Is Wi-Fi safe?

superscaper

"We would do well to take note of reports like this"
I have to disagree, taking "reports" out of context and running with them without any kind of substantiation is very dangerous. Look at the entire MMR autism thing. One person's personal interpretation in a paper (in this case a paper that was actually published) has led through media hysteria to at least one fatality from measles.

I'm perfectly prepared to accept anything so long as it is reasoned out and has at least some validity. As for the CCD thing it can't even be established that it even exists in the UK, and where it happens most internationally doesn't follow any kind of pattern of RF radiation prevalence. It may affect the bees but may only be one contributing factor. We shouldn't base our entire civilisation's decisions on the basis of one persons untested opinion that "may hint at a possible cause". That to me sounds more like the logic of a religion.

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

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.

Like the countryside itself which is as manmade as anything else. A field is certainly not "nature". The only thing that could be considered natural in any way in this country may be some forests. Everything else is there by human intervention.

superscaper

Back to the point at hand though, one of the most recent studies I've come across is Valberg, P.A., van Deventer, T.E. & Repacholi, M.H. (2007) Workgroup report: Base stations and wireless networks-radiofrequency (RF) exposures and health consequences. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115, 416-424, which was a study into all the various types of RF exposure. The conclusion was there was no evidence that they adversely affect human health. That isn't proof one way or the other but is the most complete and factual answer you're going to get for the original question. Anything else is speculative opinion on both sides. The only caveat is that there is evidence childrens skulls absorb RF radiation more efficably than adults and are therefore more at risk from any possible adverse effects there are, so don't give children mobile phones. De Salles, A.A., Bulla, G. & Rodriguez, C.E.F. (2006) Electromagnetic absorption in the head of adults and children due to mobile phone operation close to the head. Electromagnetic Biology And Medicine, 25, 349-360

stevemcol

superscaper wrote: »

The conclusion was there was no evidence that they adversely affect human health.

superscaper wrote: »

The only caveat is that there is evidence childrens skulls absorb RF radiation more efficably than adults and are therefore more at risk from any possible adverse effects there are, so don't give children mobile phones.

Contradictory? Are children not human?
....no don't answer that.

Need_More_Money_2

stevemcol wrote: »

Contradictory? Are children not human?
....no don't answer that.

It is not contradictory at all. It says IF health effects are found, children may be more at risk. That's all

seaweasel

I can't believe this thread is dragging on so long.

In other news the Daily Mail reports that there is a deadly organisation operating within the UK that has access to guns, explosives and even tanks. Describing itself as "The Army", the Mail reveals that it is actually funded by the government by your taxes!

superscaper

Need_More_Money wrote: »

It is not contradictory at all. It says IF health effects are found, children may be more at risk. That's all

As NMM says, it isn't contradictory at all. It is two different things, the first study was looking at dangers to health and the second was looking at absorption rates of people and not determining what health effects these were. I did say it was a caveat that I was simply putting in that whatever the effects children will be affected more.

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

Like the countryside itself which is as manmade as anything else. A field is certainly not "nature". The only thing that could be considered natural in any way in this country may be some forests. Everything else is there by human intervention.

You'll forgive me if I admit I am beginning to dislike the tone of the argument, ss.

I think we are all perfectly aware that a 200 acre field would not have existed 100 years ago. And I think we are all perfectly aware that fields of any size are as a result of human exploits in agriculture going back some thousands of years. Until a generation or two ago, words like guardianship and husbandry were still apt to describe the nature of much of our farming. These things were still largely atune to nature rather than directly opposed to it.

I have already introduced the more conspicuous changes in agriculture in my lifetime as changes which have had big questionnable consequences due to the thoughtlessness of the technologists involved.

NMM wrote:

And if you think science restricts our thoughts like religion does, you really completely misunderstand science.[

I didn't say that ... or at least that isn't the meaning I intended. Put bluntly, I was implying that the way you and ss were brandishing the rules of science, as you saw them, smacked of religion. My own background in science and religion is perhaps more balanced and mellowed. I didn't practice as a scientist, or worship as a religious believer much beyond university and getting married. I have however studied some practical science since then including the theory of some practical applications reliant on EMR, and I have in a small way also been involved in assessing the risk to human health of many types of commercial technological activity.

I have a book in my hand dated 1945 issued by the Times newspaper which details technological achievement and progress during WW2. Like many old reference books it contains rudimentary advertisements by the leading (like today's 'FTSE 100') companies of the day. One is Decca Navigator and another is Standard Telephones and Cables. Another is GEC showing a new landscape straddled by HT power cables strung on huge pylons. "Winning the Peace" it says. Fair enough. I don't vote easily against technological progress.

But two other full page advertisements were from equally proud asbestos manufacturers, buoyed no doubt from huge wartime contracts too.

But how many people died "Winning the Peace" with those two companies' products before finally science caught up with the underlying view that asbestos was a problem?

I'd suggest care might be needed in how you answer that one - I wore a simple Martindale mask in a possibly vain attempt to protect myself when I was sawing asbestos sheets in the early 70s on the farm where I worked every summer until I left university. Others around me poo-pooed it - "its asbestos cement sheets, so not a problem, its that powdery blue asbestos you have to watch out for!"

Take note of the date. Then tell me when it became official and helped bring Lloyd's Of London to its knees. Then tell me why the common man's view is invalid in the face of the so-called science that says "there is no evidence" right up to the day when a better science says "I have found incontravertible evidence".

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

I didn't say that ... or at least that isn't the meaning I intended. Put bluntly, I was implying that the way you and ss were brandishing the rules of science, as you saw them, smacked of religion.

Not at all. Saying there is no evidence is not the same as saying something does not exist. It might be possible to say somthing is highly unlikely, but it doesn't mean it definitely does not exist. What I argue against is the approach (that seems increasingly common) to believe something just because it seems plausible even though there is no good reason to. As mentioned by someone else earlier, the MMR farce is a good example of that. And personally I would say the same about low level ionising radiation. I do not know enough about the non-ionising radiation associated with wireless networks to comment any further than it seems unlikely that there are significant detrimental health effects. But you are correct, we cannot rule them out.

Millionare

Good point peter, I Have a feeling that it while be a while before the actual effects of mobiles and wireless technologies gets figured out.

I just dont trust the technology around kids so dont use wireless devices because of that.