 

Resisting the urge to swear here.....

Edited May 15, 2015 by CHR1S

[Andrew_C]

If your going that far, pop round

to the BBC* and persuade them to turn the radio and television off.

 

 

 

*Other broadcasters may be available in some areas. They just aren't as good as the Beeb.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Andrew_C

[ass17]

Knee-jerk reaction to the word "radiation" is ridiculous. You are exposed to radiation all day, every day. Mobile towers and phones, tetra radio systems, AM/FM/MW radio, background radiation, microwave radiation, bananas, nuclear power station water output, etc...

 

Studies aren't generally performed by companies, more often by universities and charities. So whether Apple would do anything if irrelevant.

 

Not really, done my own study, I turned off internet router, cordless house phone and put all wifi devices in airplane mode for the last 3 nights and surprise surprise I've had the best 3 nights sleep in 10 years. And I wake up without a headache! So you don't need to be a scientist. [emoji1]

[biz]

Interestingly the photo purporting to be the learned Dr monitoring wifi radiation (but actually taken in front of an unconnected cabinet of switches) has been removed from the article by the Telegraph. Has someone had words?!

 

I noticed that, there was only one cable in that cab and it wasn't even patched in. Where is she assuming wireless broadcasts from?

[sted]

Not really, done my own study, I turned off internet router, cordless house phone and put all wifi devices in airplane mode for the last 3 nights and surprise surprise I've had the best 3 nights sleep in 10 years. And I wake up without a headache! So you don't need to be a scientist. [emoji1]

 

but you know you did it so that could just be the placebo effect. you need to have someone else do it randomly in a way that means you dont know if stuff is on or not

[jedmondson]

but you know you did it so that could just be the placebo effect. you need to have someone else do it randomly in a way that means you dont know if stuff is on or not

 

Or just an effect of not using the devices before you go to sleep?

[abillybob]

Fun fact: When my school got its wifi infastructure installed (before I started) we had to have all wireless AP'S on their own set of switches. This was because parents complained it could be bad for their children so when the school wasn't using wifi they wanted us to turn off every AP in the school until someone wanted to use it again.

Needless to say I've never turned off the wifi.

[localzuk]

Not really, done my own study, I turned off internet router, cordless house phone and put all wifi devices in airplane mode for the last 3 nights and surprise surprise I've had the best 3 nights sleep in 10 years. And I wake up without a headache! So you don't need to be a scientist. [emoji1]

 

If you think that is anything more than an anecdote then you've missed the point of science.

 

I bought some new trousers recently. I've slept well recently too. To link the 2 would be a logical jump that just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

Or, to put it more succinctly: Correlation does not equal causation.