turn off wi-fi-how to ?

superscaper

albertross wrote: »

I have no idea if it is safe or not, but think it is sensible to not use it in schools unless it is really necessary, just in case.

Well I kind of agree, I'm not that worried about the safety but I don't see why wifi should be necessary at all in a school. And surely the priority should be a decent education first for which you don't even need a computer (even half my computing lessons at A level were theory in a classroom not on a computer) , never mind wifi. It's great as an addition I'm sure but I think the resources could be spent more wisely although that's way off topic.

Although I'm rather blase about the safety of wifi even I was really surprised that it's being installed in schools, I think it's way over the top. Whether it's safe or not, what has been demonstrated in tests is that children's heads absorb more radiation than adults so any possible harm would be more harmful to children foremost.

vetfred

Before anyone gets in too much of a panic about the guy with a detector showing high levels of radiation from wi-fi, this reveals some things about the Panorama programme that weren't declared in what was a particularly poorly put-together and biased piece of "reporting":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2088633,00.html

albertross_2

Although the Panorama program was crap, dumbed down, and poorly researched (as is most of their current affairs and science output nowadays), so is that article. The investigator didn't use a com monitor designed by him and available for £175 from his company, he used a spectrum analyser with a colour screen costing £1000's, and manufactured by a completely different company. You only had to look at it to know it wasn't a £175 toy detector like this

patwa_2

OK, so you go and turn off your WiFi signal and you're happy. the next day, you cross the street just as a 20 tonne juggernaut tears round the corner, hitting you in the process. End result - I guess turning off the WiFi wasn't so beneficial after all.

We have to prioritise carefully when balancing ease of life and safety. the sad fact is, you've more chance of being mugged, stabbed or shot these days than dying from invisible microwaves.

Personally, I would be lost without WiFi. I use it everywhere. At Uni, WiFi is the only way I can work with course resources as the hard wired computers don't have the software I need to be able to see the screen. In town, I use WiFi to check bus times, etc as I can't read the timetables on the stops. The other day, my course group changed the time for a meeting at the last moment. I used WiFi at a restaurant to check my e-mail, get notified of the meeting, and make it. Had I not attended, that would have been me marked down for the course.

OK, so you could argue in each of these circumstances that there are alternatives to WiFi, and yes, there are. But the hassle of implementing those alternatives far outways the risk of anything happening to me due to the 802.11 signals. I've sat next to WiFi equipment for at least 8 hours a week in the Engineering department's network room for the last 12 weeks during my Coms Emgineering course, and I'm still alive and kicking.

Please, I urge the people putting out this most publically unnoteworthy data to think about the consequences of their actions before they do it. this has caused nothing but unwarranted panic, and in the end will just lead to wasted money, time, effort and the originators of this hype looking like fools. What do you think school governors are going to say at the extra wage bill generated when their technicians have to go and uninstall the wifi network because parents are stopping their children going to school over this? Bearning in mind that most of the parents probably work in areas where there are lots of networks around them, and don't forget radio masts, microwaves, satellite dishes, medical equipment, etc. Should we all stop using these too? Should we let people die because the equipment we're using in hospitals might kill the operators?

H.

albertross_2

We've only had wifi for a couple of years, so you can clearly live with out it.

The school governors should have thought about that before they were installed, ditto the phone mast on school roofs to make a few bucks. You didn't need a Panorama program to highlight this issue, just a bit of foresight, it was inevitable that concerns would be raised at some point, whether scientifically valid or not. Trevor Mcdonald is probably practicing on his autocue as we speak.

Plugging in a £20 2.4Ghz TV sender/receiver, and then hopping off to youtube on a wifi laptop certainly makes you think..

patwa_2

"We've only had wifi for a couple of years, so you can clearly live with out it.
"

I'm not disputing that, it's one reason I'm in no hurry to get a dedicated WiFi phone (even though mine does have the facility) - well that and the fact that I'm still waiting for software that'll allow me to read the phone's screen.

But aside from that, the point is it's going to cost more to downgrade or remove the infrastructure than can be justified by the evidence we have at the moment, which is shaky at most and totally unjustified at least.

Personally I've found from talking to everyday people that they don't care either way. In fact the mobile phone 'risk' still concerns people more than WiFi or other radio equipment (yes, I know that's somewhat of a contradiction).

Personally, I can remember getting headaches from using my mobile phone which I didn't get sitting surround by WiFi equipment. But bear in mind this is not conclusive as I have to take my own medical history into consideration. So I guess the jury's out on that.

H.

albertross_2

Government departments have a spend it or lose it culture, so if they don't spend it on a few lan cables, they will waste it on something else before the year is up.

esuhl

patwa wrote: »

OK, so you go and turn off your WiFi signal and you're happy. the next day, you cross the street just as a 20 tonne juggernaut tears round the corner, hitting you in the process. End result - I guess turning off the WiFi wasn't so beneficial after all.

We have to prioritise carefully when balancing ease of life and safety. the sad fact is, you've more chance of being mugged, stabbed or shot these days than dying from invisible microwaves.

"Prioritising" doesn't mean ignoring any risk so long as you do something MORE risky. Just because I smoke 200 cigs a day, it doesn't mean that I won't die of bubonic plague!

The sensible thing would be to minimise all risks to a level considered reasonable when compared to the potential benefits.

Pupils in school are likely to have a small number of computer labs in which they may need Internet access. Even teachers should be able to do without the Internet unless they're in an IT lesson.

So as albertross says, I really can't see any significant benefits in installing wi-fi in a school. Stick to LAN cabling in a few IT labs and you've got all the benfits with none of the risks.

Doesn't stop me sleeping with a wi-fi access point in my bedroom, though!