Yeah, if you hold your head one inch away
|"There may be changes, for example in cognitive function. |
First thing to go is the ability to type "teh"
Hmm, all this from the BBC's Panorama, the same programme that, the very week before, hit the headlines worldwide for its 'exposť' on Scientology. They certainly like to grab media attention!
Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, who is quoted in the article above, also (according to this BBC article [news.bbc.co.uk] refuting the notion that wifi poses a health risk) "...recommended to the government in 2002 that the beam of greatest intensity from a phone mast should not fall on any part of the school grounds, unless the school and parents agreed to it."
In which case, I suppose, should any health risks be ascertained at a later date, the school and parents would be to blame and the authorities would be absolved of all responsibility...
Won't be long before someone "discovers" that the walls in virtually all schools are permeated by "wires" carrying high-voltage "electricity" which could be giving off radiation of all kinds and is lethal on direct contact. Many walls also contain pipes carrying a potentially deadly hydrogen-oxygen mixture, which - combined with the aforementioned "electricity" - can have fatal consequences.
Maybe I should move the WiFi-router out of my bedroom :)
To all those worried about the risk from WiFi radiation.......
I'm afraid to inform you that there is an even bigger radiation risk you should be much more concerned about.....it is almost certain to kill you!
The huge radiation risk is an object in space....it is commonly known as the Sun......it needs to be removed from our solar system immediately as it will inevitably kill us all in the long-term!
>WIFI is "cancer" risk......yeah, about 0.001% the risk of the sun, lets deal with the bigger risks first and deal with getting rid of the sun!
What a bunch of complete and utter nonsense!
Considering that a lot of our own human internal wiring uses electricity it is hardly surprising that with so much stuff bombarding our cells every nano-second that there could be some damage.
What I found interesting was how the Swedish Government recognise electric sensitive people whereas the govt in the UK does not.
What Sir William actually said, so far as I can tell, is that there is NO evidence of harm, but that he suggests another more detailed study to try to demonstrate this would be a good idea:
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE for the scaremongering that Panorama was indulging in, and they should be ashamed of themselves. It's like shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre.
This is not to say that there cannot be any issues, or that something will never be discovered in the future, but there really is no current reason nor evidence to think that WiFi has any problems short of shoving the aerial right up ... anyway...
But look at Asbestos, Smoking (originally marketed as being good for your health!) etc - we are introducing lots of new things and we aren't really sure what the long term effects may be for years to come.
TV programs like this keep governments / companies on their toes putting pressure on governments / companies to do research upfront and at least attempt to get facts right.
But if you take that approach then it is reasonable for me to shout FIRE in a crowded cinema in case there is one, or to start a campaign against hydrogen oxide (one of the most potent solvents in the Universe), or against the colour blue.
Fight/frights should be started based on evidence, not TV ratings.
I dont understand how it can be 3 times the strength of a mobile phone mast. My phone works miles away from a mobile phone mask but my wireless internet struggles just a couple of rooms away!
Wasn't there all this kind of hysteria over mobile phones a few years back?
I seem to remember spotting a very small headline a few months back saying that actually... err.. there wasn't much evidence on that one either.
If you believed it every time the media claimed something kills you, you'd go insane. Life is a terminal disease, after all ;)
|Wasn't there all this kind of hysteria over mobile phones a few years back? |
probably more so in the predigital era when analog cell phone transmitters were a few watts.
however, anybody remember the "can you hear me now?" verizon dude?
ever notice he never carries the phone or speaks the tag line and hasn't for over a year?
cancer - right ear.
it could be a coincidence...
Two of the reasons that I bought a phone with SMS (text) on it many many years back when no one had heard of it (certainly not thumb-straining teens) was:
* Not to ever have to shout "I'M ON THE TRAIN" which should carry a death sentence... B^>
* Not to have to hold the phone to my head for extended periods to avoid slow cooking of my head with the microwave radiation.
And actually, phones use less and less power these days in order to prolong their battery life...
the jury is still out in terms of phone and tumors.
Back in the news again: More reports of problems
"Sir William - the chairman of the Health Protection Agency and a former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government - has chaired two inquiries into the effects of mobile phones and their masts. He warned against dangers from them and made safety recommendations, but was largely ignored by ministers."