With 'Pregnant Woman Mode,' Chinese Router Maker Begins Marketing To Paranoids
from the clogged-chakras dept
For more than a decade we've noted that while there's no hard scientific evidence proving that Wi-Fi is a health hazard, that hasn't stopped an endless parade of folks from declaring war on the humble technology. Numerous schools have been sued for trying to install Wi-Fi networks, and some schools have even banned Wi-Fi entirely based on nothing more than a gut feeling. The campaign against Wi-Fi is generally waged by those professing to be "electromagnetically sensitive," even though most provocation trials to date have suggested these individuals can't actually identify when a "harmful" Wi-Fi agent is in the room.Given that there are now entire towns full of the electromagnetically sensitive, it seems only fitting that some hardware vendors would begin marketing to them. One Chinese router manufacturer by the name of Qihoo has been recently promoting a new router that features a "pregnant woman" mode that the company promises delivers around 70% less radiation than a traditional router (or the device's other settings). The company clearly comes out and says it's basically marketing to paranoids (or, to be more compassionate, individuals with likely undiagnosed psychosomatic illnesses), and isn't basing their claims on any actual science:
"We are targeting people who are afraid of radiation", he said. However, in a statement to South China Morning Post, Qihoo acknowledged that no definitive link has been made between Wi-Fi signals and poor health. "We aren’t scientists. We haven’t done many experiments to prove how much damage the radiation from Wi-Fi can cause. We leave the right of choice to our customers."They are, however, engineers who are very familiar with the effects of radiation, but the fact that they couldn't be bothered to support the claim with any actual research or data should tell you plenty. Not surprisingly, Qihoo competitor Xiaomi wasn't too impressed with this new product line:
"The so-called pregnancy mode [of Qihoo’s router] is just a marketing tactic. Wi-Fi usage is safe, so please rest assured when using it [Xiaomi’s router]. We firmly oppose, and feel ashamed of, those who create rumours and arouse instability for business purposes."Qihoo's response? Basically the implication that the company will be proven righteous when the nation's moms begin dropping dead from 802.11n exposure:
"We will wait and see who has a more profound understanding of Wi-Fi routers, me or our competitors."Lovely. If hard science is going to be an afterthought (or more accurately no thought at all), it seems pretty obvious to me what the next step in wireless router marketing is. We should begin selling routers that promise to magically protect all users' chakras and clogged meridians, while giving the customers' aura and spirit a bright, shiny luster that lesser routers simply can't match.
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
Filed Under: dangers, electromagnetic sensitivity, fud, marketing, pregnant woman mode, routers, wifi, wireless
Companies: qihoo, xiaomi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since he moved a few years ago, I have not been able to test my current router's range.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For instance, Let's say that with power X, you get a maximum range of Y. In order to double the range, you would need 4 times the power. In order to halve the range, you could get by with 1/4 of the power. So a 70% reduction would mean using 30% of the power which means you would have about 55% of the range. Still a significant loss, but not quite as bad as you think.
Although, if I were to make such a router and if I actually were concerned with the power of the signal it emits, then in my opinion, it would be a good idea to modulate the power based upon the signal strength of any connected clients. Basically, transmit just strong enough that any active clients get a good signal quality instead of an "excellent" quality. Or perhaps modify signal strength based upon packet re-transmit requests. (Keep getting packet re-transmit requests = poor signal quality = need to boost power. Not getting any requests = excellent signal = lower signal until start getting requests, then boost slightly to eliminate requests).
Such an arrangement would reduce the signal power without adversely affecting range and in fact in a battery powered environment would be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We will wait and see who has a more profound understanding of Wi-Fi routers, me or our competitors."
Like most marketing guys, he hasn't thought this through logically. Even if some evidence does appear and definitively prove a link between Wi-Fi and poor health, he's just admitted he hasn't got a "profound" understanding of anything. Without the research and evidence, he made a lucky guess, and even he's saying that he didn't bother to research that guess.
But, he has a product to sell and he found a way to sell it to the clueless...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well perhaps not physically...
In particular to your privacy. Whether it's unencrypted MITM snooping, smart meters broadcasting what you're watching, and even when you're at home. To nasty grams from overzealous lawyers.
So, yes WiFi can be hazardous, just not in the way people usually think it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obsession
Such things have no place when trying to determine public policy.
(I wouldn't put a /sarc tag, but it almost seems necessary.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatory XKCD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also discriminating...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is accomplished via a power output reduction of 70% ?
Sort of removes any benefit from having wifi in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shrug
And you are holding your cell phone next to your head and are likely carrying it around next to your gonads.
It does not make sense to address anything but the elephant in the room first. Even if the jury is actually still out even on the elephant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shrug
I could be wrong, but I don't think those people use cell phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shrug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shrug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shrug
I would be careful extrapolating like that. I did a quick search and some say Wifi uses more power and some say less. It probably depends on a lot of factors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shrug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I came into this thinking a Chinese router company was adding a library of DNS entries for a specific fetish in order to bypass the Great Firewall of China.
Go figure it's about exploiting victims of fear mongering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come techdirt, don't be hypocrites. Support your conclusions with something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: seems like pretty hard science to indicate rapidly dividing cells are more susceptible to damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: seems like pretty hard science to indicate rapidly dividing cells are more susceptible to damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More like a baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More like a baby.
Just make sure to go along with the herd and your golden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're putting the burden of proof on the wrong party. It's the party making asserting the claim of an effect who have to support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What assertion does it make?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the mind of the troll set, that means Karl has to personally perform medical research to prove him wrong, rather than the more logical state of the salesman having to prove his own claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only ISPs, health supplement companies or Monster Cable were as honest with their marketing claims, the world would be a better place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You say that and the article says "no hard scientific evidence". Is there actually some scientific evidence that supports the claim, or is everyone just hedging their bets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't know if any followup was done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When someone actually sets this mode....
I bet advertisers would pay a lot for a list of people who have proven themselves suckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just maybe...
If I get brain cancer attributable to my proximity to these devices, then I may change my mind, but I DO understand the inverse square law of radiation - double the distance, 1/4 of the radiation. This is immutable. It is science (even if you don't believe in science). FWIW, my father was a physicist, as is my wife. Smart people run in our families.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just maybe...
come on fenderson, get your fucking head out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* Fire insurance not included.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Got references for those claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-cell-phones-a-possible-carcinogen-an-update- on-the-iarc-report/
http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-27426-read_the_document_what_the_who_really_sa ys_about_w.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canadian Government Sounds the Alarm
The witnesses discussed possible links between RF exposure and cancer, reproductive issues and autism. Concerns were raised about RF exposure in schools due to use of Wi-Fi; the need for RF exposure limits to protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, infants and children, and persons with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canadian Government Sounds the Alarm
The witnesses discussed possible links between RF exposure and cancer, reproductive issues and autism. Concerns were raised about RF exposure in schools due to use of Wi-Fi; the need for RF exposure limits to protect vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, infants and children, and persons with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24192496
Based on the Hill criteria, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones and regarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised.
Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski MSc, DSc, PhD
https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/carcinogenicity-of-cell-phone-radiation- 2b-or-not-2b/
In conclusion, I consider that currently the scientific evidence is sufficient to classify cell phone radiation as a probable human carcinogen – 2A category in IARC scale. Time will show whether ‘the probable’ will change into’ the certain’. However, it will take tens of years before issue is really resolved. In the mean time we should implement the Precautionary Principle. There is a serious reason for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
see no evidence, hear no evidence, say no evidence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yellow Journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yellow Journalism
That is way too small and non-random a sample to conclude anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]