Tin-Foil Beanies + 'Think of the Children!' = Newspaper Gold
from the i-use-my-router-to-scramble-eggs dept
The UK has seen its fair share of people freaking out over the health effects of WiFi, and a major newspaper there fanned the flames this weekend with its lead story saying children are at risk from "electronic smog". It's a strange article, though, because instead of finding any evidence that WiFi is actually harmful to people, it simply reports on how some groups are pushing for investigations into WiFi, then implies that's some sort of evidence that the technology is unsafe. This is despite previous reports that the radiation from being exposed to a WiFi network for a year is the equivalent of 20 minutes on a cell phone. Most of the noise about how harmful WiFi is comes from people claiming to have "electrosensitivity", though they generally fail double-blind tests checking out their claims that they can sense when they've entered a room with WiFi coverage. These sorts of stories are little more than hype-filled fluff that lack much substance to back up their wild headlines and implications of doom and gloom. Another case in point: a spate of articles -- started by one from the same paper as this latest WiFi scare story -- about how honeybees are being wiped out by radiation from mobile phones. The only catch was that the study in question had nothing to do with cell phones. The scientists also point out that the paper never bothered to get in touch with them, presumably because an accurate description of their research and findings would have made such a sensational story pretty dull.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
Very Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, don't let facts and data get in the way of 'scientific research' now.
Sadly enough, I think most of today's 'science' is really politics.
I'm sure there's some 'green' group out there just waiting to make a lot of $green$ going to war against WiFi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, most of today's journalism covering scientific topics is really politics. There's a very large difference between those actually doing the science and those who re-package the findings to be consumed by the masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
makes you think.
Just goes to show just how much a little research is needed in reporting (or banning) anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: makes you think.
BTW, Penn and Teller rule. Another amazing episode was on how statistics and numbers are "bent" every day to manipulate us into thinking a certain way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is worried about the effect of your cats breath on his tree and it may knock it over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if Wi-Fi is dangerous...
1. Falling out of Bed
2. Tripping down the Stairs
3. Choking on Breakfast
4. Blood lost from shaving nicks
5. Slipping in the shower
6. Car crash
7. Get shot by insane co-worker
8. Car carsh on the way home
9. Spouse poisons your dinner
10. Die in your sleep
So obivously we MUST be concerned about this problem. Break out the body shielding, put up signs, distribute flyers, the world has a right to know the danger they're in because we don't have enough real troubles to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So if Wi-Fi is dangerous...
Or, the ever present risk of a cell tower suddenly collapsing onto your car...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So if Wi-Fi is dangerous...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mythbusters is just a sensationalist show that does not perform rigorous statistical analyses. Most scientific research relies on subtle but statistically significant differences which cannot be readily demonstrated by a bunch of body-pierced losers with bleached hair in San Francisco.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also like...
I'm no doctor, but doesn't an infant need all the nutritional intake and exercise it can get?
(I think that "The Independent" is "The Bullshit")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second hand WiFi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Second hand WiFi
Smoking is a bit different... it's actually killing people and destroying property. What people need to do if they want to smoke is put a plastic bag over their head while they do it... that way no one will bother them about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Second hand WiFi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Second hand WiFi
You are also wrong about second hand smoke in comparison to cars. Carbon Dioxide and carbon monoxide released from cars are released at a rate in which the density does not permit them to have serious cumulative effects in the blood without being in an enclosed space. A cigarette carcinogens in a much denser form and are used in enclosed spaces are directly near the entrances to buildings. Also many of the chemicals contained in cigarette smoke are cumulative, so the little wafts over time can add up without a long purging period for the body. Further, cigarettes serve no purpose in societal infrastructure other then as a recreational addiction. Cars on the other hand are essential to the functions of the societies of the world.
You might also consider that the countries of the world have been placing restrictions on car emissions as well. Cigarette smoke just happens to be far easier to regulate as it is not a necessary evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wi Fi And Pacemakers - Share the Love
So I explained to the kid and he turned off his phone. The funny thing is that I'd been sitting next to this woman for a half hour and I was using my smart phone, reading my email and going online. She didn't know that I was using a cell phone since it doesn't look like one.
I did immediately turn the device off once I had this conversation with her, because even though I figure it was total bullshit, I wasn't going to be responsible for some old lady dying on the LA Metro. If she was 'feeling interference' to her pacemaker, it's more likely that it came from my PDA, and not the kid's cell phone, since I was the one sitting right next to her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crackpot theorists....
"Science is accomplished by prediction, observation and measurement. The experimental results must be convincing - not the words of the theory's proponents."
Forget observation and measurement, that's for sukkas. Will witchhunts and bonfires be far behind? Certainly, if you believe the global warming folks.
Maybe WiFi excitation, in conjunction with CO2, is causing Global Warming?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/galileo_denied_consensus.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: crackpot theorists....
Although you're obviously looking for any reason you can to discount the scientific community, if the article to which you linked is any indication of your views.
That article tries to create a controversy about global warming by comparing the few opposing scientists to modern-day Galileos. However, those "Galileos" aren't opposing the corrupt church, they're opposing a vast body of scientific evidence gathered and verified independently by scientists all over the world.
The article claims we should wait until we have hard evidence that the earth is heating. Evidence already exists that global temperatures are on the rise, although our culpability is debatable. What is not debatable is that acting now rather than later will require less dramatic disruptions to society. Improving fuel efficiency standards, reducing industrial pollution, and planting more trees - those tasks are not insurmountable, and have benefit even if global warming doesn't turn out to be as bad as predicted. And if we are facing huge climate change, taking those small steps now will allow future actions to be less dramatic.
The stance of "Let's do nothing until it's too late, because those scientists might be wrong" is not a strong one. It's more likely that the current theory is not exactly right, but it's not entirely wrong either - that's typical in science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: crackpot theorists....
"...global temperatures are on the rise"
You may want to look at this, from the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics. It's a fairly convincing look at why "global temperature" is not a meaningful concept. In particular, it points out that, even if such a thing as a single "average temperature" did exist (even locally), it wouldn't be a useful proxy for what it appears most people assume it would mean: "atmospheric heat".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you're saying....
(...before it's TOO LATE?)
Proclaimed hypersensitivity to RFI (an unproven accusation) = health problems,
just as,
human CO2 emissions (volcanic CO2 doesn't exist) = global climate change?
Sophistry, nay heresy! Get back, ye demon of truth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting bit of info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/
Copies of the BBC documentary are available on youtube type sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]