News WiFi health risk report based on ‘alarming lack of science’

A report likening the WiFi health hazard to cigarettes has been criticised for lacking evidence.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/05/27/wifi-health-risk-shows-alarming-lack-of-sci/1

 

Haven't there been studies in the past which concluded that there was very little risk? It seemed to be that this report was the only one that claimed there was a major health risk, which is a bit strange.

 

Hmm.....
Low power Wifi signals with a range of meters at an arms length away.....
or
Medium power mobile phone with a range of kilometers stuck to within cm's of your brain....

Who is the winner? FIGHT!!!!!!

 

*also probably more radiation up my ass than a wifi router.

 

haha have some rep.

I would think that wifi is no more harmful than the frequencies we use for the radio or TV. Of course I have nothing to back that view up, it just seems likely to me.

 

File drawer effect. The studies which show a minimal risk get published. So do a few which show no difference. No one publishes the results which claim health benefits because that looks ridiculous. Overall it becomes clear that there is no effect at all and that only the publication bias causes anomalies and noise to be presented as a positive result.

 

90% of people would say this is complete trash. The other 10% died in unconfirmed wifi related incidents

 

The guy is just a politician, so he may claim whatever nonsensic stuff he wants -as the republicans often do in Texas with creationism.

In any case, even though mobile and Wifi are non-ionising radiations, signal intensity is still a factor (causing heat and burning tissues). I think a safe measure would be to keep a minimum distance to the mobile antenna (you know, intensity decreases with the inverse square of distance, so with distances below unit 1, intensity actually increases dramatically...

 

Like being beaten to death with said WiFi router by the 90% of sensible people?

 

There's a great comparative radiation chart here. Love the note about cell phones at the bottom of the blue chart.

 

Welcome to the land of research. Although if you have a hypothesis (note http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1431 and http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761) you strive to prove or disprove it - there's a very thin line between being neutral and someone calling you biased ("You wanted your hypothesis to work! Your experiments were geared towards positive results!") even if the methodology is so you can do one then the other.

 

Rofl

 

Good to know - my wife is convinced it gives cancer so I will forward this to her

 

You owe me a new keyboard, this one has Pepsi Max all over it.

 

BAN EVERYTHING! IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO BE SAFE.

 

Ironic, really, that you're far more likely to suffer injury from tripping over a network cable than you are from the radio waves emitted by a wireless system.
I reckon more people die a year from having routers dropped on them than they do from cancer resulting from exposure to wifi!

 

Remindes me of this BBC programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/shouldiworryabout/mobiles.shtml

 

http://xkcd.com/radiation/ Radiation chart daily every day things and what they do to us.

 

I cant find a reference to it but I recall reading something (popular science if i am not mistaken) about a guy that had to seclude himself (in Russia i believe) from technology because it makes him sick due to high radio exposure in a previous job. I swear i am not crazy. [puts on tin foil hat]

 

It's ok, the only people who believe it's harmful are Daily Mail readers, and they live in the technological Dark Ages, so don't even have wifi.