Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi

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."

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>

---

› See More: Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi

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

[snip]

> The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw
> the Professional Association of Teachers call for a
> formal investigation into the health risks.

I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the content of the message
and the poster, in case of any doubt.

Ivor

On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:10:30 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> 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
>
> [snip]
>
>> The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the
>> Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation
>> into the health risks.
>
> I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the content of the message
> and the poster, in case of any doubt.
>
> Ivor

Eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "bollocks" - unless
you got "bollocks" on your mind. :-)

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:10:30 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > 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
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week
> > > saw the Professional Association of Teachers call for
> > > a formal investigation into the health risks.
> >
> > I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the
> > content of the message and the poster, in case of any
> > doubt.
> >
> > Ivor
>
> Eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's
> "bollocks" - unless you got "bollocks" on your mind. :-)

It's bollocks. Prove me wrong. People have been trying for a long time but
they haven't succeeded yet. Nor will you.

Ivor

On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:29:18 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

>
>
> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:10:30 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>
>> > "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]
>> > > 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
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > > The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the
>> > > Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation
>> > > into the health risks.
>> >
>> > I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the content of the
>> > message and the poster, in case of any doubt.
>> >
>> > Ivor
>>
>> Eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "bollocks" - unless
>> you got "bollocks" on your mind. :-)
>
> It's bollocks. Prove me wrong. People have been trying for a long time but
> they haven't succeeded yet. Nor will you.


You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem Ivor old man.

Are you saying you and your opinions carry more weight/value than those
of the scientists quoted in the paper?
rotflmao

>
> Ivor

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>
> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi


<snip>

Translated

A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global warming research
grant free for all need a scare story to get them more money otherwise
their country houses may have to be sold.

On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:22:22 +0100, Lenny wrote:

> 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".

<snip>

My DECT 'phone recently packed up so I was looking for a new one. Came
across this link (from a site that sells DECT 'phones!):

http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/

then 'Cordless Phones are a Pain' link just over half way down list on
left.

There is a low-rad 'phone available:

http://www.home-phones.co.uk/asp/pro...sterCategory=n
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 06:26:28 +0000, Mugwump wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>>
>> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Translated
>
> A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global warming research grant
> free for all need a scare story to get them more money otherwise their
> country houses may have to be sold.

I doubt that. Currently they are more likely to be looked upon askance
by their peers and the industry. The last thing they would want is to
loose their credibility. That implies that they must have very good
scientific reason for their calls.

"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.

> 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.

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


Ivor

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 06:26:28 +0000, Mugwump wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
> > >
> > > Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Translated
> >
> > A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global
> > warming research grant free for all need a scare story
> > to get them more money otherwise their country houses
> > may have to be sold.
>
> I doubt that. Currently they are more likely to be looked
> upon askance by their peers and the industry. The last
> thing they would want is to loose their credibility. That
> implies that they must have very good scientific reason
> for their calls.

Implication isn't proof. Where is your *proof* ??

Ivor

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%.

>> 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.

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

I'm not here to entertain ijits like you.


>
>
> Ivor

On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:54:52 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

>
>
> "Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 06:26:28 +0000, Mugwump wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> > says...
>> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>> > >
>> > > Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>> >
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Translated
>> >
>> > A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global warming research
>> > grant free for all need a scare story to get them more money otherwise
>> > their country houses may have to be sold.
>>
>> I doubt that. Currently they are more likely to be looked upon askance
>> by their peers and the industry. The last thing they would want is to
>> loose their credibility. That implies that they must have very good
>> scientific reason for their calls.
>
> Implication isn't proof. Where is your *proof* ??

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.


>
> Ivor

"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.

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


Ivor

"Lenny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:54:52 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

[snip]

> > Implication isn't proof. Where is your *proof* ??
>
> 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.

But still no proof.

I'm still waiting.

Ivor

"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%.

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.