W-Fi could be a lot more dangerous to children’s health than previously thought, says a British health agency. The guy behind the call to arms, Sir William Stewart, points to evidence that shows signal strength from a Wi-Fi router at a distance of one meter is stronger than a cellphone tower’s at a distance of 100 meters. Or, in something I like to call “English,” Wi-Fi signals are a hell of a lot more powerful than cellphone signals and therefore could pose more of a threat.
I wonder, if it’s discovered that Wi-Fi is indeed detrimental to one’s health, what would happen? Would the industry just collapse in on itself or is the basic technology modifiable so as to eliminate the danger? And what of those people who are sensitive to electromagnetic waves already, are they screwed either way?
I wonder if in a few years’ time, Future People will be all, “Can you believe they willingly subjected themselves to radiation without studying its effects?”
Wi-Fi risks in schools ‘must be reviewed’ [Telegraph]
Please read about the inverse square law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
Wi-fi signals are not more powerful than cellphone signals. Since the cellphone signals were measured at 100x the distance, they were automatically attenuated by a factor of 100×100 = 10,000.
i.e. the report is scaremongering crap.
What Mathew needs to realize is that school childen do not sit at their desk, a few feet from a cell phone mast. They do sit with a few feet of WiFi devices that subject them to a constant high source of radiation.
Much scientific research has shown that the microwave radiation produced by WiFi, cell phones and broadcasting antennas, causes DNA damage, changes to cell structure and changes to the composition of blood.
Mathew should try to produce one scientific paper that shows that microwave radiation is safe. It does not exist!
Those who knowlegeably and pseudo-scientifically spout the inverse square law completely miss the point that biological responses from body tissue like protein receptors on cell membranes are not interfered with by power levels at all, they are irrelevant, there is no threshold known. Dose/response has never been established, not even the parameters, whether it is linear or whatever.
Cells respond to the signal, the informational component. They perceive it as a toxic threat, shut down and sometimes die, necrosis.
Communications are disrupted, the immune system is compromised. I am not making this up, Dr Carlo said he has clinical evidence for this at his House of Commons presentation. He is training doctors.
There are whole organ and other effects too.
I have recently started a website (http://www.wifirisks.com/) about wireless networks and whether they present risks to human health. I have not yet formed a settled opinion myself, and with vested interests on both sides of the debate I think we should all maintain a degree of scepticism.
However, it does seem that an increasing number of people are attributing symptoms (rightly or wrongly) to wi-fi and other EMF sources. The science in the Panorama report may have been presented badly, but that in itself underlines the need for more rigorous research in this area.
yeah whatever
Rod want his cake and to eat it. He dismisses perfectly sound science as pseudoscientific and yet wants us to believe that Wi-Fo signals magically have no dose-response relationship. Can you think of any stimulus that causes harm to humans that does not have a dose-response effect? Rod appears to believe that because no dose-response relationship has been found then low doses must be harmful, rather than the rational response which is their is no effect. I guess this is because Rod has already made his mind up.
PS Dr Carlo has some pretty strange ideas about all of this. He is a a voice of one.