Is Wi-Fi making your child ill?

[localzuk]

The PowerWatch site is a pretty good site, but it's analysis appears to be that current research has 20 minutes of phone use as similarly damaging to 16 hours of wifi exposure from 20 computers in a classroom...

 

It's 8 years since the first iPhone. 8 years of everyone carrying WiFi and cellular radiation all but against their skin for the majority of their waking lives. It's the biggest data set you could ask for.

 

Have cancer rates gone up? No. They've gone down.

 

That's not a good comparison - incidence rates would need to be compared, not death rates. Medicine has improved which could account for that drop.

Edited September 30, 2015 by localzuk

[farmerste]

In the last 32 years, brain cancer incidence rates have increased by 23% for men and 25% for women. In 2010, the incidence rate was 8 new cases per 100,000 men and 5 new cases per 100,000 women. This equates to nearly 2,300 newly diagnosed cases in men and just under 1,700 in women. The reasons for the increase in this relatively rare cancer are still under investigation.

 

that is from the ONS website

[pcstru]

In the last 32 years, brain cancer incidence rates have increased by 23% for men and 25% for women. In 2010, the incidence rate was 8 new cases per 100,000 men and 5 new cases per 100,000 women. This equates to nearly 2,300 newly diagnosed cases in men and just under 1,700 in women. The reasons for the increase in this relatively rare cancer are still under investigation.

Regardless of the truth of the statistic (an actual link to the source would be nice), such an increase could be for a number of reasons - better detection/more screening might be especially significant.

[localzuk]

In the last 32 years, brain cancer incidence rates have increased by 23% for men and 25% for women. In 2010, the incidence rate was 8 new cases per 100,000 men and 5 new cases per 100,000 women. This equates to nearly 2,300 newly diagnosed cases in men and just under 1,700 in women. The reasons for the increase in this relatively rare cancer are still under investigation.

 

that is from the ONS website

 

This site breaks things down a bit... Brain, other CNS and intracranial tumours incidence statistics | Cancer Research UK

 

For those aged 0-49, there has been almost zero change. Same for 50-59. The only age groups where there have been increases are 60+.

 

There are a few things to take away from this.

 

1. Mobile phones were commercially introduced in 1983. Tumors had been increasing in incidence in the 60+ age range for years before this.

2. Should all groups not be affected by the technology? Especially in the last 15 years? Due to masts being everywhere, and later everyone having phones.

3. There should be a visible increase over the last 15 years if Wifi were a cause, but the incidence rates have actually leveled off for all ages except the 80+ group.

 

So, the ONS stat you mention is somewhat misleading without further breakdown of the data.

[gtg93]

In the last 32 years, brain cancer incidence rates have increased by 23% for men and 25% for women. In 2010, the incidence rate was 8 new cases per 100,000 men and 5 new cases per 100,000 women. This equates to nearly 2,300 newly diagnosed cases in men and just under 1,700 in women. The reasons for the increase in this relatively rare cancer are still under investigation.

 

that is from the ONS website

 

Not taking sides here, but wouldn't this increase more likely be to do with the fact that technology has improved, meaning we're now able to detect it more reliably than we could in the past?

Edited September 30, 2015 by gtg93

[farmerste]

the confusion around is massive, there is a new zealand study that also says that cancer rates have gone down, but worry that children may be have some cummulative effects.

also death rate is not the same as incident rate. this area is a total minefield i have been studying it off and on for years. and the post i made a little while ago is the truth of the matter. it is down to personal health and useage , but if the device transmits data through you then it mutates dna and damages cells.

 

there is also the introduction of DECT cordless phones in the home to take into account too

 

if you look up the work of professor ollie johannson you can see that prostate cancer incident increased after the introduction of VHF radio.

 

endless statistics and viewpoints, but the science i have said still holds true, damage DOES occur to DNA and cells at much lower levels than those regarded as safe, when you test in real worls scenarios.

Edited September 30, 2015 by farmerste

[localzuk]

Please address my post with brain tumor incident stats @farmerste. I'd be interested to know how such statistics could exist if there was danger from the technologies that we now use.

[farmerste]

i think i am not communicating my point very well, if you are healthy and quite possibly young ,the DNA mutation and cell damage can be reapired by the body, similar to gettin a sunburn etc, but if you are older perhaps this damage cannot be repaired as quickly due to age? this may be a reason for higer incidence in older people ??

regardless of the technology used damage is done, there is also the consideration of other factors that may contribute which could be ??? lots of things !

but the damage to the human body is still done and that is not a good thing i think you will agree, it is not worth the risk in my opinion just like sun bathing without sunscreen isnt a sensible thing.

[localzuk]

i think i am not communicating my point very well, if you are healthy and quite possibly young ,the DNA mutation and cell damage can be reapired by the body, similar to gettin a sunburn etc, but if you are older perhaps this damage cannot be repaired as quickly due to age? this may be a reason for higer incidence in older people ??

regardless of the technology used damage is done, there is also the consideration of other factors that may contribute which could be ??? lots of things !

but the damage to the human body is still done and that is not a good thing i think you will agree, it is not worth the risk in my opinion just like sun bathing without sunscreen isnt a sensible thing.

 

That doesn't explain why incidence was going up before the introduction of wireless technologies, or why it has plateaued...

[jinnantonnixx]

About the Powerwatch site...

 

Critical thinking lesson #5: Never trust a source that tries to sell you something.

 

In the UK, Powerwatch has been around since 1988 to sell EMF-measuring devices and to promote the idea that EMFs are hazardous to our health.

electro-sensitives - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

Powerwatch is not Scaremongering and Profiteering (anymore) | The Quackometer Blog

 

Powerwatch has also caught the attention of Ben Goldacre: powerwatch – alasdair philips – Bad Science

 

 

Powerwatch are in the business of selling EMF detectors and products that shield you and your home from these radiations. When you have a product to sell, it is natural that the research presented on the site will support the conclusions that will help sales.

 

On a slight tangent, but very interesting, how easy is it to publish a (junk) science paper and fool the world?

Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result.

This is a must-read for those interested in science reporting.

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How.

 

The spoof paper has been removed from the International Archives of Medicine website, but an archive is here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/266969860/Chocolate-causes-weight-loss

 

Finally, and this is meant as a bit of fun, let's do some data correlation.

Powerwatch want to show the the correlation between autism and child RF exposure.

http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20130214-norwich-wifi.asp

 

However, I have a graph that uses more data points and has a better correlation. It shows the correlation between the per capita consumption of cheese vs the total revenue generated by golf courses. Pretty conclusive, eh?

http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=341

Edited September 30, 2015 by jinnantonnixx

[farmerste]

if you think that all the science papers that powerwatch refer to on the site 'pubmed' are somehow a hoax then you are mistaken, like i explained previously 3 types of research are done and the ones that do not transmit data i.e- not the real world, do not ( mostly) find harmful effects, however when these devices are used in the 'real world' and tested transmitting data negative health effects are found. its a scientific fact !, even if we don't like the truth it is still the truth.

non-ionising radiation causes DNA damage/mutation and cell damage when transmitting data, it also causes the human body to go into a 'histamine' type response as if under attack/allergy according to some experiments.

 

I am neither a statistician nor a scientist, i like the majory believed that all this was a load of bull, until i actually started to look at the science papers and how funding from the telecoms industry was skewing the truth, i.e telecoms funding either directly or indirectly funded the types 1 and 2 research which they 'knew' would show no or little effects.

 

interestingly enough the panorama program that started a lot of the controversy was merely showing the measured levels of radiation, did you know that the LIEbour government also conducted the same experiments and found levels HIGHER than those in the program?

 

http://iddd.de/umtsno/cancertrends.pdf this is a swedish study, that as far as i am aware has been carried out the same way over a period of time showing the increase in cancers, especially with the introduction of wireless communications

Edited October 1, 2015 by farmerste

[localzuk]

About the Powerwatch site...

 

Critical thinking lesson #5: Never trust a source that tries to sell you something.

 

Maybe I should have qualified my comment - the site is good for links to other papers. Their own analysis isn't great, as I was pointing out.

[localzuk]

if you think that all the science papers that powerwatch refer to on the site 'pubmed' are somehow a hoax then you are mistaken, like i explained previously 3 types of research are done and the ones that do not transmit data i.e- not the real world, do not ( mostly) find harmful effects, however when these devices are used in the 'real world' and tested transmitting data negative health effects are found. its a scientific fact !, even if we don't like the truth it is still the truth.

non-ionising radiation causes DNA damage/mutation and cell damage when transmitting data, it also causes the human body to go into a 'histamine' type response as if under attack/allergy according to some experiments.

 

Sorry I still don't understand what you're saying. A RF signal is an RF signal, data containing or not.

 

I am neither a statistician nor a scientist, i like the majory believed that all this was a load of bull, until i actually started to look at the science papers and how funding from the telecoms industry was skewing the truth, i.e telecoms funding either directly or indirectly funded the types 1 and 2 research which they 'knew' would show no or little effects.

 

Be warned - if you are neither a statistician or scientist, you may well not be qualified to properly digest scientific papers. I know I'm not for many papers!

 

interestingly enough the panorama program that started a lot of the controversy was merely showing the measured levels of radiation, did you know that the LIEbour government also conducted the same experiments and found levels HIGHER than those in the program?

 

That doesn't help your argument at all. The programme was a farce, and was so flawed as to show absolutely nothing of use at all.

 

http://iddd.de/umtsno/cancertrends.pdf this is a swedish study, that as far as i am aware has been carried out the same way over a period of time showing the increase in cancers, especially with the introduction of wireless communications

 

Drivel. Just a cursory glance at that paper and it shows nothing like that. It shows an increase in incidence over the last 60-90 years! Wireless communications have only been around for the last 30. That is a classic example of trying to attribute trends to things with zero evidence.

[3s-gtech]

Because

[farmerste]

1- a RF signal is most certainly NOT an rf signal with or without data the waveform changes dramatically in shape etc

2- i may not be qualified to digest papers you are correct but i have at least tried

3- the program only showed measured values they cannot be wrong if the meter is calibrated correctly- thus the liebour government repeated them and found them to be higher - go look it up

4- the paper quite clearly shows how cancer rates have increased when wireless communication has been used, and have you never heard of a radio? television ?? they all communicate data

 

i suspect you have already decided what you want to be true, but non-ionising radiation causes damage to DNA when transmitting data.

[sonofsanta]

i suspect you have already decided what you want to be true

 

Physician, heal thyself.

[3s-gtech]

but non-ionising radiation causes damage to DNA when transmitting data.

 

That is a very bold statement without specific, hard fact. I'm not saying it's not true (though the data part of it should make no difference whatsoever - our bodies can't tell if there's 'data' present) but where's the (good) evidence?

[GREED]

I have the Flame police speed dial on standby...

 

Would appear neither of you are going to agree... so how about move on!

[farmerste]

Seattle Magazine | Arts & Culture/News & Features/Health | UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry

 

that is one of many, it explains the whole story i feel, with regard to the science and its funding.

 

I realise it is a bold statement, and your body DOES know the difference, when exposed to non-ionising radiation it goes into a 'defensive' mode and recognises it as an attack at a cellular level. look at the studies done about melatonin levels in humans etc when exposed to non-ionising radiation and you will find it is lowered ! why??

[unixman_again]

I found this video today BrainStuff: Is WiFi Safe? - HowStuffWorks

The bit about light bulbs is interesting- time to switch them off!

[localzuk]

1- a RF signal is most certainly NOT an rf signal with or without data the waveform changes dramatically in shape etc

 

Please can you give me a link to the peer reviewed paper(s) saying this? I'm really struggling to understand this statement to be honest...

 

3- the program only showed measured values they cannot be wrong if the meter is calibrated correctly- thus the liebour government repeated them and found them to be higher - go look it up

 

Measuring things does not mean anything though. Measurements are just collection of data. Without analysis and other things to contrast and compare to, the results are simply numbers.

 

4- the paper quite clearly shows how cancer rates have increased when wireless communication has been used, and have you never heard of a radio? television ?? they all communicate data

 

I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree here. It simply doesn't show anything like that. Its a presentation of numerical data in graphical form. You are overlaying things onto it because they fit. It ignores improvements in detection rates, changes in diet, changes in pollution from industry and transport, changes in nearly every aspect of our lives. You simply cannot draw such a conclusion like that.

 

i suspect you have already decided what you want to be true, but non-ionising radiation causes damage to DNA when transmitting data.

 

No, I want proof. You've not provided any. You've provided links to a propaganda site that sells products to counter RF signals and to a study that doesn't show anything but increases in incidence.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

I have the Flame police speed dial on standby...

 

Would appear neither of you are going to agree... so how about move on!

 

No need. I just want some explanation of the rather extraordinary claims being made, and some proof.

[GREED]

Tony, I totally understand your point and agree with it. However when has any research piece every been total proof and not contradicted or argued about, particularly in the modern world with new ideas and claims. The fact it this is early days still in the research, so some are claiming x while other contradict with y.

[3s-gtech]

Seattle Magazine | Arts & Culture/News & Features/Health | UW Scientist Henry Lai Makes Waves in the Cell Phone Industry

 

A magazine feature is not designed to tell the truth, be scientifically accurate, or have any form of review. It's there to make money - for the author, magazine and advertisers. As you seem to quote conspiracy theory level statements, that much should be obvious to you.

 

Again - we cannot and do not say that wifi is harmful - proving something like that is very difficult and contentious. I wouldn't presume to be an expert either. However, until some good, properly evidenced and scientific proof otherwise is made public, I will stick with "it's probably safe".

 

Remember that non-ionising radiation is everywhere, too. It's naturally occurring. As is ionising radiation. Why worry? There are far greater threats to your health, like polution, smoking, drinking, falling down stairs, heart disease, identified cancers....etc.

[GREED]

And what is the alternative? Turn all wifi off everywhere and live in the dark ages, cripple industry around the world that depends on it, and carry on living with our tin foil hats on...

[synaesthesia]

I'm starting to think these conspiracies come from the tin foil industry - people just aren't using enough of it to wrap food any more!