Is Wi-Fi safe?

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

With those things there is measureably more damage and so far we can't ascertain any damage from microwave and radio radiation. The studies done so far are contradictory and inconclusive and are likely that any damage will be statistically smaller than anything by natural causes.

How long did it take to work out that opening the windows in Cornwall might be a good idea? Did they spot the link within ten years of the phenomenum first arising? Nah ... took a few millions of years longer, I think!

As for bringing in global warming that's a bit off topic and there's nothing scientifically conclusive other than a statistical correlation. The climate is the most scientifically complicated thing we know of so it's unlikely anyone can prove anything either way.

Ah .. a Piers Corbinite speaks!

You don't have to understand something completely before you do make a decision to react. It surely is quite reasonable rationalisation to use other knowledge and experiences to try to spot a pattern or "make a fit", and to try to create a leading view about something not yet understood? That includes rationalisation about the kinds of mistakes made in the past (like we know full well now that it was a mistake to go millions of years without opening the windows in Cornwall).

superscaper

Millionare wrote: »

I had all the tests done as thats what my gp thought at first but they came back fine.

It just when you have felt the effects of something like this, it makes you wonder what your being exposed to by hours of daily use of wireless transmissions sitting a few feet away, holding a wireless mouse or bluetooth headsets etc.

Don't get me wrong I do actually think about it myself sometimes, I'm surrounded by countless wifi networks and work at my computer all day every day. My mouse is wireless as is my keyboard, most things that can be wireless are. Yet I've not noticed anything different in the slightest, no ill effects. Of course that's just me but my single point of view is as valid as anyone else's. I'd get a second opinion, even assuming it's caused by the wireless devices the fact it's affecting you so badly while not others would to me be indicative of a particular medical sensitivity.

Millionare

superscaper wrote: »

Again I'm not going to go into anecdotal evidence and dispute what you say as I've got no way to. But I'd definitely take Albert's advice. I've NEVER heard of what you described before from wireless devices. Even if it is the wireless devices you should still see the doctor. If hypothetically you have a particular sensitivity to them then that in itself would be reason enough to seek medical advice.

I must be unique:p do you think they use kryponite in making these devices?

oops my secrets out:D

On a more serious note, I find it strange aswell, as I dont get paranoid about stuff like this untill i started using it and then has these strange problems.

Who knows, maybe one day we will get to the bottom of it.

Think of it this way: If the Wireless Networks dont kill you! Something Else Will!

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

You don't have to understand something completely before you do make a decision to react. It surely is quite reasonable rationalisation to use other knowledge and experiences to try to spot a pattern or "make a fit", and to try to create a leading view about something not yet understood?

I agree I'm just saying you can say something is conclusive without scientific evidence. And that correlation doesn't mean causality. Do I think the climate is warmer than in recent years, yes. Do I think a lot of CO2 has been released artificially, yes. Do I think we should reduce our carbon emissions, yes. Do I think it will make a difference, I really don't know and nobody else does either. But this is way way off topic.

superscaper

Millionare wrote: »

Think of it this way: If the Wireless Networks dont kill you! Something Else Will!

Exactly, no matter how dangerous we will ever prove them to be, in terms of numbers I'm sure your more likely to be killed by peterbaker's Audi (no offence peter just lightheartedly demonstrating priorities of dangers). If they were significantly more dangerous then it would be much more obvious and easier to measure and so we would have reached a conclusive decision by now. Unless of course the effects are much much longer term.

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

How long did it take to work out that opening the windows in Cornwall might be a good idea? Did they spot the link within ten years of the phenomenum first arising? Nah ... took a few millions of years longer, I think!

includes rationalisation about the kinds of mistakes made in the past (like we know full well now that it was a mistake to go millions of years without opening the windows in Cornwall).

Do we? It is assumed that it is a good idea, even though it is not supported by science. Generally areas with high radon gas levels have lower levels of cancer.

"despite extensive investigation, the idea that inhalation of low-dose radon products pose a cancer risk appears to be without solid scientific substantiation" Cohen BL, Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products. Health Physics 1995; 68: 157–74

There have also been studies that suggest that radon decreases the risk for lung cancer

peterbaker

You had me going there for a bit NMM! You see I am open-minded!

But then I found that the Health Protection Agency website put me back on course:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/nrpb_archive/press_releases/2004/press_release_08_04.htm

There will always be studies which appear to hold an opposing view, but until it is ceremoniously knocked off its perch, it is the leading view that generally counts, surely?

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

You had me going there for a bit NMM! You see I am open-minded!

But then I found that the Health Protection Agency website put me back on course.

There will always be studies which appear to hold an opposing view, but until it is ceremoniously knocked off its perch, it is the leading view that generally counts, surely?

Unfortunately, the leading view in the case of ionising radiation is based on the completely unscientific linear no threshold hypothesis. There is no good data to support the hypothesis. Much data contradicts the hypothesis but they choose to ignore it.

You note they give no reference for their assertion that exposure to high levels of radon gives an increase in the risk of lung cancer?

peterbaker

Is the HPA's view a purely political view then, NMM? What would be the purpose?

I haven't read their advice carefully, but my first read left me thinking well low exposure is not discussed but a defined high exposure most definitely is.
(the leading view).

That to me still leaves the way open for the suggestion that a low exposure might have some kind of beneficial qualities a bit like a small glass of red wine a day is said to. (If you like).

However, you surely have to think twice before you promote the article you found as all-encompassing and confirming that the phenomenum of naturally occurring Radon gas in Cornwall homes is NOT harmful?

superscaper

I think I have err on NMM's side here as I remember seeing the same thing he's talking about. The HPA aren't a scientific institution which is why they don't necessarily back up their claims with actual numbers and facts. But then they don't need to as they're a government agency. As for the "leading view" I remember a quote by I think it may be Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace not the British Institution that is the amateur astonomer) that "you may have a concensus of scientists but concensus isn't a scientific word". Essentially it is a majority of people's opinions but that doesn't mean anything in science. When you go purely based on the science then you can overturn leading views. Happens all the time in science. But I also agree with peterbaker's assertion that we should still study these things. You can never have too much knowledge.