Is Wi-Fi safe?

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

Well superscraper, I wouldn't say my view is quite as you suggest because it sounds somewhat vacuous when put that way, and I wouldn't want to be thought of as promoting anything like that!

There seem to be far too many knowledgeable people who have attained a position as 'acknowledged expert' in a related field, who are content to have to do little work to justify their position when queueing up to say "There is no evidence to suggest that..." versus those who are saying "Well actually we have been told about..., or we have noticed that..., or we could imagine that..., and therefore we are looking for more evidence to support..., and we expect to be reporting back by ..."

Science tends to work the other way. Make a hypothesis and try to disprove it. Looking for evidence to support a hypothesis is considered bad practice

peterbaker

SS you are being a bit derisory again! You are suggesting my original question was vacuous, was a rhetorical question i.e. a question not designed for an answer but as a device to get your attention, and therefore by implication you are suggesting it wasn't worthy of answer.

There is really no need for it, surely. Why call what I posted a 'rant'? The other day you said I was 'obsessing' about pulsed signals. These are words recently in common over-use as unpleasant social put-downs designed to knock. Do you dislike my posts that much?

I will admit to being an old cynic. That one rolls off easily enough!

People don't just post on MSE to advise upon or to request technical absolutes to save money. Many are also interested in the possible downsides. It costs a lot of money to create a wired home network with the wires hidden, but I would suggest that if it was as easy as WiFi many would choose wired. We know it isn't, so to many the advent of free broadband wireless routers was an apparent godsend.

We have an entire generation since mine went to school who have one way or another not been very interested in learning science, but are quite happy to buy it and use it if it is cheap.

That's how farmers came to use so many new chemicals. They didn't understand them much beyond what benefit they got from using them.

So who publishes what is safe? The market?

I think not. They publish the benefits but they will not publish one word confrming safety unless regulators oblige it, or unless bad press requires rebuttal.

So then, with so few absolutes established before a new technology is brought to the market, is it any surprise that rhetorical questions are asked?

espresso

peterbaker wrote: »

SS you are being a bit derisory again! You are suggesting my original question was vacuous, was a rhetorical question.........

Are you one of these?

:rolleyes:

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

SS you are being a bit derisory again! You are suggesting my original question was vacuous, was a rhetorical question i.e. a question not designed for an answer but as a device to get your attention, and therefore by implication you are suggesting it wasn't worthy of answer.

There is really no need for it, surely. Why call what I posted a 'rant'? The other day you said I was 'obsessing' about pulsed signals. These are words recently in common over-use as unpleasant social put-downs designed to knock. Do you dislike my posts that much?

I will admit to being an old cynic. That one rolls off easily enough!

People don't just post on MSE to advise upon or to request technical absolutes to save money. Many are also interested in the possible downsides. It costs a lot of money to create a wired home network with the wires hidden, but I would suggest that if it was as easy as WiFi many would choose wired. We know it isn't, so to many the advent of free broadband wireless routers was an apparent godsend.

We have an entire generation since mine went to school who have one way or another not been very interested in learning science, but are quite happy to buy it and use it if it is cheap.

That's how farmers came to use so many new chemicals. They didn't understand them much beyond what benefit they got from using them.

So who publishes what is safe? The market?

I think not. They publish the benefits but they will not publish one word confrming safety unless regulators oblige it, or unless bad press requires rebuttal.

So then, with so few absolutes established before a new technology is brought to the market, is it any surprise that rhetorical questions are asked?

Not meant to be a personal putdown, I suppose my colloquiel use of some terms is coming across as more negative to you and possibly more people so for that I do apologise. When I said it was a rhetorical question I meant that it seemed like you only wanted answers to support the opinion you'd already formed, again I have to stress that is my own personal view and what has come across to me. I'm not sure how often you want me to actually say "I'm sure I'm wrong", I'm probably too excessive with that phrase as it is. Yes I'm probably getting overly frustrated at some of your posts and it's exacerbated some of my terminology in response, and again I apologise for that. I really honestly don't want to make this about "personal attacks". I don't think your original question was vacuous at all. It was a legitimate question, just it seemed to ME to be motivated from a particular viewpoint already. Which if not then so be it, it's my own singular insignificant opinion anyway.

I myself would prefer a wired network if it were as convenient to install. Because apart from the installation and mobility issue, wired would win hands down in comparison on all fronts.

I think most of my frustration comes from a lot of alarmism from media who misrepresent dangers of particular things, usually based on misconceptions. As happens frequently in areas of research I have an interest in. So my back is already up when someone starts asking about the dangers of something that's not been established as dangerous, but again that's just my own prejudice which I happily admit.

superscaper

espresso wrote: »

Are you one of these?

:rolleyes:

I'm trying to be as apologetic (and stressing everything is just my opinion) as possible because it's like everything I say is taken to it's most offensive personal possible meaning.

peterbaker

Need_More_Money wrote: »

Science tends to work the other way. Make a hypothesis and try to disprove it. Looking for evidence to support a hypothesis is considered bad practice

Hi NMM, I respect what you say but I don't quite follow ...

I have an idea of the broad guiding principle you are talking about ... it results in the need for concepts such as double blind trials and control samples and the like, am I right?

But almost all scientific experiment IS geared towards detecting something that is hypothesised, and so long as the data used to confirm the detection is properly weighed against and published alongside data defining probability of errors in observation or measurement then that is perfectly ok science practice?

I think you are talking about scientific experiments where we are seeking to demonstrate that previous theory does not hold for some situations? Like attempting to show that Einstein was wrong in some fundamental respect?

That surely is different to looking for adverse effects of new technology where available scientific theory, other than that developed for its direct application, is actually scant on the ground before bringing a product to market, and so where the only real 'upset' is economical/political.

These two types of scientific research cannot possibly be said to be similar.

superscaper

I thought (my own personal opinion, not to be taken as anything else) that a scientific hypothesis meant a falsifiable hypothesis, and falsifiable meant there was some realistic was it could be proven false by some method. The way the hypothesis maintained it's stance was that you failed to find data to prove it false.

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

Hi NMM, I respect what you say but I don't quite follow ...

I have an idea of the broad guiding principle you are talking about ... it results in the need for concepts such as double blind trials and control samples and the like, am I right?

But almost all scientific experiment IS geared towards detecting something that is hypothesised, and so long as the data used to confirm the detection is properly weighed against and published alongside data defining probability of errors in observation or measurement then that is perfectly ok science practice?

I think you are talking about scientific experiments where we are seeking to demonstrate that previous theory does not hold for some situations? Like attempting to show that Einstein was wrong in some fundamental respect?

That surely is different to looking for adverse effects of new technology where available scientific theory, other than that developed for its direct application, is actually scant on the ground before bringing a product to market, and so where the only real 'upset' is economical/political.

These two types of scientific research cannot possibly be said to be similar.

The principle is the same. In the case of WiFi the hypothesis would be that it is safe. Scientists would then try to prove it is not safe. If you cannot prove it is not safe, then the conclusion is that it probably is safe. In some research it might be possible to calculate the probablity of that conclusion being wrong. This is the origin of the phrase "no evidence to suggest that it is unsafe". It is always possible that new evidence may emerge and show the original hypothesis to be false. This is accepted (and considered and relished) by good scientists.

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

I think most of my frustration comes from a lot of alarmism from media who misrepresent dangers of particular things, usually based on misconceptions. As happens frequently in areas of research I have an interest in.

Are you allowed to tell us a little of your specialties, superscraper? I am sure many are hoping to know now:-)

superscaper

Need_More_Money wrote: »

It is always possible that new evidence may emerge and show the original hypothesis to be false. This is accepted (and considered and relished) by good scientists.

I think this is where we sometime get confusion and miscommunication. Quite often people (in general, genuinely not specifically aimed at anyone here or maybe everyone and is not meant as a personal attack) talk about scientists or they talk about science and they tend to mix up the two or other people interpret it as them menaing the other one. Scientists are people and they do have prejudices and of course they'd love to have their own hypothesis or theory in lights shown to be true and correct and they may be selective in their data to support it but that's an individual person. One example I can think of came from Richard Dawkins, when he was a student one of his professors was quite well known for spending almost his entire career on supporting a particular theory he'd developed. A guest lecturer came in one day (I think from the USA, and I'm paraphrasing Dawkins terribly here) and then discussed that particular theory and showed how it was undoubtedly false with absolute proof. The lecturer was actually there watching and of course all the students knew it was his theory and were obviously feeling very awkward about what was going to happen. The lecturer at the end strode up to the guest lecturer, shook his hand and said a very loud genuine "Thank you". Now that is science at it's best!