PDA

View Full Version : British Government to study health effects of WiFi



wraggster
October 14th, 2007, 21:32
Normally, the news that a study into the dangerousness of WiFi signals was to take place would provoke groans of disappointment from these pages: however, the British Government's statement that such a study is going to take place is a somewhat calming development. The Health Protection Agency, the group tasked with staging the study, will aim for the study to be "systematic" -- alternatively meaning "final," "definitive," and "complete" -- with all areas of potential dangerousness being investigated, with the opening remarks from the chief executive of the agency including affirmations that no evidence has previously been found that 2.4GHz WiFi frequencies cause danger. Schools will not turn off their routers while the study takes place, and the results are expected to be "reassuring." Sanity has won this battle it seems.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/14/british-government-to-study-health-effects-of-wifi/

Kazayami
October 14th, 2007, 22:12
The effects of a router are so small it barely affects anything. The problem apparently comes when you have 30 PCs and a Router in the same room.

mavsman4457
October 14th, 2007, 22:14
I'm glad that they are doing this study because you can never be too cautious about frequencies going through your body and possibly causing cancer or the like. I'm also glad that they're doing this study because I assume that it will turn out positive results showing that there is no substantial effect.

tgm123
October 15th, 2007, 00:47
how many times do you think they will look at porn when able to connect to other peoples wifi points lol

mavsman4457
October 15th, 2007, 01:15
how many times do you think they will look at porn when able to connect to other peoples wifi points lol

Not "lol" at all and what the heck are you talking about. Seriously do you know how to read? You must be in elementary school.

PLZKLLME0080
October 15th, 2007, 01:24
hmm... does Britain have their routers made differently that the US does? If so, the US needs to do a test to, because it would probably be more dangerous that in Britain (The big time companies just want to make money here and don't care about peoples health)

tgm123
October 15th, 2007, 01:24
Not "lol" at all and what the heck are you talking about. Seriously do you know how to read? You must be in elementary school.

Why the pathetic attempt to "flame" me for poking fun at scientists? :mad:

Who gave you the right to jump down peoples throats when they are tired and bored?

I bet you are a very anti-social person in "the real world"

Go get a life moron

PLZKLLME0080
October 15th, 2007, 01:25
Why the pathetic attempt to "flame" me for poking fun at scientists? :mad:

Who gave you the right to jump down peoples throats when they are tired and bored?

I bet you are a very anti-social person in "the real world"

Go get a life moron

That was uncalled for, no matter what the other person said. NOT COOL! :mad:

Veskgar
October 15th, 2007, 01:35
(The big time companies just want to make money here and don't care about peoples health)

Boy ain't that the truth. I only recently started to care and take notice but its true with food and what you find in grocery stores in the US. And it applies to other things as well. Which doesn't make much sense. The shorter people live, the less money they can spend in the long-term. Companies should try to gain a competitive edge by aggressively implementing more health & consumer beneficial products, foods, technology, etc.

I'm curious about the WiFi because I've got so many WiFi devices running all the time its not even funny. Also, range extending antenna's on my router, etc.

PLZKLLME0080
October 15th, 2007, 01:40
The shorter people live, the less money they can spend in the long-term. Companies should try to gain a competitive edge by aggressively implementing more health & consumer beneficial products, foods, technology, etc.

they won't do that. It would cost too much and they wouldn't be making as much that way. It would be more profitable to just let their customers die.

I hope to see more health tests like this in the future.

ab9003
October 15th, 2007, 04:16
They dont care about the long term profit. They just care about the money now. So what if there consumers die, there money will have to go to somebody else afterwards right?

Eyedunno
October 15th, 2007, 09:45
Plus if customers find out that one company sells a dangerous product while a competitor sells safer products, they'll choose the competitor. And we can't forget expensive lawsuits. I'm very anti-corporate myself, but I'm pro-capitalism at the same time, and a lot of this stuff is alarmism (though it's true that corporations put profit first, since the actual owners - the stockholders - are not responsible for anything except whether or not they want to keep their money invested).

Anyway, while I also suspect the claims are bogus, I get the feeling this study will be useless and worth ignoring entirely, since it seems biased in favor of harmlessness.

John Vattic
October 15th, 2007, 14:00
wifi in small doses is still exposure to radiation.
At the very least don't wear one of those bluetooth earpieces.

Eyedunno
October 15th, 2007, 14:29
wifi in small doses is still exposure to radiation.
At the very least don't wear one of those bluetooth earpieces.

Fallacy of equivocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation). Radio towers give off radiation. Your own body radiates heat. Holding a magnet and waving it around will generate radiation. Lightbulbs give off radiation, including a bit of cancer-causing UV, especially from halogen bulbs. Better get your tinfoil hat, son.

The King
October 15th, 2007, 14:35
i read in the newspaper a few weeks ago that they did something like this in the us but in elemetary school and how it was affecting elementary school students

John Vattic
October 15th, 2007, 16:13
Fallacy of equivocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation). Radio towers give off radiation. Your own body radiates heat. Holding a magnet and waving it around will generate radiation. Lightbulbs give off radiation, including a bit of cancer-causing UV, especially from halogen bulbs. Better get your tinfoil hat, son.



I'm just saying I'm not gonna stick a little radio tower in my ear if i don't have to.

maybe wear a foil kangol with two bluetooth earpieces running two phones, browsing the net on laptop while playing moh psp online and sipping a damn fine supremo homie..... Sure to win me miltipraise at the local aluminum wifi coffeshop, and why not. Brave new world for brave new warriors.:cool:-~

dgila
October 15th, 2007, 16:51
2.4 GHz is very dangerous it surely causes DNA damage...
But routers here in europe don't cause any trouble if you are just 1 m away, they have very low power.

Radiations of 2.4 Ghz are used by microwave ovens with much more power than a router, of course.

r2works
October 15th, 2007, 17:44
the fact that a "Government" agency is performing the test, should raise eyebrows in it self.

bangertree
October 15th, 2007, 19:20
While the 2.4-GHz WiFi frequency is the same frequency that is used by microwave ovens, a microwave oven has much more intense emissions than does a cell phone or a WiFi router or card.Whereas most cell phones have a peak power output of 2 W, most WiFi routers have a peak power output of less than 100 mW.Additionally, unlike cell phones and their base stations, WiFi cards and routers are not in con-stant communication with one another. Dr. Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengi-neering at the University of Pennsylvania, re-cently completed a study of WiFi, taking over 350 measurements at 55 sites across four coun-tries. According to his research, which was re-cently submitted to a journal for peer review,not only does WiFi equipment emit less radia-tion, it does so in much smaller bursts. However it did have an adverse effect on a piece of cheese that had fell from his jacobs cream cracker and landed on his Belkin router. He described the cheese as tasting"somewhat like a unwashed foreskin". Dr FOster refused to answer how he knew what a foreskin tasted like

Eyedunno
October 15th, 2007, 23:56
2.4 GHz is very dangerous it surely causes DNA damage...
But routers here in europe don't cause any trouble if you are just 1 m away, they have very low power.

Radiations of 2.4 Ghz are used by microwave ovens with much more power than a router, of course.
The visible light spectrum is in the range of hundreds of terahertz. OMGOMGOMGOMG! Poke your eyes out so you can forget about the high-frequency radiation all around you.