homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.73.87.85
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

    
wifi and health effects
that's wi-fi, not wife...
chewy




msg:3969515
 12:55 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

so I get headaches and a weird feeling around wifi access points, and headaches and stuff from cell phones.

should I just give it up and move to somewhere back in time?

here's an old thread with some WebmasterWorld notables weighing in on this - is there anything new worth discussing that folks know about?

[webmasterworld.com...]

thanks !

 

kaled




msg:3969767
 1:51 pm on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

You need a friend to help you conduct an experiment.

1) Get as far away from any wireless transmissions over which you have no control.
2) Have a friend test whether you are really sensitive by switching the wi-fi adapter on and off on your laptop and any any other wireless devices you have such as telephones.

The chances are your headaches are unrelated to wi-fi. I started getting headaches about fifteen years ago. If it had happened a couple of years ago I might easily have jumped to the conclusion that wi-fi was to blame, but I'd have been wrong.

Kaled.

chewy




msg:3969774
 2:01 pm on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

I am about to conduct this experiment, ideally with some actual data collection, rather than just "how I feel".

Originally I began experiencing this odd sensation when doing some simple experiments with friends at MIT.

I always thought I was imagining things and expected that others would figure this out.

Has anyone else conducted any similar experiments?

swa66




msg:3969802
 2:40 pm on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0)

If you think you are sensitive to this and wan tto test/prove it: make it a double blind test.
You fill out how your headaches are without having a way to know how much EM you're exposed to.
Have a friend control the exposure and vary it, record it but not tell you, nor can he know how you feel.
Also measure how much EM there is, and in what spectrum.

Do it long enough and see if it correlates ...

sgietz




msg:3970634
 4:28 pm on Aug 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think the effects of EM on certain people has been documented. Some people are more sensitive to it, much like some folks are more sensitive to light.

I would be interested in the long-term consequences.

chewy




msg:3970768
 7:07 pm on Aug 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

other than the famous tin-foil hat, does anyone have any suggestions?

for me, other than living in a Faraday cage, I feel like I'd need to have a tin-foil suit and or a tin-foil house!

kaled




msg:3970872
 10:24 pm on Aug 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think the effects of EM on certain people has been documented.

Ghosts have been documented many times, but that doesn't mean that creaky attic upstairs suffers from anything more than wind.

Kaled.

LifeinAsia




msg:3970880
 10:31 pm on Aug 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

Are ghosts susceptible to EM? What about ghosts wearing tin-foil hats?

steve




msg:3971232
 2:18 pm on Aug 13, 2009 (gmt 0)

does anyone have any suggestions?

Turn off the wi-fi off when you are not using it!

My Netgear DGN2000 router has a button on the side which turns the RF on and off. Our desktops are wired, so I only turn it on when using a laptop.

You could also try a directional antenna.

I think some routers and network cards allow you to turn the RF output level down, reducing this to the practical minimum level might help.

graeme_p




msg:3972408
 8:16 am on Aug 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

Do you react to other devices producing similar radiation: mocrowave ovens, remote control cars etc.?

I would have thought mobile phones far more likely to produce the effect than wi-fi: similar part of the spectrum, but physically closer to you so you are likely to absorb much much more of it (inverse square law), so try stopping using a mobile phone first.

maximillianos




msg:3972456
 12:14 pm on Aug 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think it is reasonable to expect that some folks in the population have a heightened sensitivity to such signals. Just as something as simple as faint sounds can be heard by some but not others.

kaled




msg:3972619
 10:19 pm on Aug 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

Behavioural changes have been observed in animals exposed to high levels of EM radiation and also in cells but there is scant evidence of genuine hyper-sensitivity in humans. I'm reminded of some research a while back that suggested about 80% of people who believed they had a food intolerance were actually suffering from hypochondria.

Some people may be hyper-sensitive to EM radiation, but the reality is that most people who believe they are have jumped to the wrong conclusion. If the condition was as common as the belief, scientists would have reported it many times by now.

Some years ago there was a belief amongst some people that overhead power cables were a problem, but that's been forgotten in favour of more fashionable things to blame like cell-phone and tetra masts. The funny thing is that no-one has ever worried about radio and TV broadcasts and people living near TV transmitters are exposed to a lot of EM radiation at a frequencies not much lower than than those used by cell-phone and wireless devices. (Indeed, when analogue TV is switched off, much of the spectrum will be sold off for use by these devices).

Kaled.

sgietz




msg:3973416
 2:47 pm on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Ghosts have been documented many times, but that doesn't mean that creaky attic upstairs suffers from anything more than wind.

Wind and other noises have been ascribed to "ghosts" without solid proof, although there have been scientific studies done on ghostly phenomenon at university level. To simply dismiss an idea, because we currently lack the knowledge to sufficiently explain it, isn't very wise. Perhaps it's buhumbug, but I would say that a lot of scientific "theories" were considered buhumbug until someone did the math and it became science. I'm sure the idea that there are these invisible waves going through the air, that can be utilized to send/receive sounds, pictures (essentially data) seemed a bit "supernatural" at first. Heck, some of Einstein's theory's were rejected until we had the technology to test and confirm them.

Perhaps that is as it should be. Science is a slow process. We should never accept any claim as fact. The flip side is that we should never dismiss a claim either, no matter how outlandish. Forget about the "Ghostbusters" guys with all the pseudo-scientific equipment hunting down ghosts. I think they play an important role in generating public interest. They're the amateurs with limited funding, who try to peel back the layers to get to some truth that may or may not be there. But they will probably not be the ones writing a paper on it.

For anyone to objectively look back at the past several millennia of human progress and science, and not think that we need to have an open mind, is rather ignorant (this is not a personal attack). You're not a fool for leaving the door open, but closing it would be unwise.

:)

Demaestro




msg:3973465
 4:01 pm on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

What you are talking about is called electrosensitivity

It is being called a myth though there are many who claim to suffer from it.

However people who have claimed to suffer from it are incapable of determining whether there is an active wireless signal in their vicinity or not. In multiple blinded studies they did no better than random chance when asked to identify whether equipment that broadcasts on Wi-Fi or cellular frequencies is active.

I think the effects of EM on certain people has been documented.

As mentioned above it has been documented as false.

chewy




msg:3973476
 4:15 pm on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Demaestro - please cite the study. Thanks.

[edited by: lawman at 1:23 am (utc) on Aug. 18, 2009]

Demaestro




msg:3973548
 5:25 pm on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Details of the study were recently reported by Ars Technica in response to a UK DJ who claims that he suffers health problems from WiFi exposure... it turned out to be a PR stunt for his new album named after the "disorder".

chewy




msg:3973566
 5:48 pm on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

At one point there was a Mythbusters worthy internet story floating around about the cell phones that hard boiled an egg.

Apparently the gimmick (untested) was that you rubber band 2 cell phones together with a raw egg between the 2 phones. You then have one phone call the other.

In theory, the egg would cook in about an hour.

Where's Adam and Jamie when you need them?

john_k




msg:3973723
 10:49 pm on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

At one point there was a Mythbusters worthy internet story floating around about the cell phones that hard boiled an egg.
Apparently the gimmick (untested) was that you rubber band 2 cell phones together with a raw egg between the 2 phones. You then have one phone call the other.

In theory, the egg would cook in about an hour.

Where's Adam and Jamie when you need them?

My new phone has wi-fi. I get a nice buzz if a call comes in while I am using the blue-tooth headset to listen to streaming music over the wi-fi. You could probably cut the cooking time by 20% with this phone.

chewy




msg:3973772
 12:25 am on Aug 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

Seems that the discovery channel fora on Mythbusters seems to think this is such a myth it isn't worth busting.

I swear these new eye-phones give me a tingle so I guess I'm just psychosomatic!

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved