Is Wi-Fi safe?

peterbaker

Need_More_Money wrote: »

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.

I disagree that there was no good reason to query MMR. I would agree that the governments handling of the understandable MMR crisis was indeed a farce.

And personally I would say the same about low level ionising radiation.

I don't think the general public have woken up yet to what is meant by low level ionizing radiation. Personally I have only allowed one X-ray now at the dentist in the last twenty years, because I know the chance of ill effect are likely to be cumulative and concealed (i.e. very difficult to link cause and effect because of the time and distance between the two). MMR became a crisis because possible cause was one event and likely adverse effect, in the few that apparently suffered an effect, was much less separated in time and was therefore "on show" to a critical mass of observers.

It is the magician's art that sometimes limits general knowledge.

espresso

:doh:

I think that it's about time that you mass debaters agreed to disagree on this topic!

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

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.

We'll just have to agree to have different views on that, I was merely responding to the "changes in nature's patterns" being more obvious in the countryside but there is little of "nature", everything has an impact. I'm not disputing that. But to say one thing is "atune" with nature while something else is opposed to it isn't that black and white to me. I couldn't say for sure what is or what isn't atuned to nature and to be honest I'm very happy that some things/technologies are completely opposed to nature. I'm sure I'd be dead years ago if it wasn't for technologies that completely oppose nature.

If we're to stop advancement in technology and science because of what we may suspect or because they have any negative effect then we would have any technology at all. There are plenty of studies being carried out all the time all over the world on the impact of different technologies on both environment and health and technology is adjusted appropriately and the knowledge added to science on the basis of all discoveries whether good or bad. I'm just against jumping the gun because where would it stop, at what point do we say we suspect enough to abandon this particular technology? The only we we can be completely safe from RF radiation whether we have ANY technology or not is to live in a Faraday cage.

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

Personally I have only allowed one X-ray now at the dentist in the last twenty years, because I know the chance of ill effect are likely to be cumulative and concealed (i.e. very difficult to link cause and effect because of the time and distance between the two). MMR became a crisis because possible cause was one event and likely adverse effect, in the few that apparently suffered an effect, was much less separated in time and was therefore "on show" to a critical mass of observers.

It is the magician's art that sometimes limits general knowledge.

If you've taken any airflights you've had an awful lot more than 1 x-ray, you get much more harmful things from nature. As for MMR there was no evidence a single person got Autism. It was a simple case of correlation, which was demonstrated that the exact same increase in cases of Autism happened in countries where they didn't even have MMR. It was all down to one person who has had their "research" retracted and is being struck off. We can't run our lives according to a couple of nutters who shout doom all the time. If it was three nutters then I'd sit up and listen.

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

I disagree that there was no good reason to query MMR. I would agree that the governments handling of the understandable MMR crisis was indeed a farce.

There is always a good reason to question things - that is what science is about. The farce is when people say my son/daughter developed autism and he/she had the MMR injection recently so it must be related.

peterbaker wrote: »

I don't think the general public have woken up yet to what is meant by low level ionizing radiation. Personally I have only allowed one X-ray now at the dentist in the last twenty years, because I know the chance of ill effect are likely to be cumulative and concealed .

The main reason that it is hard to show any effect from low doses of ionising radiation is because if there is an effect (either positive or negative) it is very small. There has certainly been lots of work done to try an demonstrate any effects.
I think the general public tend to be terrified by any kind of radiation. I know of people who have refused medical procedures involving radiation because of the reasons you mention, despite the risk being so small or possibly zero. Of course there is a definite risk from not having the scan if a disease goes undetected and therefore untreated.
We have to accept some degree of risk/uncertainty in everything we do or else we wouldn't do anything

superscaper

espresso wrote: »

:doh:

I think that it's about time that you mass debaters agreed to disagree on this topic!

Espresso's right, I gave the best answer I can to the original question with my quotes from the most recent studies in my earlier post. Everything else is circular argument and is getting us nowhere. The basic answer is that no one knows for sure. I can't add anything else really because conclusions seem to have been reached before this thread was even started. My own personal stance is that I don't know, can't say either way, and I'm not worried. I've dealt with extremely dangerous materials in my time and never worried about it so I'm not going to start worrying now over something that may or may not be the case. Stress is likely to be the most harmful thing to me and it's easier to live without it.

peterbaker

When have you ever seen three nutters forming a straight line since Monty Python disappeared off our screens, ss? :-))

I do fly yes and it is a calculated risk as to which bit of me cops the worst of the radiation damage for the forty minutes or so per trip when up above thirty thousand feet or so. I can just about live with the idea of ageing prematurely and rolling the dice on that one, but I didn't much fancy the prospect of dealing with a cancer of the jawbone whilst remembering full well that I let various dentists zap it in the same place several times.

Circular argument? Says you! Yes we have come back to the original question - Is Wifi safe? Personally I like to think that between us we have broadened a few people's perspectives by exercising braincells in batting about a few colourful (some might say plain awful!) analogies, although I am not sure where that left espresso!

I'm still sitting on the fence, so mine's a Mocha!

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

I do fly yes and it is a calculated risk as to which bit of me cops the worst of the radiation damage for the forty minutes or so per trip when up above thirty thousand feet or so. I can just about live with the idea of ageing prematurely and rolling the dice on that one, but I didn't much fancy the prospect of dealing with a cancer of the jawbone whilst remembering full well that I let various dentists zap it in the same place several times.

I think you misunderstand. You are exposed to ionising radiation when flying just like you are from a dental x-ray. So the theoretical risk is the same - cancer.

The radiation dose from a dental x-ray is incredibly small and the associated risk is probably zero, but certainly very small (especially compared to the natural risk of cancer). And the dental x-ray potentially does you some good if its results contributes to your dental health.

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

Circular argument? Says you!

Yes says me! I was including all my other posts as well and was talking about the thread in general. I can be self-critical. That's what science is all about

peterbaker

What bit don't I understand, NMM? Are you telling me that the enhance risk of cancer to my big toe is the same as the enhanced risk of cancer of the jawbone when I let the dentist do an X ray? I don't think so...but I stand to be corrected.

The dental X-ray does me no good. Dentists are like scientists. A mixed bunch with incredibly varied agendae (or maybe not so varied in dentistry!).

If I had a hidden problem that was causing me pain or danger then maybe there would be a benefit, but letting a dentist take an X-ray as part of his or her collected routines to assist in the sale of more treatment than I want or even need is not my style.

I really don't know where you get your phrases like:

"incredibly small" "probably zero" "very small ....compared to the natural risk of cancer" Are you a state-sponsored public health 'scientist' by any chance?

And what are these numbers, actually?
How do you define natural risk of cancer? Is that natural risk of cancer as in standing in an English field downwind of Sir Walter Raleigh in way-back-when, or post Los Alamo 1943? Post Turner&Newall's WW2 led Asbestos boom? Or post Chernobyl 1986? Post Bluetooth perhaps? Or maybe post Wi-Fi 802.11a/b/g/n/whatever?