Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece

Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
By Jonathan Owen
Published: 29 April 2007

The health risks posed by Wi-Fi technology should be investigated by eminent scientists to ensure that a generation will not be damaged by growing levels of "electronic smog".

"The research hasn't been done. Therefore we cannot assume that there are no effects," said Dennis Henshaw, professor of human radiation at Bristol University. "I would be in favour of an inquiry into the dangers of Wi-Fi. This technology is being wheeled out without any checks and balances."

His concerns were echoed by Alan Preece, professor of medical physics at Bristol University, a pioneer of the research into the effects of mobile phones on the brain. "No one is really aware of what we are dealing with," he said. "The Department for Trade and Industry needs to take the lead and do some investigation."

The developments came after a week in which a row has flared between scientists around the world. The exchanges were prompted by reports in last week's Independent on Sunday that teaching unions and scientists have been pressing for an official investigation into the potential risks of Wi-Fi.

The Health Protection Agency (HPA), chaired by Sir William Stewart, has yet to announce publicly its intentions, but senior sources have admitted to this newspaper that proper research needs to be done to ensure that Wi-Fi does not present a danger to children, acknowledging there are ethical issues and public health concerns.

It emerged yesterday that Professor Lawrie Challis, the head of the Government's committee on mobile phone safety, is also urging caution. "Since we advise that children should be discouraged from using mobile phones, we should also discourage children from placing their laptop on their lap when they are using Wi-Fi," he said.

And Dr George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in the US, is setting up a global registry of people suffering from symptoms relating to the technology. Commenting on Sir William's stance, he said: "I know he is under enormous pressure from the mobile telecommunications industry, and the official stance being taken by HPA is one that is different to his personal views. That is the reality. The HPA has dropped the ball in not requiring testing before Wi-Fi goes into schools."

The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation into the health risks.

<snip>

"Lenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:f1n96e$9o4$(E-Mail Removed)
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>
> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that
> wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
> By Jonathan Owen
> Published: 29 April 2007

[snip]

> The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw
> the Professional Association of Teachers call for a
> formal investigation into the health risks.

I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the content of the message
and the poster, in case of any doubt.

Ivor

On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:10:30 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

> "Lenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:f1n96e$9o4$(E-Mail Removed)
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>>
>> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>> 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless networks
>> have no effects', expert warns By Jonathan Owen
>> Published: 29 April 2007
>
> [snip]
>
>> The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the
>> Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation
>> into the health risks.
>
> I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the content of the message
> and the poster, in case of any doubt.
>
> Ivor

Eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "bollocks" - unless
you got "bollocks" on your mind. :-)

"Lenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:f1nn27$7lc$(E-Mail Removed)
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:10:30 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > "Lenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:f1n96e$9o4$(E-Mail Removed)
> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
> > >
> > > Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> > > 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume
> > > that wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
> > > By Jonathan Owen
> > > Published: 29 April 2007
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week
> > > saw the Professional Association of Teachers call for
> > > a formal investigation into the health risks.
> >
> > I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the
> > content of the message and the poster, in case of any
> > doubt.
> >
> > Ivor
>
> Eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's
> "bollocks" - unless you got "bollocks" on your mind. :-)

It's bollocks. Prove me wrong. People have been trying for a long time but
they haven't succeeded yet. Nor will you.

Ivor

On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:29:18 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

>
>
> "Lenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:f1nn27$7lc$(E-Mail Removed)
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:10:30 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>
>> > "Lenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:f1n96e$9o4$(E-Mail Removed)
>> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>> > >
>> > > Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>> > > 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless
>> > > networks have no effects', expert warns By Jonathan Owen
>> > > Published: 29 April 2007
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > > The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the
>> > > Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation
>> > > into the health risks.
>> >
>> > I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the content of the
>> > message and the poster, in case of any doubt.
>> >
>> > Ivor
>>
>> Eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "bollocks" - unless
>> you got "bollocks" on your mind. :-)
>
> It's bollocks. Prove me wrong. People have been trying for a long time but
> they haven't succeeded yet. Nor will you.


You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem Ivor old man.

Are you saying you and your opinions carry more weight/value than those
of the scientists quoted in the paper?
rotflmao

>
> Ivor

In article <f1n96e$9o4$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>
> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi


<snip>

Translated

A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global warming research
grant free for all need a scare story to get them more money otherwise
their country houses may have to be sold.

On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:22:22 +0100, Lenny wrote:

> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
> By Jonathan Owen
> Published: 29 April 2007
>
> The health risks posed by Wi-Fi technology should be investigated by eminent scientists to ensure that a generation will not be damaged by growing levels of "electronic smog".

<snip>

My DECT 'phone recently packed up so I was looking for a new one. Came
across this link (from a site that sells DECT 'phones!):

http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/

then 'Cordless Phones are a Pain' link just over half way down list on
left.

There is a low-rad 'phone available:

http://www.home-phones.co.uk/asp/pro...sterCategory=n
--
Peter.
If you can do it today, you didn't put off enough yesterday.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 06:26:28 +0000, Mugwump wrote:

> In article <f1n96e$9o4$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>>
>> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Translated
>
> A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global warming research grant
> free for all need a scare story to get them more money otherwise their
> country houses may have to be sold.

I doubt that. Currently they are more likely to be looked upon askance
by their peers and the industry. The last thing they would want is to
loose their credibility. That implies that they must have very good
scientific reason for their calls.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 09:50:31 +0100, PeterC
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:22:22 +0100, Lenny wrote:
>
>> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>> 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
>> By Jonathan Owen
>> Published: 29 April 2007
>>
>> The health risks posed by Wi-Fi technology should be investigated by eminent scientists to ensure that a generation will not be damaged by growing levels of "electronic smog".
>
><snip>
>
>My DECT 'phone recently packed up so I was looking for a new one. Came
>across this link (from a site that sells DECT 'phones!):
>
>http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/
>
>then 'Cordless Phones are a Pain' link just over half way down list on
>left.
>
>There is a low-rad 'phone available:
>
>http://www.home-phones.co.uk/asp/pro...sterCategory=n

According to the site you quoted http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/
you'd be safer with a high powered DECT phone.

See the section on The Health Effects From Microwave Radiation.

“The effect at 0.0007 mW/g SAR [specific absorption rate] was
quadruple the effect at 2.0 mW/g, in other words 3000 times the
intensity had 4 times less of an effect under these particular
conditions.” Looking at it the other way, an intensity three thousand
times lower had an effect four times greater."

" 'The most remarkable observation in our studies,’ said Salford [at
the conference], ‘is the fact that SAR values lower than 1 mW/kg give
rise to a more pronounced albumin leakage than higher SAR values. . .
.. The situation that the weakest fields, according to our findings,
are the biologically most effective, poses a major problem.' "

"Lenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:f1o5m0$662$(E-Mail Removed)

[snip]

> You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem
> Ivor old man.

No, that's you. The *reality* of the situation is that so far, *nothing*
has proven *beyond all doubt* that mobile phones, wi-fi or eating toast
for that matter is harmful.

> Are you saying you and your opinions carry more
> weight/value than those of the scientists quoted in the
> paper?

Until they come up with *provable* data, then their *opinions* are
worthless.

I'm still waiting for you to *prove* me wrong.


Ivor