say no to wifi and mobi's

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece
<<
A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a brain
tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset; Swedish
research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great. And further
research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off brain cells,
which could lead to today's younger generation going senile in their
forties and fifties.
>>

<<
Professor Lawrie Challis, who heads the Government's official mobile
safety research, this year said that the mobile could turn out to be "the
cigarette of the 21st century".
>>



Full report:
<<
Danger on the airwaves: Is the Wi-Fi revolution a health time bomb?
It's on every high street and in every coffee shop and school. But
experts have serious concerns about the effects of electronic smog from
wireless networks linking our laptops and mobiles, reports Geoffrey Lean
Published: 22 April 2007

Being "wired-up" used to be shorthand for being at the cutting edge, connected to all that is cool. No longer. Wireless is now the only thing to be.

Go into a Starbucks, a hotel bar or an airport departure lounge and you are bound to see people tapping away at their laptops, invisibly connected to the internet. Visit friends, and you are likely to be shown their newly installed system.

Lecture at a university and you'll find the students in your audience tapping away, checking your assertions on the world wide web almost as soon as you make them. And now the technology is spreading like a Wi-Fi wildfire throughout Britain's primary and secondary schools.

The technological explosion is even bigger than the mobile phone explosion that preceded it. And, as with mobiles, it is being followed by fears about its effect on health - particularly the health of children. Recent research, which suggests that the worst fears about mobiles are proving to be justified, only heightens concern about the electronic soup in which we are increasingly spending our lives.

Now, as we report today, Sir William Stewart (pictured below right), the man who has issued the most authoritative British warnings about the hazards of mobiles, is becoming worried about the spread of Wi-Fi. The chairman of the Health Protection Agency - and a former chief scientific adviser to the Government - is privately pressing for an official investigation of the risks it may pose.

Health concerns show no sign of slowing the wireless expansion. One in five of all adult Britons now own a wireless-enabled laptop. There are 35,000 public hotspots where they can use them, usually at a price.

In the past 18 months 1.6 million Wi-Fi terminals have been sold in Britain for use in homes, offices and a host of other buildings. By some estimates, half of all primary schools and four fifths of all secondary schools have installed them.

Whole cities are going wireless. First up is the genteel, almost bucolic, burgh of Norwich, which has installed a network covering almost the whole of its centre, spanning a 4km radius from City Hall. It takes in key sites further away, including the University of East Anglia and a local hospital, and will be expanded to take in rural parts of the south of the county.

More than 200 small aerials were attached to lamp posts to create the network, which anyone can use free for an hour. There is nothing to stop the 1,000 people who use it each day logging off when their time is up, and logging on again for another costless session.

"We wanted to see if something like this could be done," says Anne Carey, the network's project manager. "People are using it and finding it helpful. It is, I think, currently the largest network of its kind."

Not for much longer. Brighton plans to launch a city-wide network next year, and Manchester is planning one covering over 400 square miles, providing free access to 2.2 million people.

So far only a few, faint warnings have been raised, mainly by people who are so sensitised to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobiles, their masts and Wi-Fi that they become ill in its presence. The World Health Organisation estimates that up to three out of every hundred people are "electrosensitive" to some extent. But scientists and doctors - and some European governments - are adding their voices to the alarm as it becomes clear that the almost universal use of mobile phones may be storing up medical catastrophe for the future.

A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset; Swedish research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great. And further research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off brain cells, which could lead to today's younger generation going senile in their forties and fifties.

Professor Lawrie Challis, who heads the Government's official mobile safety research, this year said that the mobile could turn out to be "the cigarette of the 21st century".

There has been less concern about masts, as they emit very much less radiation than mobile phones. But people living - or attending schools - near them are consistently exposed and studies reveal a worrying incidence of symptoms such as headaches, fatigue, nausea, dizziness and memory problems. There is also some suggestion that there may be an increase in cancers and heart disease.

Wi-Fi systems essentially take small versions of these masts into the home and classroom - they emit much the same kind of radiation. Though virtually no research has been carried out, campaigners and some scientists expect them to have similar ill-effects. They say that we are all now living in a soup of electromagnetic radiation one billion times stronger than the natural fields in which living cells have developed over the last 3.8 billion years. This, they add, is bound to cause trouble

Prof Leif Salford, of Lund University - who showed that the radiation kills off brain cells - is also deeply worried about wi-fi's addition to "electronic smog".

There is particular concern about children partly because they are more vulnerable - as their skulls are thinner and their nervous systems are still developing - and because they will be exposed to more of the radiation during their lives.

The Austrian Medical Association is lobbying against the deployment of Wi-Fi in schools. The authorities of the province of Salzburg has already advised schools not to install it, and is now considering a ban. Dr Gerd Oberfeld, Salzburg's head of environmental health and medicine, says that the Wi-Fi is "dangerous" to sensitive people and that "the number of people and the danger are both growing".

In Britain, Stowe School removed Wi-Fi from part of its premises after a classics master, Michael Bevington - who had taught there for 28 years - developed headaches and nausea as soon as it was installed.

Ian Gibson, the MP for the newly wireless city Norwich is calling for an official inquiry into the risks of Wi-Fi. The Professional Association of Teachers is to write to Education Secretary Alan Johnson this week to call for one.

Philip Parkin, the general secretary of the union, says; "I am concerned that so many wireless networks are being installed in schools and colleges without any understanding of the possible long-term consequences.

"The proliferation of wireless networks could be having serious implications for the health of some staff and pupils without the cause being recognised."

But, he added, there are huge commercial pressures" which may be why there has not yet been "any significant action".

Guidelines that were ignored

The first Stewart Report, published in May 2000, produced a series of sensible recommendations. They included: discouraging children from using mobiles, and stopping the industry from promoting them to the young; publicising the radiation levels of different handsets so that customers could choose the lowest; making the erection of phone masts subject to democratic control through the planning system; and stopping the building of masts where the radiation "beam of greatest intensity" fell on schools, unless the school and parents agreed.

The Government accepted most of these recommendations, but then, as 'The Independent on Sunday' has repeatedly pointed out, failed to implement them. Probably, it has lost any chance to curb the use of mobiles by children and teenagers. Since the first report, mobile use by the young has doubled.

Additional reporting by Paul Bignall, Will Dowling and Jude Townend
>>

---

› See More: say no to wifi and mobi's

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece
> <<
> A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
> mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a brain
> tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset; Swedish
> research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great. And further
> research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off brain cells,
> which could lead to today's younger generation going senile in their
> forties and fifties.
>>>
>

I'll be waiting for the first insurance form which has a health box for "Do
you use a mobile phone - YES/NO" and "How often do you use your mobile phone
in a week - 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20 hrs or Other".

Hell if the drugs I took back in the late 80's don't kill me, my liver will
give up soon with the amount of alcohol I've consumed over the years. Oh and
all these McDonalds, chinese takeaways and indian food I've eaten, its a
wonder I've survived to the ripe old ago of 35.

--
Gerry (The MOTH)
"I don't feel well!"

> A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
> mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a brain
> tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset; Swedish
> research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great. And further
> research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off brain cells,
> which could lead to today's younger generation going senile in their
> forties and fifties.
>>><Snip>

Come of it - most people of the younger generation already behave like
they've gone senile and I fear it will only get worse.

Now doesn't that make me sound old......?

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece
> <<
> A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
> mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a brain
> tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset; Swedish
> research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great. And further
> research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off brain cells,
> which could lead to today's younger generation going senile in their
> forties and fifties.
>>>
>

Oh you again.

Do you remember the reply last time: -

Literally a handful died of brain neoplasms in the UK in 1992 (essentially
before mobiles became widespread) and most of them were over 80.

Even a doubling would not be statistically significant, any more than the
numbers killed by lightening.

OTOH the circumstantial evidence was that you actually have one of these
tumours and it is seriously impairing your thought processes.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:19:11 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:

|!http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece
|!<<
|!A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
|!mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a brain
|!tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset; Swedish
|!research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great. And further
|!research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off brain cells,
|!which could lead to today's younger generation going senile in their
|!forties and fifties.
|!>>

Yet another example of misreported science by scientifically illiterate
reporters.

If the basic incidence of brain tumours is 1:1000, as it probably is, then
your increased risk is 0.4 in 1000, which is probably quite acceptable to
some after doing a cost benefit analysis.

If the damn reporter were able to understand the original research paper it
would all be there.
--
Dave Fawthrop <sf hyphenologist.co.uk> 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

"R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Even a doubling would not be statistically significant, any more than
> the numbers killed by lightening.
>

It is significant to every one of those people, their family and friends.

I'd be more inclined to ask to see the actual study referenced. There have
been many studies concluding for and against. Most of them are too poorely
conducted to be of much use (not enough control data/too many variables un-
accounted for). If this was any different I would expect they would
actually say why rather than just make reference to it..

"cw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Even a doubling would not be statistically significant, any more than
>> the numbers killed by lightening.
>>
>
> It is significant to every one of those people, their family and friends.

The numbers killed by lightening fluctuate from year to year, but are fairly
low (in the UK anyway).

>
> I'd be more inclined to ask to see the actual study referenced. There have
> been many studies concluding for and against. Most of them are too poorely
> conducted to be of much use (not enough control data/too many variables
> un-
> accounted for). If this was any different I would expect they would
> actually say why rather than just make reference to it..

I think you should Google for the original thread.

"Dave Fawthrop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:19:11 +0100, Lenny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> |!http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece
> |!<<
> |!A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
> |!mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a
> brain
> |!tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset; Swedish
> |!research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great. And
> further
> |!research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off brain cells,
> |!which could lead to today's younger generation going senile in their
> |!forties and fifties.
> |!>>
>
> Yet another example of misreported science by scientifically illiterate
> reporters.
>
> If the basic incidence of brain tumours is 1:1000, as it probably is, then
> your increased risk is 0.4 in 1000, which is probably quite acceptable to
> some after doing a cost benefit analysis.
>
> If the damn reporter were able to understand the original research paper
> it
> would all be there.

I wonder how many people tripped and died on the two cups and a string

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472140.ece
> <<
> A recent authoritative Finnish study has found that people who have used
> mobiles for more than ten years are 40 per cent more likely to get a brain
> tumour on the same side of the head as they hold their handset; Swedish
> research suggests that the risk is almost four times as great. And further
> research from Sweden claims that the radiation kills off brain cells,
> which could lead to today's younger generation going senile in their
> forties and fifties.
>>>

If that was the case then police officers from the late 60's onwards would
already have shown these symptoms having been exposed to much more RF from
handheld UHF radios over the years.
I am sure someone would have tried sueing for damages if they had contracted
an illness from such exposure.
I do not know of any cases like that.
I do know of one in the US resulting from exposure to police radar guns in
the 70's but thats a different ball game completely.

"R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]

[snip]

> Oh you again.
>
> Do you remember the reply last time: -
>
> Literally a handful died of brain neoplasms in the UK in
> 1992 (essentially before mobiles became widespread) and
> most of them were over 80.
> Even a doubling would not be statistically significant,
> any more than the numbers killed by lightening.
>
> OTOH the circumstantial evidence was that you actually
> have one of these tumours and it is seriously impairing
> your thought processes.

When I was studying for the Radio Amateur Exam back in the early 80's a
bloke in our class jumped the gun a bit (he was a more money than sense
sort of guy) and put up a 60ft tower and a 3 element HF beam. It wasn't
connected to a transmitter as of course he wasn't yet licensed, but no
sooner had it appeared on the skyline than he got all the neighbours
banging on the door complaining of interference to their TV's.

"Ooh, a phone mast, we'll all get cancer..!"

I think "bollocks" is the polite term.


Ivor

On 23 Apr 2007 22:47:48 GMT, in uk.telecom.broadband , cw
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Even a doubling would not be statistically significant, any more than
>> the numbers killed by lightening.
>>
>
>It is significant to every one of those people, their family and friends.

True, but irrelevant. Using that metric, being gummed to death by a
giant green yak would be significant too.

>I'd be more inclined to ask to see the actual study referenced.

There's a good debunking of the story in The Register. It runs roughly
like this:
The official report didn't say anything of the kind.
One official gave a personal opinion and was quoted out of context.

--
Mark McIntyre

Mark McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> True, but irrelevant. Using that metric, being gummed to death by a
> giant green yak would be significant too.

Relevance is relative to whatever circumstances you compared it to :P

It depends on the value you assign to life, but once you start assigning
values you've lost.

Meh, I'm going to be, not looking for a philosophical thingamigig

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

>
> "Ooh, a phone mast, we'll all get cancer..!"
>
> I think "bollocks" is the polite term.
>

As the bloke on the BBC said..

their are two ways mobiles can effect your health..

you can worry yourself to death about the effects.

you can crash your car while using a mobile.

"cw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark McIntyre <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> True, but irrelevant. Using that metric, being gummed to death by a
>> giant green yak would be significant too.
>
> Relevance is relative to whatever circumstances you compared it to :P
>
> It depends on the value you assign to life, but once you start assigning
> values you've lost.

People assign vaues to life every day.
Look at the choice people make in day to day life
like which car they drive, do they smoke, do they drink?

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
>
> [snip]
>
>> Oh you again.
>>
>> Do you remember the reply last time: -
>>
>> Literally a handful died of brain neoplasms in the UK in
>> 1992 (essentially before mobiles became widespread) and
>> most of them were over 80.
>> Even a doubling would not be statistically significant,
>> any more than the numbers killed by lightening.
>>
>> OTOH the circumstantial evidence was that you actually
>> have one of these tumours and it is seriously impairing
>> your thought processes.
>
> When I was studying for the Radio Amateur Exam back in the early 80's a
> bloke in our class jumped the gun a bit (he was a more money than sense
> sort of guy) and put up a 60ft tower and a 3 element HF beam. It wasn't
> connected to a transmitter as of course he wasn't yet licensed, but no
> sooner had it appeared on the skyline than he got all the neighbours
> banging on the door complaining of interference to their TV's.
>
> "Ooh, a phone mast, we'll all get cancer..!"
>
> I think "bollocks" is the polite term.

It was common for us to get complaints from local residents regards
interference (god knows how), headaches etc shortly after we'd erected the
mast and dropped the cabin.
Then a few weeks later we'd go back power it up, commission etc
Still haven't worked out how a dark site causes so many "headaches".

Installed one 2 years ago in Kent. All equipment in place, mast up, cabin
planted. Then we got into a playground fight with the landlord regards
rent - so the site remained dark for about 18 months.
In that time the complaints had escalated through councillors, local MP and
solicitors.
We just let them rack up huge expenses before announcing that the site wasnt
actually live, and therefore wasnt the source of any illness they might have
imagined. )

> I think "bollocks" is the polite term.

Polite and correct technical terminology. ;o)