Is Wi-Fi safe?

peterbaker

Yeah but the kids in some houses insist they can't live without WiFi for their games consoles now! Mine do ... when they are here that is!

Millionare

peterbaker wrote: »

Yeah but the kids in some houses insist they can't live without WiFi for their games consoles now!

Get rid of the Kids

superscaper

Millionare wrote: »

Get rid of the Kids

I'm sure they have a measurably much greater impact on health.

Millionare

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007170479,00.html :eek:

NO harmful effects

superscaper

Millionare wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007170479,00.html :eek:

NO harmful effects

Playing sceptic here:
It doesn't really explain how a phenomenon (CCD) that has supposedly only been happening in this country this year was caused by something (mobile phones) that has been prevalent and reached market saturation years ago. Also interesting that the London Beekeepers Association only four days ago said that there was nothing all that unusual in the number of colony deaths this year in Britain and that those deaths were most likely due to disease.

Apparently there were huge colony losses worldwide in 1915, 1960 and 1987. Although the cause was never found I'm pretty certain it wasn't mobile phones

Need_More_Money_2

Millionare wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007170479,00.html :eek:

NO harmful effects

Fantastic scientific reporting from the Sun again :rolleyes:

Gives no real information to prove it is due to mobile signals.

I suppose it is possible that bees uses radio signals to navigate (similar to the way bats use sonar) and radiowaves could confuse them.

superscaper

Need_More_Money wrote: »

Fantastic scientific reporting from the Sun again :rolleyes:

Gives no real information to prove it is due to mobile signals.

Yes one restricted study in one department of one university and they haven't even published a single thing about it. Hence there's no published peer reviewed scientific research and so the Sun interpret that as hard fact.The only ACTUAL quote I could find by one of the scientists involved said "this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause" after placing a handset right next to a hive and the bees avoided that hive. A hint to a possible cause from non-published research, hardly as conclusive as the media make out is it?

superscaper

As an additional Geographic related quandry, the case of recent CCD to Britain (which many apiarists actually don't think it has even arrived at our shores) is nothing compared to the amount of CCD in agricultural America. So why is it more widespread in low population agricultural areas of the USA compared to the UK which has a much much higher density of mobile phones. There doesn't even seem to be a correlation therefore between CCD and density of mobile/cellular radiation.

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

Playing sceptic here:
It doesn't really explain how a phenomenon (CCD) that has supposedly only been happening in this country this year was caused by something (mobile phones) that has been prevalent and reached market saturation years ago.

Hmmm....that's a rather misleading argument, ss. We DO have a pattern of recent roll-out of new mobile phone technology which might explain effects in just the last year or so.

For example:
1) I had never heard of UMTS a year ago.
2) There have been thousands of transceivers hidden in street lamps around the country to fill in the original areas of poor coverage. Most people have no idea, even those who have them right outside their homes.
3) The countrywide implementation of the police TETRA system is also a phenomenum of recent years only.
4) The Wifi revolution has only taken hold in the last 12 months.

As someone brought up in the countryside I am quite used to seeing how what appears to be innocuous 'fashionable' human activity alters nature's patterns in big ways.

We would do well to take note of reports like this. This is not a tale of two-headed panthers prowling about in our forests. It is a perfectly plausible report, and it does not have to be couched scientifically to appear in a general interest publication, nor even as a prerequisite to becoming a leading view! I think science is useful when it opens our minds, and far less so when we use it like a religion as a set of rules to restrict our thought.

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

Hmmm....that's a rather misleading argument, ss. We DO have a pattern of recent roll-out of new mobile phone technology which might explain effects in just the last year or so.

For example:
1) I had never heard of UMTS a year ago.
2) There have been thousands of transceivers hidden in street lamps around the country to fill in the original areas of poor coverage. Most people have no idea, even those who have them right outside their homes.
3) The countrywide implementation of the police TETRA system is also a phenomenum of recent years only.
4) The Wifi revolution has only taken hold in the last 12 months.

As someone brought up in the countryside I am quite used to seeing how what appears to be innocuous 'fashionable' human activity alters nature's patterns in big ways.

We would do well to take note of reports like this. This is not a tale of two-headed panthers prowling about in our forests. It is a perfectly plausible report, and it does not have to be couched scientifically to appear in a general interest publication, nor even as a prerequisite to becoming a leading view! I think science is useful when it opens our minds, and far less so when we use it like a religion as a set of rules to restrict our thought.

Even if there is a correlation between the things you mention, it would be wrong and dangerous to assume correlation equals causation.

And if you thing science restricts our thoughts like relion does, you really completely misunderstand science