Is Wi-Fi safe?

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

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).

Now THAT is a really good analogy. Anything in excess is harmful. Hence the great dihydrogen monoxide safety warning hoax.

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

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?

Making a decision on what to do about low level exposure to ionising radiation was difficult. There was very little data on which to base the decision. The advice that the HPA give (and others) is based on an extrapolation of data from high doses (from Hiroshomia and Chernobyl etc). In the case of radon it is based on the fact that Uranium miners (exposed to very high levels of radon) had increased levels of lung cancer. Remember though, in mines they would be exposed to all sorts of nasty things as well. Evidence at lower doses suggest that radon might even reduce lung cancer.

This extrapolation is extremely bad science but is what is accepted internationally. There is now data that suggests that the approach was wrong, but much more work needs to be done. The view usually taken is that sticking with the unscientific approach is erring on the side of caution. However, it is possible (and likely in my view) that we are doing more harm than good in many cases. This approach certainly did more harm than good post Chernobyl.
Of course, if we accept that radiation is not as dangerous as first thought - many radiation protection scientists might find themselves out of a job, so perhaps there is a political component too.

Need_More_Money_2

superscaper wrote: »

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 the HPA now includes what was the NRPB which does employ radiation scientists

superscaper

Need_More_Money wrote: »

But the HPA now includes what was the NRPB which does employ radiation scientists

I never thought for a moment that they didn't employ or consult scientists. But that's still a long way from being a scientific institution It still leaves room to simply pick and choose the results they want or not even use the scientists results at all. Even employing a scientist doesn't in itself mean the scientist is actually working scientifically. But that's another debate altogether.

albertross_2

Have you tried a reboot? If you are still having issues. post a hijack this log

Need_More_Money_2

superscaper wrote: »

I never thought for a moment that they didn't employ or consult scientists. But that's still a long way from being a scientific institution It still leaves room to simply pick and choose the results they want or not even use the scientists results at all. Even employing a scientist doesn't in itself mean the scientist is actually working scientifically. But that's another debate altogether.

Yes I see what you meant now and I agree

superscaper

albertross wrote: »

Have you tried a reboot? If you are still having issues. post a hijack this log

Probably the most sensible and definitive advice yet.

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

I think I have err on NMM's side here as I remember seeing the same thing he's talking about.

Well according to Google, there's only a single webpage in this world that contains that quote he gave so you must operate within small circles, you two!

BTW, open mind or not, I would drink a glass of red wine but I wouldn't deliberately sniff radon!

But back to Wi-Fi ... does anyone know about the effects of pulsed radiation (like what comes out of my Netgear when I have it set to enable wireless) versus more benign types of radiation? I have somehow gained the impression that the pulsed bit might be potential problematic.

How many of us actually use our wireless networks for a large proportion of the the period they are active? For example, mine is on now for one reason only ... and it is an appallingly poor reason so I shall switch it off immediately!

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

Well according to Google, there's only a single webpage in this world that contains that quote he gave so you must operate within small circles, you two!

Actually I think I saw it in the form of a BBC documentary, probably Horizon. I wouldn't have thought that was too obscure.

superscaper

Found out which one, my memory hasn't completely left me fortunately: Horizon: Nuclear Nightmares (BBC TWO, Thursday 13 July 2006)