WiFi Networks Cause Health Problems?

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,591-2461748,00.html">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,591-2461748,00.html</a><br /><br />"Parents and teachers are forcing some schools to dismantle wireless computer networks amid fears that they could damage children’s health. <br />More schools are putting transmitters in classrooms to give pupils wireless access from laptops to the school computer network and the internet. But many parents and some scientists fear that low levels of microwave radiation emitted by the transmitters could be harmful, causing loss of concentration, headaches, fatigue, memory and behavioural problems and possibly cancer in the long term. Scientific evidence is inconclusive, but some researchers think that children are vulnerable because of their thinner skulls and developing nervous systems."<br /><br />Are they serious? I've never seen any studies showing this can happen. I know there is still some question about whether cell phones can cause problems, but those are held up to your head. Millions of people around the world have wireless networks in their homes, and millions more have cordless phones that operate on similar frequencies. Gaming systems have wireless controllers, portable gaming systems have wireless links. Some of the symptoms described make it sound more like these schools are built on top of former nuclear dumping grounds rather than just having some wireless access points distributed around the halls.

[Janak Parekh]

I think the problem is that most people have no clue how RF works. Add two parts of media hysteria and you get scenarios like these. Psychosomatic effects are also known to be very powerful, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of these folks are undergoing that very effect.

It honestly never occurs to them that when they walk around, they're bathed in both naturally- and artificially-occurring RF. It's more a matter of RF strength and frequency, and unfortunately somehow everything gets equated to the ancient analog phones that would use a 2-watt transmitter. :|

When I set up an early wireless network for a customer, he was worried about exactly this issue. I asked him if he has a cordless phone at home. I also pointed out that use of the microwave emits similar, if not greater RF interference (witness the noise on analog RF and WiFi connections when it is on). In other words, while there may be some chance of some RF interferences having physical effects, singling out WiFi is just plain stupid.

--janak

[Clinton Fitch]

Thanks Ed for posting this article.

I find it interesting that the article is written in a way that makes it seem without question that the fault of the children's fatigue, headaches, etc is the wireless network do not suggest that the problem could be related to some other environmental issue - such as location, polutants in the classrooms/building, etc. To single out one cause without concrete evidence to support it - I don't care if it is WiFi or something else - is nothing more than a scare tactic in my book.

Is it possibly a cause? sure. Is it THE cause? Who knows... clearly the scientific community doesn't.

[Jerry Raia]

You know what though? Reality doesn't mean a thing anymore when all you are thinking about is how to avoid getting sued. A few years ago I would have poked fun at them for taking down the WiFi. Now I sadly understand. :(

[Fuzzy John]

And of course, those same parents are strongly against schools restricting the use of cell phones by kids on school grounds.

[virain]

One day, lawyers will take us back to Stone Age 0X

[Silver5]

Don't blame just the attorneys...people hire them for insane and stupid reasons. They just take the money!

[Ed Hansberry]

Don't blame just the attorneys...people hire them for insane and stupid reasons. They just take the money!
they are the one's getting laws passed though that allow stupid lawsuits to happen in the first place.

[virain]

Agreed! And people are just being people. "Greed is good!"

[trepine]

Part of the problem, is that not all research is good research. It is very easy to design a study to produce exactly the results that you intend. The other problem with research is bias, which is often present in one or more form, and distorts the end result of the research. The third problem is extending something proven in prior research to a different subject under different circumstances.

A classic example of this is to say that dark chocolate has antioxidant properties, since antioxidants have been shown to be protective against cancer, therefore chocolate (dark) can be protective against cancer. This cause effect type of relationships have to be established on a case by case basis, when you start linking known facts together and surmising that the net effect is equivalent for the new situation, you have created an inherent flaw in your research, and more or less invalidated it. The only way to prove that chocolate reduces cancer is to do a randomized test where half of subjects are given placebo chocolate, and half are given real chocolate. Then compare the results from the two study groups.

The media really does not understand this at all. You often see headlines like "Cure for cancer discovered", when in reality what you have is something in the lab that kills cancer cells, but also kills people. So yes you have cured the cancer at the expense of the persons life. This is the danger of taking one scientific truth, extrapolating it out, and then assuming that it is true under a different set of circumstances.

Lastly, there is a general tendency of people to look for causality for problems that do not involve them selves. The most common reason for the symptom complex described will be some stressor in this persons life. Maybe separation anxiety, stress about an exam, stress about growing up with new relationships. In psychiatric text books they often refer to these psychosomatic complaints in relation to children either going to or participating in school or other social settings.

So, basically, what this study has done, it taken scientific evidence, out of context, applied it to a situation which has never been proven, dismissed the most likely causation, and then crafted this misleading explanation. Then to top it off, you simply tell the story, publish it somewhere "reputable", reference a scientist, and wala, you get a ground swell movement of people with no background or education on a topic which drive the policy because of fear, paranoia, and ignorance.

This happens all the time, and is a tragic fact of our society today.

[virain]

All of that is well known, and as old as a world. And it doesn't stop people to take an advantage of this type of a "research" to make some cash, LEGALY, c'mon! it's like win a lotto! No thanks to legal system :devilboy:

[Lex]

If the schools would let the kids make aluminum foil hats during craft time, those would keep those evil radio waves at bay. Also great protection from alien brain robbery !

[virain]

Yes! But then again, kid can swallow peice of a foil, and there's another law suite. We can't even protect children against evil alliens! 0X

[Joelacrane]

I'll be scientific evidence. I recently turned 18, and I've had my router 7 feet from where I sleep for nearly two years now. So far, no ill effects.

Why don't these people fight for something worthwhile, like getting rid of abortion? You'd save more lives that way. I hate to state the obvious, but with people like this, you have to.

[mrchampipi]

I'll be scientific evidence. I recently turned 18, and I've had my router 7 feet from where I sleep for nearly two years now. So far, no ill effects.
And your point is???
I've been smoking a pack of cigarets a day for the past 10 years, so far no ill effects...does that prooves that cigarets have no impact?

Maybe are those ppl over reacting, but once again, no one really knows what are the impact of exposure to cell phone and wifi waves in the long run. See you in 30 years, we'll see then.

[virain]

Wi-Fi, cell phones, cigarettes, junk food, asbestos, fossil fuels, and so on, and so on, and so on. Everything is dangerous in this life, anything can have hazardous effect on human health. But without it we wouldn't be where we are today. As we progress, new, more clean and friendly technologies replace old ones. Imagine James Watt is suite over steam engine for destroying enviroment, Edison in court over electric light bulb for the risk that someone can be electricuted. Brothers Wright for a plane so it can fall and kill passangers. Sounds stupid? But do not today's slip and fall lawyers remind you an inquisition? Books were burn, and inventions were destroyed becase they didn't comply with main stream religion. Well today we just do the same by letting these law suites to go on. Only this time it is not in the name of god, but human health, which is very convinient. Who would argue with that?

[Deslock]

While I agree with most here that these people are overreacting, consider some of the quotes in the article:
“We had been having problems with the reliability of it anyway, so we decided to exchange it for a conventional cabled system.”

Vivienne Baron, who is bringing up Sebastian, her ten-year-old grandson, said: “I did not want Sebastian exposed to a wireless computer network at school. No real evidence has been produced to prove that this new technology is safe in the long term. Until it is, I think we should take a precautionary approach and use cabled systems.”

...

Stowe School, the Buckinghamshire public school, also removed part of its wireless network after a teacher became ill. Michael Bevington, a classics teacher for 28 years at the school, said that he had such a violent reaction to the network that he was too ill to teach.

“I felt a steadily widening range of unpleasant effects whenever I was in the classroom,” he said. “First came a thick headache, then pains throughout the body, sudden flushes, pressure behind the eyes, sudden skin pains and burning sensations, along with bouts of nausea. Over the weekend, away from the classroom, I felt completely normal.”
So they have a teacher who says the network makes him sick and as a result parents are concerned that there isn't enough long term evidence about possible side-effects of the network. Since their wifi setup isn't reliable for them anyway, the school decided to just go to a wired network. While I find it hard to believe that the teacher's illness has anything to do with the wifi, the decision to remove it is not as insane as some here are making it out to be (given the reliability problems they were having).

[virain]

While I agree with most here that these people are overreacting, consider some of the quotes in the article:
[quote]“We had been having problems with the reliability of it anyway, so we decided to exchange it for a conventional cabled system.”
That is one example, where school offical trying to give a legitimate excuse fo removing WI-FI. There are 2 more, without any refs. to reliability of a network. Read the article, please.

[WorksForTurkeys]

I'm surprised these people haven't made similar complaints about broadcast and satellite TV &amp; radio. Their kids have been bathed in their "radiation" for decades. They should also consider blaming incandescent and florescent light manufacturers as visible light is just a different frequency of broadcast radiation... :roll:

[isajoo]

just wondering...if they have a wired network throughout the school..couldn't anyone just hook up a router at any source and just conseal the ssid so people could use it and really no one would no. i guess people will think i am trying to kill them silently...but at least the have access. problem/solution method.

[ctmagnus]

For everyone that is worried about this:

Get rid of your baby monitors, and your cordless phones, and your microwave ovens.

Those all work at the same frequency of wireless networks. 802.11b/g networks, and 2.4GHz cordless phones, anyways.

[Joelacrane]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=377

"Take the highest power industrial grade Access Point and put it in front of her. Let's use something that puts out 500 milliwatts which is about 10 times more powerful than typical access points and set it 6 feet in front of her in plain sight. Then mask off the Wi-Fi activity indicator so you can't go by the LED indicator when the Wi-Fi is on or off but let her see that the Access Point is plugged in and turned on. Remotely SSH in to the Access Point and toggle the radio on and off for durations of at least 10 minutes on or off in a random pattern and note the time of each change in state and repeat this test for a few hours. Have her write down the times she believes the she feels the 2.4 GHz radio waves assaulting her and let's see how she scores." - George Ou

Make CSIRO do it! They invented Wi-Fi!

"the telecommunication companies pour scorn, but none of them has been able to prove Wi-Fi is safe". Annnnd... nobody has proved that it is dangerous. Look, you should go find something better to do, like sueing fast food chains. Just stay away from Mcdonalds. Some of them have Wi-Fi.

Another interesting comment... http://forums.icthub.org.uk/read.php?19,71,7

I can't beleive that this emoticon has gone unused in this thread!

:microwave:

[virain]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=377

Just stay away from Mcdonalds. Some of them have Wi-Fi.

:microwave:
Starbucks may be also hazardous, they have T-Mobile Hotspots! 8O

[Phoenix]

Hey, all they need are hats made out of aluminum foil. Problem solved. :silly:

[Ed Hansberry]

Starbucks may be also hazardous, they have T-Mobile Hotspots! 8O
helps keep the coffee warm. :)

[Deslock]

That is one example, where school offical trying to give a legitimate excuse fo removing WI-FI. There are 2 more, without any refs. to reliability of a network. Read the article, please.
"Read the article, please"? LOL. I did read the article... did you read my post before you replied:
While I agree with most here that these people are overreacting, consider some of the quotes in the article:

{quotes snipped}

So they have a teacher who says the network makes him sick and as a result parents are concerned that there isn't enough long term evidence about possible side-effects of the network. Since their wifi setup isn't reliable for them anyway, the school decided to just go to a wired network. While I find it hard to believe that the teacher's illness has anything to do with the wifi, the decision to remove it is not as insane as some here are making it out to be (given the reliability problems they were having).
You don't think that summarizes what was in the article?

[natestera]

It's all true. I had to start wearing aluminum foil over my brainpan when surfing on the internet, else I could read my neighbors thoughts... He kept grousing about how he wished I would mow my grass once in awhile...