Is Wi-Fi safe?

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

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

Nanoparticles and plastic/organic/molecular/nano electronics (I still cringe at Prince Charles giving his expert opinion on us all dooming ourselves with nanotechnology). Although I'm now just a self employed engineering consultant. Probably doesn't qualify me in any way to talk about much, but of course any idiot can have an opinion, of which I have many (most of which are contradictory).

peterbaker

Need_More_Money wrote: »

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.

That is extremely enlightening NMM, but astounds me if I read it correctly.

Are you saying that the protection of the 'idea' (I refuse to give it the credence of proven theory) that "WiFi is safe" is as robust as the protection given to Einstein's theories?

superscaper

Anything else anyone wants to know about me or anything else I need to apologise for?

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

Nanoparticles and plastic/organic/molecular/nano electronics (I still cringe at Prince Charles giving his expert opinion on us all dooming ourselves with nanotechnology).

Thanks for sharing superscraper. Why don't you drop him a line and bring him up to date! I am sure he would love to have his "hypothesis" reformed for a wider consumption! I bet not many write to him saying "Sir, unfortunately whenever you use that word, I cringe, so I wondered if I could be of some general assistance at the nanolevels?" :-)

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

Thanks for sharing superscraper. Why don't you drop him a line and bring him up to date! I am sure he would love to have his "hypothesis" reformed for a wider consumption! I bet not many write to him saying "Sir, unfortunately whenever you use that word, I cringe, so I wondered if I could be of some general assistance at the nanolevels?" :-)

I only wish that would make a difference but this is the same person who believes the NHS should fund alternative therapies (eg homeopathy) without even having to demonstrate their efficacy.

The whole celebrities talking science thing just reminded me of Madonna putting forward her useful suggestion to BNFL that she has the solution to all nuclear waste, kabbalah prayer water!!

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

That is extremely enlightening NMM, but astounds me if I read it correctly.

Are you saying that the protection of the 'idea' (I refuse to give it the credence of proven theory) that "WiFi is safe" is as robust as the protection given to Einstein's theories?

The methodology used (if done correctly) should be as robust. How sure you are that a hypothesis is correct (i.e. WiFi is safe or Einstein's theories are correct) depends on how much work has been done to try and show them to be false

peterbaker

Need_More_Money wrote: »

The methodology used (if done correctly) should be as robust. How sure you are that a hypothesis is correct (i.e. WiFi is safe or Einstein's theories are correct) depends on how much work has been done to try and show them to be false

Ah! Now that is a refreshing analysis! So is it not a great pity that so much effort is spent simply refuting as opposed to disproving hypotheses which call safety into question?

Is it also not a pity that the one-sided phrase "There is no evidence to suggest that..." is provided by experts so frequently as to dilute trust in their overall judgement about safe technology? Why do they allow themselves to be so quoted? Why for example do they simply not use the truly noncommittal "There is not enough scientifically obtained evidence to assess whether it is truly safe or not safe" and leave commercially motivated commentators to survive or fall on what they dare to promote?

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

I only wish that would make a difference but this is the same person who believes the NHS should fund alternative therapies (eg homeopathy) without even having to demonstrate their efficacy.

I believe he has an open mind and like so many of us less rigorously disciplined thinkers is perhaps too easily misinterpreted!

I only know Prince Charles from his tv exposure, but I am sure he would be flattered to hear from you superscraper if he faffs his nanotechnology as often as you suggest, and you offered to help him reform his ideas on it(seriously).

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

Ah! Now that is a refreshing analysis! So is it not a great pity that so much effort is spent simply refuting as opposed to disproving hypotheses which call safety into question?

Not sure I understand what you mean by this

peterbaker wrote: »

Is it also not a pity that the one-sided phrase "There is no evidence to suggest that..." is provided by experts so frequently as to dilute trust in their overall judgement about safe technology? Why do they allow themselves to be so quoted? Why for example do they simply not use the truly noncommittal "There is not enough scientifically obtained evidence to assess whether it is truly safe or not safe" and leave commercially motivated commentators to survive or fall on what they dare to promote?

The "no evidence to suggest" phrase should be used when there has been sufficient robust attempts to find evidence of harm. The "not enough scientifically obtained evidence to assess whether it is truly safe or not safe" shoud be used when little or no work has been done. What is enough work is a judgement call and open to debate

peterbaker

Need_More_Money wrote: »

Not sure I understand what you mean by this:
Originally Posted by peterbaker > Ah! Now that is a refreshing analysis! So is it not a great pity that so much effort is spent simply refuting as opposed to disproving hypotheses which call safety into question?

Well, take that Hyland character assassination for example - there was no work done to disprove anything Hyland said, just a high level refutation of his qualifications, his style, his own lack of research, his simple errors, his apparent misquotes of existing research conclusions...

And then there was the paper I (quite deservedly) got picked up on by superscraper which mentioned the ~18kHz but disclaimed any knowledge of 17.6Hz when it seems to me that 17.6Hz has been a known feature of TETRA from the outset, but isn't one that proponents wish to admit easily because of its proximity in the spectrum to the 16Hz warning given by the Stewart Report.

What is enough work is a judgement call and open to debate.

Is that not the debate we are having here?