Panorama's "Wireless in schools" Program 8:30 Tonight

[chrbb]

bet her heating bills are low!

 

Lost the plot half way through and broke diet with bag of salted crisps (bad for you as well!)

 

Now slightly confused when they did the test in a school whilst a file was downloading they seemed to be testing the laptop - is the 'danger' from the wifi enabled laptop or the access point?

I know my head will ask tomorrow if ours is safe, we only have an access point in the teacher base - but all the teacher laptops are wifi enabled.

[russdev]

Scrap that just seen the website...

 

Russ

[craiglay]

So.... Few questions after that program

 

What about the laptops background EM output with WLAN off?

What was the background EM in the room, WLAN on / off?

 

What was observed seemed to be across the whole spectrum. Not 2.4Ghz or a couple of spikes in the mast tests

 

What about a mobile phone at the same effective distance during use (2-3cm)

Scales on the machine he used? He actually mentioned setting scales before the WLAN test

 

I believe there should be a study of this, but perhaps not a strong as removing it unless the government pay for all my curricumum laptops to be hard wired and buildings built to hold them.

 

I didn't have any questions from the April newspaper reports, I hope i don't now. I have 2 wireless only primaries!

 

Craig

[PeterW]

Only caught the first ten minutes as I had to put the little one to bed, is it me or were all the scientific studies very general? Along the lines of

 

"Professor X has been examining the effects of wireless radio waves which are similar to wifi and he says its all bad!"

 

"Turn all wifi off in schools tomorrow"

 

Did anybody on here actually change thier view of wifi health implications by watching this or did you think it was blown out of proportion?

 

Please excuse me while I rush and turn my phone bluetooth off and unplug my dect phone

[Slartibartfast]

This programme was desperately short on real facts, but I've prepared a statement to pre-empt any fallout from parents and sickly teachers.

 

I found the presenter's use of a wireless keyboard and mouse amusing, and his IT'S A VIDEO CONFERENCE, I NEED TO SHOUT voice.

[GrumbleDook]

You show me yours and I'll show you mine ;-)

 

Seriously though ... if you can put yours up too it would be appreciated. I have looked at the one Vegas has done and it sums up most of what I need.

[webman]

TheINQ has picked up on this too

[MkII]

I'd appreciate seeing yours too Slartibartfast

 

I thought Panorama put over a very strong case. Lots of missing facts as to be expected.

 

I particularly liked the way they trashed the WHO advisor with his dubious ties with industry, and their good guy Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, being quite straightforward.

[john]

I was out when it was on but set it to record as its a useful thing for A level IT Teaching (god im thinking about helping teaching! Must stop its dangerous, as the will expect me to teach it next! ) So will catch up tomorrow on it, but im quite glad, as it will mean that the stupid wifi wont go ahead as parents will get worried and panicy!

[ICTNUT]

I have just watched this (sky+'d it) what can I say, so many holes in evidence it's unreal.

 

The bloke taking the reading in the science class said the em field was 3 times that of the mast reading he took outside BUT what is not pointed out is the "Other" electrical items and EM clutter that also add to that EM field. No tests were done with the WiFi on the laptops set to off.

 

The link between Mobile Masts and WiFi units was unsubstantiated, all the evidence was based on mobile phone masts and NOT WiFi the frequences used by the mast and the WiFi unit (never shown) where not disclosed.

 

I could go on but I am worried my rant my get out of hand.

 

This program was nothing more than a space filler on TV.

 

I think I may have a few parents to deal with tomorrow, better get round to sorting out some kind of press release to all parents before it hits the fan, damn I hate it when they do stuff like this.

[Grommit]

We've just had a parent try to blame our WiFi on her daughters ill health so we prepared a statement for her and any other parents asking questions. I better print a few off in preperation for tomorrow's expected fun and games.

 

Can you PM or post your Press Release please :-)

[MkII]

I think he posted it already Grommit

[ICTNUT]

@vegas: Any chance of a copy of your press release please ;-)

 

[edit]

Not to worry found it

[/edit]

[Guest metalmonkey]

I'm absolutely astounded by the reactions here. I've not even finished page 2 of the posts.

 

I'm sorry but are you guys seriously trying to say that you have no worries about the long term effects of any form of radio transmissions?

 

I don't have the fact or figures that that programme had last night, but surely common sence needs to take presidence here?

 

I keep hearing the words "there is no evidence", or "research shows" blah blah blah. Apparently a 10 year study has shown no ill-effect from radio waves.

 

Well excuse me, but i'm fairly certain, 10 years ago there was no wireless technology in schools - even the internet was limited to a degree - and mobile phones were fairly big and bulky with a minor arial. 10 Years? give me a break - the technology hasn't existed for 10 years in the presidence it is now.

 

10 years in technology is almost 100 years in developments. With speed increases, more devices packed in small area's ect how can any 10 year study prove a true and correct assessment of the health issues?

 

The damn truth is, Science can't prove it's dangerous either way therefore it says it must be safe.

 

Tell that to those who have died from Asbestos 30-40 years later or lung cancer after smoking for 30-40 years.

 

No one is scaremongering or gathering conspiracy theories - they are just trying to show that Science 'could' be wrong and caution is needed. (oh no... off with their heads - how dare they question Science)

[plexer]

I think it was very one sided view of things. Lots of talk about mobile phones and masts.

 

As has been said what was the scale on the spectrum analyser very easy to make something look bad like that. Plus the guy taking the readings was from an anti mobile and wifi group very independent.

 

The school was using a Buffalo WLA-G54 by the looks of it as it was in the background next to the board can't believe nobody else spotted it.

 

Ben

[Dos_Box]

I don't have the fact or figures that that programme had last night, but surely common sence needs to take presidence here?

 

I keep hearing the words "there is no evidence", or "research shows" blah blah blah. Apparently a 10 year study has shown no ill-effect from radio waves.

 

Well excuse me, but i'm fairly certain, 10 years ago there was no wireless technology in schools - even the internet was limited to a degree - and mobile phones were fairly big and bulky with a minor arial. 10 Years? give me a break - the technology hasn't existed for 10 years in the presidence it is now.

 

Let me put it this way. I spent 13 years in the army, many of them heavily involved with radio comms as an NCO. Now, the army comms gear is many, many more times powerful than any wi-fi gear that gets used, and so far thousands od servicemen have totally failed to keel over with exploding skulls and eye sockets on fire. Personally I really disliked the way that the signal was referred to as 'radiation', and almost all of the laguage used was ambiguous and scare mongering. Lots of 'possibly', 'maybe', 'perhaps' were used. I did not hear one 'definately'. A scare story, nothing more, however I think that a proper investigation would not go amiss though.

[alan-d]

DB beat me too it - I was also going to point out that there were a lot of 'Maybe', 'May', 'Similar' 'Almost' and 'We don't know' s in the program.

 

The guy testing the laptop - had 5 or 6 laptops on the desk in front of him connected to the network. Started to download on one laptop - of course no mention that the other laptops on the desk would also be putting out a signal asking if the information was for them or the one he was using.

 

As already stated above - no proper checks of EM output in the general area before the test and everything was measured by eye.

 

Come on people if we are going to scare half the population, at least have some hard facts before we jump to conclusions.

 

Didn't we have a similar outrage about EM output from monitors once? That turned out to be a load of cobblers in the end.

 

Stick to FACTS lets get this tested properly by professionals.

 

OH D-B - You forgot to mention the radioactive material in the compasses and ammunition

[localzuk]

Personally, I just don't care if it slightly reduces my life span. We have been making use, as a species, of radio transmissions for many, many years and there has been very little evidence that it is bad for you. If it is bad for you, then it can only be a very minor thing - as Dos_Box says, there aren't any cases of exploding skulls

 

So, I'm willing to put the convenience of Wifi above the calculated risk involved - even for our kids. Especially with the widespread use of mobile phones now.

 

But then, a proper, independent, series of investigations into it wouldn't be a bad thing.

[_Bat_]

I'm absolutely astounded by the reactions here. I've not even finished page 2 of the posts.

 

I'm sorry but are you guys seriously trying to say that you have no worries about the long term effects of any form of radio transmissions?

 

I don't have the fact or figures that that programme had last night, but surely common sence needs to take presidence here?

 

I keep hearing the words "there is no evidence", or "research shows" blah blah blah. Apparently a 10 year study has shown no ill-effect from radio waves.

 

Well excuse me, but i'm fairly certain, 10 years ago there was no wireless technology in schools - even the internet was limited to a degree - and mobile phones were fairly big and bulky with a minor arial. 10 Years? give me a break - the technology hasn't existed for 10 years in the presidence it is now.

 

10 years in technology is almost 100 years in developments. With speed increases, more devices packed in small area's ect how can any 10 year study prove a true and correct assessment of the health issues?

 

The damn truth is, Science can't prove it's dangerous either way therefore it says it must be safe.

 

Tell that to those who have died from Asbestos 30-40 years later or lung cancer after smoking for 30-40 years.

 

No one is scaremongering or gathering conspiracy theories - they are just trying to show that Science 'could' be wrong and caution is needed. (oh no... off with their heads - how dare they question Science)

 

I couldn't agree more with you. I too have the same thoughts.

 

Mobile phones have not been proved dangerous, however, I suspect most of us here (and elsewhere) believe that they are. Most people generally believe that they can aid towards cancer. So why wouldn't wifi be dangerous too?

 

The thing is, even though most people suspect mobile phones are dangerous, those same people (including myself) carry a mobile phone with them. That suggests to me that the same will happen with wifi. You won't get rid of it now... it's too late. Wifi is everywhere, not just in schools. My brother (the geek that he is) carried a laptop into the bullring in Birmingham to do a test on wireless networks. He detected 8. EIGHT different wireless networks... are we going to ban children from the bullring (and most other places)? Or are we going to ban wireless totally? Doubt it.

[webman]

Perhaps one of the moderators/admins could add a poll to this to see the distribution of opinion? "Do you believe there are any health risks associated with Wifi?" Yes/No

[Wildebeaste]

So science can be wrong? Science doesn't know everything? That hardly needs pointing out, but it doesn't mean we have to flip into Luddite mode.

 

Nothing in our modern world comes without some risk. Nothing. Living entails risk.

 

To have a TV show scare monger with some pretty feable evidence (gossip and hearsay) is shameful. I'm just surprised they didn't have some good CGI of death rays from the access points and laptops.

 

As has been mentioned before, there's a very very long list of things that obviously need to be banned because they haven't been tested and found to be absolutely safe; diesel, flight, crisps, aspirin, radio, television, toast, milk... in fact, what are you doing reading this? Have you seen the amount of RF radiation that comes from a computer without Wi-fi?

 

Lemmings!

[enjay]

I think that research is the key - I do not have the scientific knowledge to say that mobiles, WiFi, BlueTooth, etc is or isn't dangerous, so I would be keen to see some strong independent research on the subject. If these things are dangerous, we should take measures to protect ourselves where possible - _Bat_ is right, we won't eradicate the technology even if it is proven dangerous, however sensible safe-guards can be made (the same way we limit how long we spend on our mobiles, and try not to keep them in our front trouser pockets......)

 

I don't want to go too far down the road of slating the "research" in last night's show as I think that many of the previous posters have done that already (although I did raise a smirk at the woman who has foil-lined her house, plus the presenter's wireless keyboard and mouse!), however it is overly sensationalist journalism such as this that raises the public's awareness of a POSSIBLE risk, and therefore encourages the WHO, HPA and others to research it.

 

I did think it unhelpful to have Sir William Stewart appearing with "Chairman, HPA" under his name when his organisation have not yet done any major research, and what they HAVE released is contrary to what he was saying.

[localzuk]

That is what modern media does - thats the reason parody shows such as Brasseye are so good!

[mattx]

Tell that to those who have died from Asbestos 30-40 years later

 

That was Asbestos in a certain form. Asbestos is safe in some forms - its even still used today in certain products - roofing compounds, brakes, clutches etc.

 

I've just finished watching the rather sad and somewhat pathetic attempt the BBC broadcast over this. Lots of over the top LARGE RED graphics, scary noises and interviews with 'so called experts' in their fields. The lady who had a house covered in baco foil had me in fits of laughter. This lady also paid a visit to someone else who lived in Sweden who had her condition [ electrosensitives ] I must write to the BBC and find out how she got there - did she fly ? How the hell did she cope with the cosmic radiation ?

 

The programme was appalling, was hugely biased, and nothing more than a one-sided piece of 'journalism' totally lacking in any credible science.

 

Will the BBC be ripping out their Wi-Fi networks after this ?

[enjay]

Excellent - good to see it didn't take the suppliers long to jump on this. In my Inbox this morning, time-stamped half an hour after the Panorama program finished, is an email beginning:

 

"There has been a lot of press recently with regards to the dangers and long term effects of being exposed to WiFi radiation (see attached document). To this end; we are offering to install CAT 5e cabling ......."

 

Marketing genius! :-)