GREED Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 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! Sorry, I use cling-film... more plastic to ruin the environment
Markopolo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 No need. I just want some explanation of the rather extraordinary claims being made, and some proof. This. One Thousand times this.
psydii Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) non-ionising radiation causes DNA damage/mutation and cell damage 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? Non-ionising radiation is an EM Field. EM Field can have a measurable effect on chemical reactions. In a biological context this has been demonstrated in vitro with stem cells and some brain tissue. Attempts to replicate in vivo have delivered a negative result. (i.e. so far un-reproduced despite efforts). What we do have to be aware of is the inverse square law. While it is possible to demonstrate the effects of HF EMF on stem cells in the lab at the frequency of an active wifi transmitter running at full power in a worst case scenario, in the real world you don't stick the aerial into your bone-marrow or brain. Those few cms of casing, skin, bone and air, in conjunction with deliberate, clever antenna design and the bursty, continuous nature of packet based networking makes a *huge* difference to the EMF you are actually exposed to. Biological responses to electromagnetic fields http://www.ehs-mcs.org/fichiers/1368798016_publication_ABC.pdf https://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/bsw_kuster.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=oXZuqqc3TgVe7iXIyhb1XA%3D%3D&desc=248227%20D01%20802.11%20Wi-Fi%20SAR%20v02r01&tracking_number=28238 Edited October 1, 2015 by psydii
CHR1S Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 @psydii coupled with the fact that it struggles to penetrate water, the in vitro argument holds even less. I think water molecules resonate at 2.4ghz, hell I just googled it... im no expert.
Andrew_C Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 Torygraph covered it too. Made it quite clear the judge wasn't having any of it, despite the French thinking it is true.
localzuk Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 Poor girl! Needed help, but not about WiFi. That article is terrible though, as it thoroughly lacks detail. it contains a flaw in the story - she texted her friend?
elsiegee40 Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 She clearly had health issues, poor girl. Though I doubt they can be directly attributed to the school's wifi. It does raise questions about how the school deals with a child like this. Telling someone with depression to snap out of it won't work and could cause deeper problems. If this girl had issues with wifi that were clearly deeper than using it as an excuse, there is a bigger safeguarding issue to be dealt with.
kearton Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 http://mashable.com/2015/12/01/jenny-fry-wifi-allergy/
Arthur Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 http://mashable.com/2015/12/01/jenny-fry-wifi-allergy/ "As soon as Jenny walked away from a router she felt instantly better. She was aware of what was going on, but nothing could be done," the mother said. ^ It sounds more psychological than anything else.
GREED Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Sounds more like BS to me. Although I do get ill whenever I go near router, but then I worked as an IT tech for years and think I have been scarred for life...
synaesthesia Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 School doesn't sound like they were managing this mental issue very well, however there's not enough context to go with really - the mother may well have been a fruitcake who was insisting they shut it down based on and didn't get her way but still - it's a shame a young lady took her life in such a way for something so preventable - nothing to do with the technology side of things as that isn't likely the issue.
Network_Boy Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 I can tell you first-hand that electromagnetic sensitivity and hypersensitivity (as I think is probably being touched upon by the "Jenny" article and elsewhere in this thread) does exist, and in the cases I have seen, is most definitely not psychological. Some people can tell, without fail, whether you have an electrical device (usually a smartphone) turned on in the same room as them. They find it very uncomfortable and immediately start to get what seems to be a bad headache and feel very unwell. Before having witnessed this first hand, I found it incredibly hard to believe that this could be a real thing.
localzuk Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Being able to "sense" electromagnetic signals isn't the thing at question - its the apparent health problems it supposedly causes. There's, quite frankly, such a random selection of symptoms, frequency ranges and evidence that its impossible to determine that it actually causes issues. I would be more inclined to think that the symptoms themselves are the psychological issue. Simply knowing that there is an electromagnetic signal itself in a room is neither here nor there.
Network_Boy Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Being able to "sense" electromagnetic signals isn't the thing at question - its the apparent health problems it supposedly causes. There's, quite frankly, such a random selection of symptoms, frequency ranges and evidence that its impossible to determine that it actually causes issues. I would be more inclined to think that the symptoms themselves are the psychological issue. Simply knowing that there is an electromagnetic signal itself in a room is neither here nor there. No, the symptoms are caused directly by whatever happens to be emitting the electromagnetic signals/radiation at that given time. I've seen it. They can cause people to become ill, in front of your eyes. Obviously not everyone who is sensitive to these signals is affected by them, and they may also have other underlying health problems. But for some people, they are the cause of what's making them ill - even if that's just a constant headache (which is bad enough) whilst being in range of any signals, or something worse. I agree, it seems barmy at first. I was super-cynical too. More research is needed and more help should definitely be given to people suffering from this. What isn't needed is people poo-pooing something that doesn't fit with current medical findings (which are often decades out of date, especially in a Nationalised Health system such as ours) and writing them off as mental health issues. It's unhelpful and unfair.
3s-gtech Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 No, the symptoms are caused directly by whatever happens to be emitting the electromagnetic signals/radiation at that given time. I've seen it. You cannot see that, unless you are a qualified doctor. To see that symptoms are caused by something, you have to be fully aware of the physiological effects and study them properly. You can't see someone in a room feel unwell when wifi is switched on and say that the EMF caused it without the background to understand what may be happening, as it would be akin to going to a magic show and saying you've seen real magic happen without understanding the mechanics of the illusion.
synaesthesia Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Nice! Just because you physically feel something, doesn't mean it's caused by X. There's that trick about a fake hand next to yours being stabbed with a knife.... It *might* be true, but the very moment someone says that it's true via a mobile network, near a microwave, or sat on their computer behind a monitor, near their DECT phones etc etc etc, all credibility is lost.
localzuk Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 No, the symptoms are caused directly by whatever happens to be emitting the electromagnetic signals/radiation at that given time. I've seen it. They can cause people to become ill, in front of your eyes. Obviously not everyone who is sensitive to these signals is affected by them, and they may also have other underlying health problems. But for some people, they are the cause of what's making them ill - even if that's just a constant headache (which is bad enough) whilst being in range of any signals, or something worse. I agree, it seems barmy at first. I was super-cynical too. More research is needed and more help should definitely be given to people suffering from this. What isn't needed is people poo-pooing something that doesn't fit with current medical findings (which are often decades out of date, especially in a Nationalised Health system such as ours) and writing them off as mental health issues. It's unhelpful and unfair. You're really underestimating the power of the mind. The problem with your claim is that there is no scientific evidence for what you're saying. We do have evidence that people can sense electromagnetism, just like birds can, and fish/sea creatures. The thing is, the mind is so complex that its possible to associate that sense with a negative effects, and then it would cause those effects in the future. The "nocebo" effect. It isn't a case of writing something off as a mental health issue, that sounds like mental health is a secondary concern. Mental health is as important as physical health, and should be treated as such. Identifying the actual cause of symptoms is the key - and as yet, there doesn't seem to be anything to support your assertion.
pcstru Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 What isn't needed is people poo-pooing something that doesn't fit with current medical findings (which are often decades out of date, especially in a Nationalised Health system such as ours) and writing them off as mental health issues. It's unhelpful and unfair. What makes you think studies are limited to the NHS or even decades out of date? Seems that time after time, robust double blind trials fail to uncover a correlation while experiments on sensitivity seem to show that symptoms are reported when only a "sham signal" is involved. You must have done some very robust studies to claim as you do, against a large number of very carefully controlled studies, that the effect is real. Or are you really saying your anecdotal experience is a better measure than these many studies?
elsiegee40 Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Whether the wifi issue was in this girl's mind or a true illness we cannot know. What we can know is that "it" was affecting her so badly that she took her life. This calls the school's handling of her into question. There was a safeguarding issue and may be there was more the school could have done to help her.
abillybob Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) For the last 7 years almost daily for 8+ hours I've sat right beside a Wifi router... I'm not dead yet and haven't had any symptoms. I think as has been said it's more of a phycological condition where the mind is tricking you into thinking you have something wrong with you when actually there isn't. The school and the parents might I add didn't do enough IMO, if this girl was suffering from such a problem and obviously had mental health issues something should have been done in the 3 years she was experiencing symptoms. It's no good that mum and dad go up the school and start asking the school to switch of weefee because daughter has headache. They should have got proper medical treatment via a phycologist or something similar. Isn't there evidence somewhere that a mobile phone actually emits more radiation and causes more harm than any wifi signal (I could be wrong but I'm sure I read this somewhere) therefore if she had such a problem why did she have a mobile phone on her!? Edited December 2, 2015 by abillybob Meant 7 years
pcstru Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Whether the wifi issue was in this girl's mind or a true illness we cannot know. That seems either a statement of ultimate scepticism (nothing can truly be knowable) or a rather caviller dismissal of evidence from many studies which have investigated the issue. The issue is just cause and effect. There is no doubt that people are suffering, the question is, what is the cause? If we construct robust, properly controlled experiments, fail to find a causal link and our data has high p-values (very low probabilities that the result can be arrived at by chance), then surely we must draw conclusions from that or risk being accused of not making decisions based on actual evidence? I'd also point out that "in the mind" and "true illness" are not mutually exclusive - which seems to be loosely implied by your sentence. What we can know is that "it" was affecting her so badly that she took her life. This calls the school's handling of her into question. There was a safeguarding issue and may be there was more the school could have done to help her. Probably. So what would the advice be if a student or member of staff complains? Edited December 2, 2015 by pcstru
elsiegee40 Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 I am not questioning the studies or being sceptical. I do not know enough to do either. I am questioning the school's treatment of a girl with issues
mikeprice Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Several years ago I was listening to someone on radio 4 - the caller worked as an Engineer for a mobile Phone company and was in charge of checking out the power supply before the final switch on for new masts In one place he was greated by a demonstration of local people with 'proof' that the new mast was causing health problems. He left and reported back to his boss There was an investigation and the local doctors showed an increase in local people coming to the surgeries with symptoms know to be caused by EMF (when I say 'known' - I mean it says so on Google) This was funny because - as I said - the caller was responsible for checking the power supply was OK - BEFORE SWITCHING THE MAST ON i.e. the mast had been built and all its antennae but in place - so it looked complete. And the power had been laid by the power company. But the power wasn't connected to the mast and the mast was totally inactive So the local people had been suffering health problem due the existence of a phone mast - rather than by the radiation from it Obviously this is anecdotal but .......
DJ-1701 Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 I guess the Government has little worries of WiFi causing health issues too... Free wi-fi to be provided in all NHS buildings - Jeremy Hunt - BBC News
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