NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'

NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':

Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
on students. Such action is also being sought by the Professional
Association of Teachers - the group has called on Secretary of State
for Education Alan Johnson to launch an official investigation into
the issue. Current figures indicate that wireless networks are now
deployed in over half of primary schools and four-fifths of secondary
schools in the country.

More: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece

aljuhani wrote:
> NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
>
> Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
> wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
> on students.
>
> More: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece

[sigh] Someone needs to recharge their Clue Card and go shopping again for
more clues to reality.

DTC

Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for one
would be very intrested in your point for point rebuttle.


"DTC" <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote in message
news:WE5Zh.4850$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net...
> aljuhani wrote:
>> NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
>>
>> Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
>> wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
>> on students. More:
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece
>
> [sigh] Someone needs to recharge their Clue Card and go shopping again
> for more clues to reality.
>
>

In article <(E-Mail Removed) om>,
aljuhani <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
>
> Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
> wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
> on students. Such action is also being sought by the Professional
> Association of Teachers - the group has called on Secretary of State
> for Education Alan Johnson to launch an official investigation into
> the issue. Current figures indicate that wireless networks are now
> deployed in over half of primary schools and four-fifths of secondary
> schools in the country.
>
> More: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece

From the article referenced above:

> Wi-Fi - described by the Department of Education and Skills as a "magical"
> system that means computers do not have to be connected to telephone lines -
> is rapidly being taken up inschools [...]

Now *that* inspires confidence in their skills at analysis! Move over,
Ted Stevens, you have competition!

"That Bloke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4634f6d1$0$8738$(E-Mail Removed)...
| DTC
|
| Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for
one
| would be very interested in your point for point rebuttal.

I was deeply involved in the question of the bio hazard effects of RF/EMF
from cell phones in the mid 90's. Given that the power levels from wifi are
a fraction of that from cell phones and are at a frequency where the SPF
(specific absorption factor) is very poor and that the typical distance from
a wifi AP is a meter or more vis 1 or 2 cm from hand held cell phone the
impact is neglable. (less than the EMF generated by a jogger running
east/west in the earth magnetic field.)

BTW there were similar claims made with regard to honey bee deaths in the
USA. Something I found very interesting in that bee stings were a major
danger when I was climbing radio towers in the 70 and 80's as bees would
build hives in the cable races right under the antennas for some high power
transmitters..

"aljuhani" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
>
> Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
> wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
> on students. Such action is also being sought by the Professional
> Association of Teachers - the group has called on Secretary of State
> for Education Alan Johnson to launch an official investigation into
> the issue. Current figures indicate that wireless networks are now
> deployed in over half of primary schools and four-fifths of secondary
> schools in the country.
>
> More: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece

Anyone who knows anything about RF Exposure knows that at the power levels
an assess point operates at even at 2.4Ghz won't ever hurt you unless you
happen to be sitting right on the antenna and even then.... Once you get a
few inches away there really isn't that much to worry about.

Adair

"That Bloke" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for one
>would be very intrested in your point for point rebuttle.

Oh, that's easy enough. 2.4GHz Wi-Fi uses the same frequency as a
microwave oven. The average Wi-Fi access point and client belches
about 35 milliwatts. When you get about 10,000 of these dangerous
Wi-Fi devices together in one place, you have the equivalent power of
a microwave oven with the door open.

This can easily happen at conventions, rock concerts, hotels, and
Burning Man, which goes far to explain the vacuous stares and burnt
out look of the attendees. This can also happen at schools, where
each student brings their Wi-Fi enabled PDA, laptop, game machine, or
robot. Get enough of them together and the combined transmit power
will cook what's left of their brains after the skool gets done with
them.

There's also the danger of having students use their computers to
contradict the teachers. Given Wi-Fi and internet access, any student
can look up the topic on Wikipedia, and contradict the dogma spewn by
the instructors. This tends to create a credibility challenge, which
the instructors are not equipped to deal with. Little wonder the
teachers are protesting Wi-Fi at skool. (Incidentally, I did this a
few times in grade schools, except I used borrowed reference books.)

Another danger is Wi-Fi enabled cheating on exams. Ad-Hoc wireless
networks are easily established and can greatly facilitate the
exchange of test questions and answers. Again, the instructors are
not equipped with sniffers and direction finders in order to deal with
the thread. Little wonder they want to ban Wi-Fi. (Incidentally, I
did this in grade school, except I used Morse Code and ham radio.)

Finally, there's a real danger that the administration might notice
that students are learning more from the internet than from the
instructors. Online instruction is nothing new, but constitutes a
serious threat to the teaching establishment. It's conceivable that
the subject might be taught online, with the instructor in absentia.
(I did this in college by tape recording the boring lectures.)

Whether Wi-Fi will cook the brains of the students, or constitute a
threat to public instruction as we know it, will remain to be seen.
However, I can be certain that the teaching establishment will not go
down without a fight, in a futile effort to retain the status quo in
the presence of progress.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Adair Witner" <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>Anyone who knows anything about RF Exposure knows that at the power levels
>an assess point operates at even at 2.4Ghz won't ever hurt you unless you
>happen to be sitting right on the antenna and even then.... Once you get a
>few inches away there really isn't that much to worry about.
>Adair

Perhaps some calculations would be more definitive. See:
<http://n5xu.ece.utexas.edu/rfsafety/>

First, a typical access point or client radio.
0.035 watts
2.2 dBi dipole
20 ft radius area of interest
2400 MHz
Include ground reflections
That yields a safe radius of 0.16 ft = 2 inches.

At the other extreme, is the high power base with a common patch or
panel antenna.
0.400 watts
8.0 dBi patch
20 ft radius
2400 Mhz
Include ground reflections
That's safe to 0.79 ft = 10 inches.

Actually, that's rather conservative because the Wi-Fi xmitter is NOT
generating full power at all times. The transmitter is pulsed on and
off at a rate set by the traffic requirements. It never gets even
close to 100% duty cycle. Therefore, the *AVERAGE* xmit power is
considerably less than the 35mw or 400mw I'm using.

Yeah, unless you sit on the antenna, you're safe.

The effects of RF exposure appear to cumulative over long periods of
time. For example, before I got involved in the RF business, I had a
full head of hair, a full bank account, and a generally positive
attitude. After many years of exposure to RF, the hair is falling
out, the bank account depleted, and the attitude is decidedly
pessimistic. Obviously, this was all caused by RF exposure.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article <ro9Zh.536$(E-Mail Removed)>, "NotMe" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> BTW there were similar claims made with regard to honey bee deaths in the
> USA. Something I found very interesting in that bee stings were a major
> danger when I was climbing radio towers in the 70 and 80's as bees would
> build hives in the cable races right under the antennas for some high power
> transmitters..
The other interesting thing is that up until this came out, all the
research, etc. , was on how to stem the tide of bees getting killled off
by a virus that was spreading. Now this comes along and all of a sudden
the virus isn't talked about any more. Interesting.

Kurt Ullman <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

>In article <ro9Zh.536$(E-Mail Removed)>, "NotMe" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>> BTW there were similar claims made with regard to honey bee deaths in the
>> USA. Something I found very interesting in that bee stings were a major
>> danger when I was climbing radio towers in the 70 and 80's as bees would
>> build hives in the cable races right under the antennas for some high power
>> transmitters..

> The other interesting thing is that up until this came out, all the
>research, etc. , was on how to stem the tide of bees getting killled off
>by a virus that was spreading. Now this comes along and all of a sudden
>the virus isn't talked about any more. Interesting.

Pesticides, a fungus perhaps, possibly a virus, or all of these:
<http://www.latimes.com/news/la-sci-bees26apr26,0,7437491.story>
As always, the deep pockets get the blame for literally everything.

Searching Google using "cell phones cause" yielded 10 million hits.
Cell phones can asllegedly cause auto accidents, headaches, cancer,
dead bees, world wide hunger, airliner crashes, gasoline explosions,
computer illiteracy in Japan, cell mutations, stunted cell growth,
etc. Never mind that the incidence of brain cancer has been
essentially constant for many years, while cell phone usage has
increased astronomically. If they were related, the curves would
track each other.

Incidence of brain cancer:
<http://planning.cancer.gov/disease/Brain-Snapshot.pdf>

My comments on RF safety and such:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/e937848e7a1fcb20>
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/2e8392cfdb8028e2>

The radio towers I used to climb in the 60's had a mild bee problem.
Bees just love the inside of fiberglass radomes, outdoor racks, cable
trays, and poletop boxes, for hives. I've only been stung a few
times. One nice thing about the bees is that we didn't have to do
much about site security. No sane person would break into a building
or cabinet full of bees.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558