A Year Of WiFi Radiation Equals 20 Minutes On A Cell Phone
from the Munchausen dept
Some people in the UK have been working themselves into a lather over the supposed ill effects of WiFi, claiming a hypersensitivity to its signals that causes all sorts of health problems, and worried parents getting schools to shut down their wireless networks. This debate du jour has raged on in the press there, and now Glenn Fleishmann points to an article in The Times that says the radiation exposure from a WiFi network for a year is equivalent to that from talking on a cell phone for 20 minutes, despite the claims from the head of an anti-radiation lobby group (who also happens to sell equipment to detect and block electromagnetic radiation) to the contrary. Despite claims from sufferers of "electrosensitivity", a researcher points out that they generally can't detect the presence of WiFi or other signals in double-blind laboratory tests. The Times article closes rather dramatically: "As to whether the convenience is worth the risk - only you can decide." Since that risk hasn't really been defined clearly or authoritatively and the latest research says mobile phones pose no cancer risk, it seems unlikely that too many people will give up that convenience since all the other side can offer are the wild-sounding claims of a small minority.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One thing I've always wondered...
I'm not trying to FUD anyone into submission here this is just a passing thought. Of course there may be evidence to prove my thought completely false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing I've always wondered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing I've always wondered...
I also don't worry one bit. i have Wi-fi at home and at work. also have a cell phone. never worried about being sick.
another thought. what about all the radio waves?? and other waves that are traveling out there. just food for thougth there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: EMF, The silent killer of XX CENTURY
They are silent killer of XX CENTURY
Although only one drop of water with x pressure is enough to kill one person.
You need to read more physics...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing I've always wondered...
The water analogy rebuttal is not perfect as it is conceivable that water constantly dripping might eventually screw you up. Imagine instead someone across the room whispering so quietly that it takes sophisticated equipment to amplify and hear it. Indisputably you are in the same room as the whisper and it is vibrating the air and your skin but the thought that it is slowly wearing at you is laughable. So it is with low power radiation. There are no effects, at those power levels, and so the effect cannot accumulate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing I've always wondered...
I don't know enough about Wi-Fi radiation to say anything really, I haven't even found out what type of radiation it is because everyone just seems to say "Oh noes, electromagnetic radiation!" which could be radio waves, visible light, UV light, infra-red light, gamma rays, x-rays etc.
But if long term exposure to neglibile amounts of radiation could be fatal then we would all be dead already, because there is so much background radiation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One thing I've always wondered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing I've always wondered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One thing I've always wondered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing I've always wondered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they sensitive to cordless phones, too?
Morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the way the author of the main article is not very knowledgeable about radio frequency radiation. I've done loadsa pirate radio on medium wave & fm - no problems there because these radio bands are lower in frequency, and are not microwave frequencies, as mobile phones and wi fi are. The higher up you go, the more dodgier it gets - we all know what microwave ovens do don't we! When testing radar in WW2, the operators couldn't understand why there were dead pigeons in front of the radar antennas; WARM dead pigeons.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought I was just bored.
..The black shakes will get you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are the same people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh yes...don't denie this keeps you up at night
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh yes...don't denie this keeps you up at night
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
There's NO reason I should have to put up with their junk radiation, so to court they go!
I have a feeling (from what my lawyer tells me) that I can at least force them to install some high-grade insulation, which will cost them an assload. I hope they go bankrupt, cocky pricks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gus et al.
And although I agree with one of the cowards above that I don't really think this stuff is harmful in any significant way, it's also silly to say "the waves.....don't have the ability to change the cells in our bodies". If anything is emitting any type of energy, it is affecting your cells in some way, but that doesn't mean it gets re-arranged. I mean, A hammer can't change my DNA into cancer, but it can still affect you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gus et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One thing I've always wondered...
now, the point (i think) sanguine brought up "But if we are around all of the many different negligible amounts of radiation long enough, won't they eventually add up to a serious thread." is that the cumulative effect of having many appliances transmitting using radio waves all the time could be dangerous. damage from exposure to radio waves happens when they are too intense. intensity is determined by the number of particles that are reaching your object. therefore with more and more devices you have more and more photons that you are being exposed to. since damage from the radio wave part of the spectrum comes from high intensity, we could very well be at the threshold for having too much exposure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gus you're a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gus
Just be thankful that Gus has the bravery and integrity to stand up for his personal rights. And all you can do is slag him? He is standing up for us all, much as Larry Flynt did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh yea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oh yea...
Sensitivity to wifi is not a "crock" just very very unlikely. I actually know a person who is hyper sensitive to any EM fields. She cannot be next to a microwave, TV, cordless phones or cell phones. She is also hyper sensitive to light, so she is forced to be in the dark continuously. Of course, the big difference between her and the wussies in UK is that 40 years ago she observed several thermonuclear tests and lived in closed city in USSR next to a nuclear testing ground.
To make the point clear, it is possible to be sensitive even to wifi, but then you sure as heck lived through some VERY unusual events and you are sensitive to just about everything around you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing I've always wondered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't know...
BTW physics dude intensity isn't the only player, there's also frequency, which relates to energy, which relates to how well the "radiation" penetrates the skin and cells. Have you ever gotten cancer from sitting in a very bright, visible light? The sun doesn't count because the sun has damaging high frequencyt radiation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say what you will
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Say what you will
Seriously, some people (you) shouldn't breed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adding to Jeff's....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: oh yea...
yea, and this shows how people claiming wifi sensitivity are full of it... there's no reason (as these people do) to single out wifi as being the cause when you'd be sensitive to ALL electromagnetic fields...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gus you're an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adding to Jeff's....
what? they're the same thing, different energy level photons, yes, but they sit in very different spots on the electromagnetic spectrum.
and about the analogy. here's the question: if you had a device that emits x (non harmful) amount of ultraviolet light would 100 of those devices around you = 100x (harmful) amount of ultraviolet light?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not worth worrying about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SHIFT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gus is a idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm afraid your analogy is worse, however. If you put 100 people there whispering, the noise will not be negligible, but would be rather bothersome. The poster of the concern was talking about this same effect: the accumulitive amplification of harm. Your "disproof" of the concept actually backs it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more rads from the sun, "you need our stuff"
basically the only people backing this (aside from the ones actually dumb enough to *really* believe it) are groups claiming "x substance is dangerous, therefore you need to buy our x product!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
physics guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microwaves are only dangerous because they happen to include the resonant frequency of water molecules, which will of course heat the water. THst is why fatty or dry foods do not microwave well, no water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Magoo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: |333173|3|_||3 ANSIENTWUN
and chrono, despite not having 100 access points, there are still many other devices emitting radio waves all around you, my concern is with the cumulative effect of all of these devices. nobody here has yet to show anything against my question above. if someone can show me what the harmful exposure level of low energy photons (such as those from radio waves) is and an rough estimate on how much we're actually receiving given all the different devices around us, then i'll consent that there isn't (or is) a problem (yes, i could google it, but a lot of you seem hell bent there is no problem, and you have nothing to back yourselves up with [aside from, "duh, someone said it was safe so it is, duh"] and nothing to go against my hypothesis stated in the form of a question above). you all know there is a reason why there are regulations on the intensity level of radio waves used in commercial devices, and there is a standard measure of absorption of radio frequency fields called the specific absorption rate? there's not just regulations on use of the spectrum...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow... so many bad analogies
Enough people whispering at a given pressure level could cause damage, if their sound waves were in-phase.
They could also completely cancel eachother out, if they were exactly 180 degrees out of phase.
Essentially, it's most likely a wash. Constructive interference could cause the waves to have higher intensity, and destructive interference could cancel that out, meaning that all the waves average out.
That said - likely people aren't sensitive in the same way they're sensitive to foods they're allergic to. You can play sounds that are at a frequency noone can hear, but still cause high stress after long exposures, so any double-blind test to see if people can detect electromagnetic interference would have to A: Do the test inside a faraday cage with no other EM sources, and B: look for secondary effects instead of merely asking 'can you tell if there are waves in here?'.
Is it likely people are sensitive to Wifi radiation? No, probably not, the FCC limited transmit powers to SO LOW it's not funny.
Cell phones? Possibly, it's a lot more likely anyways. The instantaneous power levels are much higher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damage From Wireless Radiation is not related to s
"The mechanism is not dependent on intensity,” Carlo says. “The mechanism is dependent on the type of radio wave that carries information. There is no safe level. We have not identified any level that will not trigger that response by the cell mechanism.”
P.S. Dr. Carlo was dismissed from his position as head of research for the cellular industry in 1999 because he refused to cover up damaging evidence of genetic damage and brain tumors attriubuted to cell phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi/Mobile Phones cause physical discomfort in so
I suspect that what could be going on is a kind of interference with body's nervous (or 'eletrical') system by these kinds of signals. I think two factors might be involved: the frequency of the signal and the type of waveform (as a previous respondant also suggested).
This is definitely something that needs more serious research. It would seem that some individuals are more susceptible than others and perhaps most people don't notice any problem at all. It will be difficult convincing those who don't experience any problem and deny there is any kind of problem to be considerate of those who do. But with the right kind of research this should be possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WiFi/Mobile Phones cause physical discomfort i
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radiation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radiation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cell phone radiation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Electrosensitivity test?
Ok, I propose a simple test. Build two absolutely identical rooms separated by a door. The door is fully shielded as are both rooms.
Now, arrange your device in the ceiling of both rooms with power only provided to one at a time, put half your test candidates in each room and then monitor how many people move between the rooms.
Under normal conditions there should be a 50/50 ratio, if one individual favors one room then this should then null out.
Voila, a totally foolproof double-blind test for electrosensitivity.
Perhaps someone can do this as part of a PhD in Psychology or Biology?
-Andre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It won'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It won't matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
man
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wifi hell
I have worked in IT for 20 years and possess a BSc in Maths and Computing. Hypersensitivity is not bunkum. I am very scared of the effects that it has on me and am currently waiting to visit a neurologist (september).
I do not possess a mobile phone. A few years ago i owned a nokia 3310? phone and was unable to use it for calls as i suffered searing burning pain in the inner ear. I couldnt be bothered learning text speak so the phone is switched off and in a drawer.
Now i suffer further pain with the advent of wireless enabled and bluetooth enabled phones. I have to request that my colleagues switch off any wireless routers, mobile phones network cards whilst in the office.
At home I even develop headaches when playing with the childrens Wii.
The wireless router pains are the worse. Once i develop them I am unable to shake them off until i get to sleep.
I often wondered whether this was pshyco-sematic. So did my colleagues. They have tried doing blind tests on me switching the router/devices on and seeing if i can tell. Let me assure you i can tell you that when the Linksys router is switched on it feels like my brain is frying.
I am very concerned because WiFi is so popular. I am also concerned that (especially) here in the UK not enough has been done to test against the effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wifi hell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wi Fi, Bluetooth, Xbox and mobiles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comentary on our society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radiation and Headaches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wifi radiation VS Cellular radiation
For my experience, when I use cellular network for calling, if it takes more than few minutes I will suffer a very bad headache while can feel my skin and ear getting so red. However using hand free helps to reduce this side effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]