Handheld Learning Forum

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2472133.ece

I'm not so sure about this one  :)

This "Wi-Fi is bad" story seems to be on constant rotation yet has still to demonstrate any evidence that supports it. The Independent tried to get lift off with this story last May (here (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article362557.ece)) albeit without the headline friendly hook of school children. It was then published in the Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article642575.ece) last November and Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/12/72265) after that. The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/16/nbees16.xml) also recently suggested that wireless signals might be responsible for the sudden death of bee colonies. Indeed it is rumoured that BBC's Panorama is due to get in on the act shortly with an exposé of the hidden danger within every computing device. But maybe it's worth taking a moment of reflection before we start making hats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat) out of Bacofoil.

Wi-Fi operates on the 2.4Ghz bandwidth, the same as domestic cordless phones, yet it's unlikely that anyone is sitting with a router next to their head all day or for any lengths of time. If we're worried about Wi-Fi then we should be terrified of mobile phones which are more powerful and handshake with transmission towers regularly thus creating emissions even when not in use.

The fact is that nearly every electronic product we use today generates some kind of electro-magnetic field; from your television to the wiring of your home to the hard drive spinning in your PC.

Of course, it would be better if it could be proven that all this EM radiation was 100% safe but it would also be good if some of the anecdotal bad news stories were scientifically tested as opposed to generating newspaper selling headlines. Even some basic blindfold/placebo based tests would be a start.

The satirical website, Anorak, had its own take on the issue here (http://www.anorak.co.uk/news/politics/172721.html).  ;)

Yes another scaremongering story based on no factual evidence but I would welcome the research.  I would love to have the real scientific facts at hand regarding the output/frequency of different devices.  I realise that TV’s/microwaves produce some sort of radio frequency radiation emissions but what exactly are these, how do they compare to Wifi and mobile phones, what are the different frequencies and what do they mean?

What about baby monitors, almost every parent has had one sitting right next to their baby’s cot. The one that I had was great, you could take it a couple of doors down when visiting neighbours and it still worked. ‘Line of sight’, I don’t think so.   I could be wrong but I don’t think they work on telepathy.
 ???

Not that I'm an expert, but from my understanding people often mix up different types of "electro smog", which doesn't help.

Electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) are one thing and, as Graham says, they are emitted by most electrical equipment in some way or another. That's the source of concern when people are worried about overhead power lines etc. It's sometimes called electro-magnetic radiation too (EMR) which is then lumped together with the radiation that's emitted by radio waves, ie microwaves, mobile phones or Wi-Fi transmitters. I don't think that's the same thing though. They're both being researched but not a lot - I assume because of lack of funding (wonder why?).

There are a lot of websites about this stuff, both from public health bodies and private researchers/enthusiasts. As usual it's not easy to find any clear and conclusive information, but http://www.microwavenews.com is a long-established and seemingly quite unbiased resource to start off with. I just read a few articles, and the main thrust of research into possible health risks is this:

We need to better understand how and when RF radiation induces DNA breaks, causes leakage through the blood-brain barrier and disturbs sleep. Each of these effects has been documented in multiple labs but remains controversial. They all need to be resolved once and for all. And most importantly, we must find out as soon as possible whether the elevated incidence of brain tumours and acoustic neuromas after ten years of cell phone use —which has now been reported by two independent research groups— is in fact a real long-term risk.

Apparently a recent long-term study found that people who used mobile phones for 10 years showed a 39% higher risk of certain types of brain tumours on the side they used the phone on. Eek! Not so good for us mobile evangelists...

By the way, I stand corrected about any of this if there are real experts around.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf

You could be right about confusion between terms although the World Health Organisation (WHO) in their report puts overhead power cables, televisions, computers and mobile phones in the same category:

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/en/

They also publish a fact sheet on base stations and wireless technologies:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html

Graham

Guys, some really helpful stuff, thanks very much indeed.  I have just had the Daily Record on the phone try to get hold of me about frying kids' brains ::)

Here is a great and educated repost from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6583815.stm  Thank you BBC.

Nige

I have done quite a bit of research on the effects of wireless.

Generally from my research the consensus is that if you gaffer tape the wireless router to your head and walk around with it, it *may* have an impact.

I don't disagree with the impact of the electromagnetic spectrum on the human body, but there are other sources which have a much higher level of radiation than wifi networks, eg mobile phones or microwaves.

BBC Article - Wifi Worry

Some schools are removing wi-fi networks after complaints from parents that their children suffer headaches. In what sounds like a re-run of mobile phone radiation panic, is there evidence for harm?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6172257.stm

Guardian Article - Is there any proof that Wi-Fi networks can make you sick?

Strictly speaking, no. Our trawl of the World Health Organisation (who.int) and National Library of Medicine (pubmed.com) databases shows that there have been no scientific papers published that have studied whether Wi-Fi networks cause any physical symptoms.

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1959714,00.html

Do Wireless LANs Pose a Health Risk to the Consumer?

http://www.wlana.org/learn/health.htm - slightly biased

From a German friend of mine.

A story from Bavaria:

One of the big TelCos installed a mobile phone antennain a small town...

Immediately dozens reported headaches, bad sleep, sickness. etc...

After 8 weeks, the TelCo published a report, due to lack of high voltage supply, that antenna was still not in use. ... just metal, no "bad waves"...

;-)

James Clay

Yes, I believe that Wi-Fi isn't really a problem. You have to be pretty close to a powerful long-range transmitter to see any long-term effects.

Unfortunately that's exactly what you do when you use a mobile phone (they transmit to the nearest mast)...

Another thing I read sometime ago was that there could be an issue with male reproductive health, because phones emit radiation out of the top and bottom, and men/boys point it straight to their nether regions when they sit on the bus and text for example. Oh dear!

Wolf.

Joking apart, I like most men carry my mobile in my front trouser pocket.  Surely there would be a huge increase in testicular cancer?

That would probably be more because of radiation. The study that I read was more concerned about lower sperm count. And that was speculated to be linked to the temperature of the testicles being raised by the microwaves, rather than long-term cell damage.

Another news item...

Wi-fi laptop fears for children
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6602561.stm

Read it twice but couldn't find the facts  ;)

Rumour masquerading as news which seems to be the order of the day in current media. Mind you, it must be true because it has been featured in the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=450995&in_page_id=1879).

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_02/sARAH260407_228x352.jpg)


Nothing sensationalist then.

 ::)