11-25-2006, 06:00 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
WiFi Networks Cause Health Problems?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,591-2461748,00.html
"Parents and teachers are forcing some schools to dismantle wireless computer networks amid fears that they could damage children�s health.
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."
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-25-2006, 06:09 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
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
|
| |
|
|
|
11-25-2006, 06:17 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 147
|
|
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.
__________________
Clinton Fitch ~ MVP-Mobile DevicesPrincipalClinton Fitch (Dot) Com!
|
| |
|
|
|
11-25-2006, 06:19 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,305
|
|
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. 
|
| |
|
|
|
11-25-2006, 06:37 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 20
|
|
And of course, those same parents are strongly against schools restricting the use of cell phones by kids on school grounds.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-25-2006, 08:36 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 554
|
|
One day, lawyers will take us back to Stone Age 0X
|
| |
|
|
|
11-25-2006, 09:35 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 181
|
|
Don't blame just the attorneys...people hire them for insane and stupid reasons. They just take the money!
|
| |
|
|
|
11-25-2006, 09:46 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Silver5
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
11-25-2006, 10:19 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 554
|
|
Agreed! And people are just being people. "Greed is good!"
|
| |
|
|
|
11-26-2006, 12:45 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
