Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi

On 2007-05-08, dennis@home <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I trust their judgment even if you don't. And it's not as if they are
>> calling for research out of the blue, on the off chance so to speak.
>> There are a few studies which have raised red flags in this field.
>
> Of course they call for them out of the blue.
> Its one way to get funding.

Except it isn't really out of the blue. One can find no end of
paranoid anecdotes. Here's a good recent example:

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3642285/

I didn't know they had a blood test for "WiFi sensitivity".

Dennis Ferguson

---

› See More: Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi

In message <[email protected]>, Dennis Ferguson
<[email protected]> writes
>Except it isn't really out of the blue. One can find no end of
>paranoid anecdotes. Here's a good recent example:
>
> http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3642285/
>
>I didn't know they had a blood test for "WiFi sensitivity".
>
>Dennis Ferguson
I love this bit...

'I am trying to find an attorney to represent us pro-bono in what likely
would be a multimillion dollar case, but I haven't had much luck finding
one yet.'

Looks like somebody's smelled the trough. You can imagine the adverts,

Have you had a headache in the past six years? Did you know you could be
WiFi sensitive, speak to our experts and we could get you a chav payout
on a no win no fee basis because people are gullible enough to believe
any old sh*t they read in the papers even if it's backed up with no
scientific evidence at all.
--
Clint Sharp

In message <[email protected]>, Dennis Ferguson
<[email protected]> writes
>Except it isn't really out of the blue. One can find no end of
>paranoid anecdotes. Here's a good recent example:
>
> http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3642285/
>
>I didn't know they had a blood test for "WiFi sensitivity".
>
>Dennis Ferguson
I love this bit...

'I am trying to find an attorney to represent us pro-bono in what likely
would be a multimillion dollar case, but I haven't had much luck finding
one yet.'

Looks like somebody's smelled the trough. You can imagine the adverts,

Have you had a headache in the past six years? Did you know you could be
WiFi sensitive, speak to our experts and we could get you a chav payout
on a no win no fee basis because people are gullible enough to believe
any old sh*t they read in the papers even if it's backed up with no
scientific evidence at all.
--
Clint Sharp

In message <[email protected]>, andy
<[email protected]> writes
>Maybe the defence lawyer will be able to adduce alternative studies
>that wi-fi sensitivity is carried by mutant bacteria living in the
>guts of flying pigs, by tortoiseshell butterflies in the vicinity of
>genetically-modified linseed, made worse by depleted uranium in the
>natural environment as a result of airliner crashes, and ... [contd p
>94]
Actually, scientists demand an inquiry into this. Regularly. After all,
exposure to mutant bacteria carrying butterflies could harm your kids
development.
>It's as likely as anything Lenny has made up.
Hhhhooowwww dare you.... Lenny is a god, he *knows* things that don't
need proof because proof denies faith. Blasphemy I say...
>
>

--
Clint Sharp

"Clint Sharp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In message
> <[email protected]>,
> andy <[email protected]> writes
> > Maybe the defence lawyer will be able to adduce
> > alternative studies that wi-fi sensitivity is carried
> > by mutant bacteria living in the guts of flying pigs,
> > by tortoiseshell butterflies in the vicinity of
> > genetically-modified linseed, made worse by depleted
> > uranium in the natural environment as a result of
> > airliner crashes, and ... [contd p 94]
> Actually, scientists demand an inquiry into this.
> Regularly. After all, exposure to mutant bacteria
> carrying butterflies could harm your kids development.
> > It's as likely as anything Lenny has made up.
> Hhhhooowwww dare you.... Lenny is a god, he *knows*
> things that don't need proof because proof denies faith. Blasphemy I
> say...

"Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing" said Lenny, and
promptly disappeared in a puff of logic.

(Apologies to Douglas Adams..!)

Ivor

Lenny wrote:
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>
> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
> By Jonathan Owen
> Published: 29 April 2007
>
> The health risks posed by Wi-Fi technology should be investigated by eminent scientists to ensure that a generation will not be damaged by growing levels of "electronic smog".
>
> "The research hasn't been done. Therefore we cannot assume that there are no effects," said Dennis Henshaw, professor of human radiation at Bristol University. "I would be in favour of an inquiry into the dangers of Wi-Fi. This technology is being wheeled out without any checks and balances."
>
> His concerns were echoed by Alan Preece, professor of medical physics at Bristol University, a pioneer of the research into the effects of mobile phones on the brain. "No one is really aware of what we are dealing with," he said. "The Department for Trade and Industry needs to take the lead and do some investigation."

So they have really no ideas?

Nah... The frequency is around 2.4GHz, but the power is much lower.
And more importantly, Wi-Fi isn't held against the head.

The problem is really the word "radiation", this same word covers a large
spectrum from the completely harmless to very harmful nuclear radiation.

According to modern physics, all radiation occur in streams of packages
(quantum) of distinct energy, and that energy depends only on the
frequency. Hence there is a separation between ionising (hard) and
non-ionising radiation in terms of hazard.

2.4 GHz has very low quantum energy, even lower than visible light.
The only potential effect of 2.4GHz is local heating as in a microwave.
Heating is mostly healthy and pleasant, but can be less wholesome if
transmitted to internal organs, but this would require power, proximity
and focus. (Not common in Wi-Fi)

>
> The developments came after a week in which a row has flared between scientists around the world. The exchanges were prompted by reports in last week's Independent on Sunday that teaching unions and scientists have been pressing for an official investigation into the potential risks of Wi-Fi.
>
> The Health Protection Agency (HPA), chaired by Sir William Stewart, has yet to announce publicly its intentions, but senior sources have admitted to this newspaper that proper research needs to be done to ensure that Wi-Fi does not present a danger to children, acknowledging there are ethical issues and public health concerns.
>
> It emerged yesterday that Professor Lawrie Challis, the head of the Government's committee on mobile phone safety, is also urging caution. "Since we advise that children should be discouraged from using mobile phones, we should also discourage children from placing their laptop on their lap when they are using Wi-Fi," he said.
>
> And Dr George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in the US, is setting up a global registry of people suffering from symptoms relating to the technology. Commenting on Sir William's stance, he said: "I know he is under enormous pressure from the mobile telecommunications industry, and the official stance being taken by HPA is one that is different to his personal views. That is the reality. The HPA has dropped the ball in not requiring testing before Wi-Fi goes into schools."
>
> The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation into the health risks.
>
> <snip>

On Tue, 08 May 2007 18:21:53 +0100, Lenny wrote:

[SNIP]

>
> I trust their judgment even if you don't. And it's not as if they are
> calling for research out of the blue, on the off chance so to speak.
> There are a few studies which have raised red flags in this field.
>

No there is not. There has not been one single repeatable and I stress
repeatable, because if it is not repeatable it was just a random fluke,
study in the last 50 years that have shown any adverse effects of non
ionising electro-magnetic radiation on biologically active tissue (unless
it is of sufficient power to cook it).

Basically it requires that there is some currently unknown interaction
between EM radiation and matter that physicists have missed but should
have been abundantly obvious in the myriad of experiments they have
performed (it would require the Standard Model to be wrong within it's
tested parameters; which is basically impossible). It's Nobel prize for
Physics time if you find it.

Not only that but it should have been clearly apparent in the population,
which it is not.

Call me a sceptic, but it is just rubbish.


JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

On Tue, 08 May 2007 19:08:41 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

>
>
> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:53:38 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > > You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem Ivor old
>> > > man.
>> >
>> > No, that's you. The *reality* of the situation is that so far,
>> > *nothing* has proven *beyond all doubt* that mobile phones, wi-fi or
>> > eating toast for that matter is harmful.
>>
>> Nothing in this field is 100%.
>
> Therefore worthless as far as I'm concerned.
>
>> > > Are you saying you and your opinions carry more weight/value than
>> > > those of the scientists quoted in the paper?
>> >
>> > Until they come up with *provable* data, then their *opinions* are
>> > worthless.
>>
>> What are your qualifications? If you want others including myself to
>> accept what you say you had better be a damn sight more high powered
>> than Professor Lawrie Challis, Alan Preece, professor of medical physics
>> and Dr George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in
>> the US.
>> Otherwise go and take a flying leap.
>
> My qualifications are irrelevant. I'm not the one trying to convince
> people that mobile phones or wi-fi is dangerous.


You're a joke Ivor.

You say "Professor Lawrie Challis, Alan Preece, professor of medical physics
and Dr George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in
the US" are "bollox" and you refuse to say just how qualified you are to
make that statement.

I think I can safely snip/plonk *anything* you say in reply to me from now
on.

>> > I'm still waiting for you to *prove* me wrong.

You show very little understanding of how research works.

>> I'm not here to entertain ijits like you.
>
> You're doing a good job of it though, I'm in hysterics here..!
>
> Still waiting on that proof.

I haven't purported to prove anything. You don't even read very well Ivor.

I merely copied some interesting research and proposals information
authored by highly qualified people in the field. Asking *me* to prove
their research/claims just shows *your* ignorance.

> Ivor


plonk!

On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:16:06 +0100, Clint Sharp wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, andy
> <[email protected]> writes
>>Maybe the defence lawyer will be able to adduce alternative studies that
>>wi-fi sensitivity is carried by mutant bacteria living in the guts of
>>flying pigs, by tortoiseshell butterflies in the vicinity of
>>genetically-modified linseed, made worse by depleted uranium in the
>>natural environment as a result of airliner crashes, and ... [contd p 94]
> Actually, scientists demand an inquiry into this. Regularly. After all,
> exposure to mutant bacteria carrying butterflies could harm your kids
> development.
>>It's as likely as anything Lenny has made up.
> Hhhhooowwww dare you.... Lenny is a god, he *knows* things that don't need
> proof because proof denies faith. Blasphemy I say...

Both of you, andy
<[email protected]> and you are talking out of your backsides.

plonk!

>>
>>

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> There is at least one known thing..
>> it is harmful to many people for them to be subjected to stress and fear.
>> You are doing so.
>> It is therefore proven that you are a bigger danger than mobiles/wifi
>> are.
>
> Just one thing to say to you - it's good advice:
>
> Head in sand - out of - asap.
>
>
>

Its easy enough to test..
find people who claim they are WiFi sensitive.
setup some access points
write a program to *randomly* select which AP is powered up.

run program while asking what the WiFi sensitive person feels.

Correlate results.
Dismiss claims.

It should only take a week or two.

PS I have done this on a limited scale after getting complaints about my AP
causing problems.
It wasn't as it wasn't connected (I was lacking the PoE bit) but what do
scared people do? They worry which effects their health.

On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:52:53 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

>
> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> There is at least one known thing..
>>> it is harmful to many people for them to be subjected to stress and
>>> fear. You are doing so.
>>> It is therefore proven that you are a bigger danger than mobiles/wifi
>>> are.
>>
>> Just one thing to say to you - it's good advice:
>>
>> Head in sand - out of - asap.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Its easy enough to test..
> find people who claim they are WiFi sensitive. setup some access points
> write a program to *randomly* select which AP is powered up.
>
> run program while asking what the WiFi sensitive person feels.
>
> Correlate results.
> Dismiss claims.
>
> It should only take a week or two.
>
> PS I have done this on a limited scale after getting complaints about my
> AP causing problems.
> It wasn't as it wasn't connected (I was lacking the PoE bit) but what do
> scared people do? They worry which effects their health.

Of course professor

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:52:53 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> There is at least one known thing..
>>>> it is harmful to many people for them to be subjected to stress and
>>>> fear. You are doing so.
>>>> It is therefore proven that you are a bigger danger than mobiles/wifi
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> Just one thing to say to you - it's good advice:
>>>
>>> Head in sand - out of - asap.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Its easy enough to test..
>> find people who claim they are WiFi sensitive. setup some access points
>> write a program to *randomly* select which AP is powered up.
>>
>> run program while asking what the WiFi sensitive person feels.
>>
>> Correlate results.
>> Dismiss claims.
>>
>> It should only take a week or two.
>>
>> PS I have done this on a limited scale after getting complaints about my
>> AP causing problems.
>> It wasn't as it wasn't connected (I was lacking the PoE bit) but what do
>> scared people do? They worry which effects their health.
>
> Of course professor
>
>

You have worked that out by yourself?

On 2007-05-10, Jonathan Buzzard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 18:21:53 +0100, Lenny wrote:
>> I trust their judgment even if you don't. And it's not as if they are
>> calling for research out of the blue, on the off chance so to speak.
>> There are a few studies which have raised red flags in this field.
>>
>
> No there is not. There has not been one single repeatable and I stress
> repeatable, because if it is not repeatable it was just a random fluke,
> study in the last 50 years that have shown any adverse effects of non
> ionising electro-magnetic radiation on biologically active tissue (unless
> it is of sufficient power to cook it).

Yes. What's more, there is a significant amount of negative evidence
in the form of studies of people who spent decades living in the
shadow of multi-Megawatt UHF TV transmitter towers, at RF levels
far higher than anything average people are ever likely ever to
experience today, which found no observable negative effects. These
studies are why those who raise concerns about mobile phones tend to
emphasize those aspects of mobile phones which differ from TV signals (e.g.
the pulsed transmissions from GSM phones, or localized effects
on tissue very close to the ear rather than whole body absorption);
even huge RF fields don't seem to do anything at all, so any effects
there might be must come from something special.

The thing about WiFi in particular is that there's nothing special
about it. The power levels are very low, the transmissions aren't
pulsed (for any reasonable definition of "pulsed") and you don't
generally use it with your laptop shoved up against your head,
so even the quite dubious issues raised for mobile phones don't
apply in general. The whole issue seems very bogus.

Dennis Ferguson

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 19:08:41 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:53:38 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect
> > > > > problem Ivor old man.
> > > >
> > > > No, that's you. The *reality* of the situation is
> > > > that so far, *nothing* has proven *beyond all
> > > > doubt* that mobile phones, wi-fi or eating toast
> > > > for that matter is harmful.
> > >
> > > Nothing in this field is 100%.
> >
> > Therefore worthless as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > > > > Are you saying you and your opinions carry more
> > > > > weight/value than those of the scientists quoted
> > > > > in the paper?
> > > >
> > > > Until they come up with *provable* data, then their
> > > > *opinions* are worthless.
> > >
> > > What are your qualifications? If you want others
> > > including myself to accept what you say you had
> > > better be a damn sight more high powered than
> > > Professor Lawrie Challis, Alan Preece, professor of
> > > medical physics and Dr George Carlo, chair of the
> > > Science and Public Policy Institute in the US.
> > > Otherwise go and take a flying leap.
> >
> > My qualifications are irrelevant. I'm not the one
> > trying to convince people that mobile phones or wi-fi
> > is dangerous.
>
>
> You're a joke Ivor.
>
> You say "Professor Lawrie Challis, Alan Preece, professor
> of medical physics and Dr George Carlo, chair of the
> Science and Public Policy Institute in the US" are
> "bollox" and you refuse to say just how qualified you are
> to make that statement.

As I've never met the people you name nor read anything about them, I have
no information on which to base opinions of them.

All I am saying is that *nobody* not even them have come up with anything
to convince me that mobile phones or wi-fi are dangerous. It is all
speculation. Give me something that can be proven and I will believe
anybody, even you.

> I think I can safely snip/plonk *anything* you say in
> reply to me from now on.

Good oh..!

> > > > I'm still waiting for you to *prove* me wrong.
>
> You show very little understanding of how research works.
>
> > > I'm not here to entertain ijits like you.
> >
> > You're doing a good job of it though, I'm in hysterics
> > here..!
> >
> > Still waiting on that proof.
>
> I haven't purported to prove anything. You don't even
> read very well Ivor.

No, you haven't.

> I merely copied some interesting research and proposals
> information authored by highly qualified people in the
> field.

If you say so. I've never heard of them, they could be your relatives for
all I know.

> Asking *me* to prove their research/claims just
> shows *your* ignorance.

I'm asking *you* as you are the one who posted this dubious information on
here. If you cannot provide proof of what you are posting, don't post it.

> plonk!

I'll believe that when I never hear from you again.

Ivor