Ontario Parents Suspect Wi-Fi Making Kids Sick

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

RP, your post is confused. You think parents were lobbying against cigarettes while scientists were saying they were safe? Or maybe the scientific establishment was claiming it was safe to drink and drive, until noble brave citizens won the day?

Anyway, since you're creating "history" on the fly, you forgot the victories of the valiant anti-vaccination lobby. They haven't quite succeeded yet, because Big Pharma is still making billions off sticking needles into people and causing [whatever the latest bullshit scam panic is], but one day, the little people will prevail!

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel, I still think you're being unduly complacent ...

You're rambling. The next generation of Canadians will have a one in two chance of being diagnosed with cancer. We can make jokes about industrial air pollution killing thousands in Ontario every year. We can make jokes about miner's lung killing workers off in the long run and without any compensation from the bastards.We can make jokes about Canadian asbestos sent to India and ruining workers health there. We can even make jokes about Wifi and cell phone studies that haven't been conducted because an insufficient amount of time has passed. They don't know. Translation: YOU can't possibly know until THEY know. Not unless you buy a roll of duct tape and volunteer to bathe yourself in cell phone and wifi radiation for the next 30 years or so.  At that point we might be interested to know the results of your latest health checkup.

I don't think it's funny, Unionist. Why not at the very least insist on a warning label and recommend limiting exposure time?

Unionist

Fidel, I don't make jokes about the plagues of capitalism that have been identified by workers and validated by science. I'm not sure why you would suggest that I do, except perhaps that you're still in an arguing mood but have long since run out of arguments.

I do, however, make jokes about the children of Barrie being the first in the world to prove that microwaves make you sick. Especially when you can identify, right from the news stories, who is stoking the panic and crying wolf.

Sorry, but I don't believe that parents have any expertise, whatsoever, on the genesis of their children's ailments. I don't believe that parents know what's best for their kids.

If you have the slightest grain of scientific spirit, you will have noticed that the alleged symptoms appeared very soon after the schools installed Wi-Fi.

So explain something to me, please.

If that's true, why should it take decades to prove or rule out a link?

ETA: LOL, we crossposted - you said:

Fidel wrote:
We can even make jokes about Wifi and cell phone studies that haven't been conducted because an insufficient amount of time has passed.

Precisely my point. Whatever is making the kids in Barrie region sick, it can't be Wi-Fi or cell phones. Thanks for the confirmation.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Maybe they are concerned about their health and not knowing what the long-term effects are?

What "long-term effects"!!?? They're sick all week at school, and they get better on Saturday and Sunday at home!

Did you bother to read the story?

Quote:
The kids have to be there by law. We don't.

No, Fidel, they don't. Again, how about reading the story??

Quote:
Palmer plans to find alternate schools or even home school his two children this fall if the board doesn't agree to turn off the Wi-Fi and said other parents will likely follow suit if the symptoms return.

He'd better act fast. There's a real danger that if left too long in that school, his kids might learn a little science. Or deductive reasoning.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Unionist wrote:

RP, your post is confused. You think parents were lobbying against cigarettes while scientists were saying they were safe? Or maybe the scientific establishment was claiming it was safe to drink and drive, until noble brave citizens won the day?

Anyway, since you're creating "history" on the fly, you forgot the victories of the valiant anti-vaccination lobby. They haven't quite succeeded yet, because Big Pharma is still making billions off sticking needles into people and causing [whatever the latest bullshit scam panic is], but one day, the little people will prevail!

 

 

Confused.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
If you have the slightest grain of scientific spirit, you will have noticed that the alleged symptoms appeared very soon after the schools installed Wi-Fi.

So explain something to me, please

Maybe they are concerned about their health and not knowing what the long-term effects are? The kids have to be there by law. We don't.

So when will you be volunteering for this long term study in EM field exposure? You could re-tool one of those beer hats to work with your cell phone and Wifi devices.  And just to be safe, tell you doctor you want an MRI on your head every two years and annual blood tests for the next 30. Or does that sound too scientific? You're thinkin' now that maybe they should try this on apes and dogs first before children?  I think your head was meant for greater purposes than to be used as a beer cup and Wifi holder, but it's your choice. It's all about choices in this corporate friendly country. Why not be as progressive as the City of Toronto and issue warnings?

Unionist wrote:
If that's true, why should it take decades to prove or rule out a link?

Because we weren't born with cell phones next to our ears or dropped out next to wifi hubs by our mamas?

Unionist

Heh, check out their website - http://www.safeschool.ca. They're a parents' committee with an "Advisory Board"!

The members of the "Advisory Board" are all parents, but the site carefully lists their degrees, professional memberships, and accomplishments.

They are: two (2) chiropractors, one (1) dentist, one (1) psychotherapists, one (1) special education teacher, and two (2) journalists, one of whom (Rodney Palmer) now owns a "health-related business".

Here are some sample testimonials:

Quote:
"Both of my children have arrived home after school with headaches lately and they rarely complain of headaches. Both of them had to take Tylenol which they rarely take. My daughter came home one day recently with a headache and dizziness and had to lie down."

Quote:
"Both of my kids are coming home with headaches for the last year. It doesn’t seem right for kids to get headaches. They don’t concentrate as well in class and my older one has seen his grades drop this year. He’s fine on the weekends and can concentrate fine and doesn’t get headaches. It’s only at school that he has these problems."

It's sad - that if there's a problem, no one seems to be looking for the cause.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Maybe they are concerned about their health and not knowing what the long-term effects are?

What "long-term effects"!!?? They're sick all week at school, and they get better on Saturday and Sunday at home!

Did you bother to read the story?

In scientific terms, how do you know what's causing their symptoms? Maybe they should remove the asbestos and clean the moldy ducts in addition to switching back to ethernet? Maybe someone should just do their jobs instead of calling the children and their parents liars.

Unionist wrote:
No, Fidel, they don't. Again, how about reading the story??

Once again for the hard of reading, why not just switch back to ethernet on the recommendations of a number of concerned scientists in several western world countries, neurosurgeons concerned about rising incidence of brain tumors etc, and sweep the chimney and fumigate for lice? Or was it mold and cooties? Besides, the school boards have made it easier for teachers of academics to teach technology studies since 1995 or so. It should be a snap for those academic-computer savvy techs to scab the retrofit job over a weekend or two. They're too sexy for their academician beer hats and are too modest to admit it. They should be jumping at the chance to do tech work.

 

Fidel

Sounds like Rodney's the ring leader. But I still recommend they switch back to ethernet. Invisible enemies can sometimes be real. 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Indeed Unionist.  I'd look where they're rushing to defend the status quo.

Unionist

Oh, a little background about Rodney Palmer - the organizer, "communications director", and media spokesperson of the "parents committee". He used to be CTV's Middle East bureau chief. Now he owns "SaunaRay", whose website describes it as: "North America's Only Research Based Medical Grade Sauna Company".

Apparently, his saunas have beneficial effects on athletic performance, besides helping people suffering the effects of asthma, high blood pressure, chronic pain, cancer, fibromyalgia, lead, mercury, pesticides, psoriasis, and obesity!!

As Mary A. of Niagara Falls, New York stated:

Quote:
"I was diagnosed with Pancreatic Stage 4 Cancer one year ago and was given three months to live. I attribute my survival in part to your sauna which I've been using almost every day. With appreciation."

Maybe the sauna rays can help alleviate the wifi death rays? Stay tuned to this channel for more breaking medical news.

 

Fidel

Sounds like scientific illiterates being led by a charlatan in opposition to a school board that doesn't have the money to do the right thing and switch back to ethernet and cough up money for a building safety check.

But again, there should be all kinds of academic-tech teachers willing to put in some over-time. It should be cheaper than hiring Holmes on Skools or whatever his name is.

Unionist

Curious, isn't it, that the MSM geniuses couldn't do some background checks (like on Rodney Palmer and his health-giving rays) and ask a few simple questions (like, how do the symptoms happen Monday to Friday, disappear Saturday and Sunday, and no one else in the world has ever noticed this!?).

Oh well. I just hope for the kids' sake that someone asks these questions and finds out what, if anything, is really going wrong - although when you read the "testimonials", they sound awfully similar in persuasive power to those on [url=http://www.saunaray.com/84p_saunaray_mystery.htm]Rodney's business site[/url]:

S.Skelton, Craigleith, ON wrote:
"There is a magical feeling inside this sauna. I think it's because all the materials as so natural and selected so carefully. Or maybe it's the pure ceramic  vibrations. It feels so peaceful."

J. Briscoe, Santa Cruz, CA wrote:

"I am in love with my new sauna! I've told my husband there is not another man, but my SaunaRay is coming between us! I absolutely love it."

Quote:
The mystery of the SaunaRay magic is hard to explain. You have to feel it to fully understand. But we strongly believe that the care we put into every board, every heater, and the meticulous construction of every unit has resulted in the same enduring qualities of a fine musical instrument.

It's meticulously constructed all right...

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Thanks for pointing that out Unionist.  Perhaps you could read the other links to give you a perspective.

Sineed

Caissa wrote:

personally, I think the reported symptoms sound like a normal reaction to school.

The symptoms, which also include memory loss, trouble concentrating, skin rashes, hyperactivity, night sweats and insomnia,

Just getting things back on track.  This is cogent.

Caissa

Thanks, Sineed.

I can't remember the last time I was called cogent.Wink

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

Leaving before I make a comment that would be deemed inappropriate.

Caissa

Discretion is always the better part of valour,mckb.

remind remind's picture

unfuckingbelievable really....well on second thought not so much...same people were shilling for h1n1 shots.

 

I agree BA.

Snert Snert's picture

I think you could pretty much make any laughable claim you want to ("The hum from my refrigerator is responsible for my Chronic Fatigue Syndrome!") and some progressive would take up your cause.  Or insist that "we need to do more research!  Why are we disregarding this?")

And honestly, before long, anyone who didn't agree on the need for an immediate moratorium on refrigerators (until we get to the root of why they cause CFS) would be accused of shilling for Big Appliance.

This anti-science "open mindedness" is, IMHO, a big, big part of why the left is still seen as a bunch of crystal-worshipping, chakra-aligning homeopathic hippies.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I don't think the left has a monopoly on pseudoscience. It was my understanding that the anti-vaccine movement was a largely far-right phenomenon. What we should be upset about is why the anti-vaccine movement is so much stronger, better organized and more successful than any of our pseudoscience campaigns.

Oh, and welcome back, Snert.

Unionist

remind wrote:

unfuckingbelievable really....well on second thought not so much...same people were shilling for h1n1 shots.

Who? The Barrie parents? Holy bejeebus, I had no idea! First they try to genocide the world population with phony injections, now they're trying to undermine Western communications systems by killing off Wi-Fi?

Thanks for the insight, remind!

 

Unionist

Snert wrote:

This anti-science "open mindedness" is, IMHO, a big, big part of why the left is still seen as a bunch of crystal-worshipping, chakra-aligning homeopathic hippies.

Welcome back, Snert. But I have to take issue with you. I know of no serious leftists that promote homeopathy or refuse vaccination or want to shut down wifi. I personally do worship crystals, however, I'll grant you that, but I haven't even been able to convince my local union to formally adopt that as a bylaw.

Pants-of-dog

The people who are claiming that the wifi causes these symptoms are making one simple error: they are confusing correlation with causation.

 

Actually, they make all sorts of errors, but this is the simplest one that we can point out.

Unionist

I don't blame the parents. If my kids were or seemed sick, I wouldn't rest until the appropriate authorities found the cause and cure, and neither should they. I blame the MSM for popularizing a sexy story about a group of unfortunate people who have been fed a bill of goods by some whackjob(s) - and not even bothering to ask simple questions which would put this hoax right where it belongs, and maybe help relieve the parents' anxiety.

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
I don't think the left has a monopoly on pseudoscience.

 

Agreed in three words: Climate change denial.

remind remind's picture

wish my fridge worked, even if it was causing e illness, the illness it prevents is well worth it. Sometimes it sucks being in the hinterlands, not often but sometimes.

Maybe next week the correct parts will be in....

Going out to get me some leaded paint, asbestos and DDT, fucking bugs anyway....who needs them.

Caissa

Catchfire wrote: I don't think the left has a monopoly on pseudoscience.
Caissa agrees and thinks this site has far too much of it.

remind remind's picture

it has far too much of a lot of things...let's all group think. Or better yet, let's all start referring to ourselves in the 3rd person...... :D

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Going out to get me some leaded paint, asbestos and DDT, fucking bugs anyway....who needs them.

 

Don't do that!

 

Actual investigation, with observation, measurement and analysis has repeatedly demonstrated that these cause harm. Thanks to science, we even know how.

 

And if science ever demonstrates the same about wi-fi, I'll say the same.

 

Meanwhile, I wonder how many of these clucking parents have already thrown their cellphones in the garbage? My guess: not a single one.

 

Actually, who HERE has thrown their cell in the garbage, based on these "concerns"? Or has at least put it in the basement in a box, not to be used again until further evidence shows it to be harmless? Anyone willing to go offline for this? Just curious.

Caissa

Remind wrote: Or better yet, let's all start referring to ourselves in the 3rd person...... :D

Caissa believes this idea has merit.

remind remind's picture

Snert wrote:
Quote:
Going out to get me some leaded paint, asbestos and DDT, fucking bugs anyway....who needs them.

 Don't do that!

 Actual investigation, with observation, measurement and analysis has repeatedly demonstrated that these cause harm. Thanks to science, we even know how.

 What?

It is old science nowadays afterall, and we just keep on shipping our asbestos to India, and telling them it is dandy fine. And we import toys full of lead paint for our children, and don't cha know west nile, lime disease and malaria can be controlled by ddt's.

Say nothing of allowing plastics to contaminate ourselves and our children.

I mean gee, why not......

 

Quote:
And if science ever demonstrates the same about wi-fi, I'll say the same.

yep, science is on "our side".

 

Quote:
Meanwhile, I wonder how many of these clucking parents have already thrown their cellphones in the garbage? My guess: not a single one.

Actually, who HERE has thrown their cell in the garbage, based on these "concerns"? Or has at least put it in the basement in a box, not to be used again until further evidence shows it to be harmless? Anyone willing to go offline for this? Just curious.

 

I got rid of mine for those reasons, but my partner uses one to keep in touch upon occasion.

Fidel

[url=http://www.gq.com/images/cars-and-gear/2010/01/cellphones.jpg]Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health[/url]

Ever worry that that gadget you spend hours holding next to your head might be damaging your brain? Well, the evidence is starting to pour in, and it's not pretty. So why isn't anyone in America doing anything about it? Christopher Ketcham

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/cellphones.jpg[/IMG]

Another side benefit of dreg'ulashun and corporatocracy.

Do yourself a favour and get the hell off the phone!

Pants-of-dog

Does anyone have any data as to the strength of the microwaves emitted by wifi as compared to cellular phones?

Snert Snert's picture

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm]Here's a good comparison chart.[/url]

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Does anyone have any data as to the strength of the microwaves emitted by wifi as compared to cellular phones?

Why? Will you be doing a scientific study on cell phones and human health over the next couple of decades? Early scientific reports from outside the USSA point to cellular phones being a risk for brain tumors, and yet there are no safety concerns or public health warnings from either the corporatocracy or their bought and paid-for lackeys in government.

Pants-of-dog

Snert wrote:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm]Here's a good comparison chart.[/url]

Thank you.

500 mW seems to be the typical cellular phone transmission power.

100 mW is the typical wireless router transmission power.

So, a router is 20% as strong.

 

Next link:

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://www.brain-surgery.us/khuranaSurgNeurol.pdf?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6... phones and brain tumors: a review including the
long-term epidemiologic data[/url](pdf) 2009

Cell phone users should at least read the abstract and conclusions.

Thank for the link, Fidel.

Now, cell phones seem to be responsible for doubling one's risk to brain tumors.

But only on the side of the brain that they tend to use the phone on. The other side of the brain seems to be unaffected.

So, the damage only occurs if you hold the transmitter against your body for several hours a day, and only in that spot where you hold it.

So, if the students are holding the routers against their heads for about as long as they hold cell phones aginst their heads, they will be twenty percent more likely to get a brain tumor.

Snert Snert's picture

Yes, clearly they've been bought and paid for by Big Cell.

It's not that there's no conclusive evidence at this point, or that cellphones double your chances from one in a billion to two in a billion. 

No.  It's got to be corruption.  This thing goes all the way to the top!!!  And thank Gawd that a few nattering Barrie parents had the courage to blow the lid off it!

Meanwhile, can anyone point me to a study that proves, conclusively, that LCD monitors are harmless?  Not "based on what we know now", but also based on what we don't know yet?  Because that seems to be the standard of proof we want for WI-FI.  I need to be 100% sure that we're not going to discover something in ten or twenty or fifty years that suggests my monitor might give me headaches.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

What leads you to make this conclusion?

I don't think there are any studies on Wifi and human health that would allow anyone to make such a wild claim.  Remember, the telecom dregulation act of 1996 in the states tends to protect fat-cat corporatists from frivolous public inquiries as well as public health and safety regulations. Corporations aren't interested in the truth about their products just the bottom line as a general all purpose rule.

But very many studies done outside of the ongoing deregulation experiment in the USA are clear, including the Interphone study -  increased cell phone use tends to increase one's chances of developing various kinds of tumors, and some are the deadliest kind of brain tumor. And most of the international reports all say that more study is needed.

Well, I compared the transmission power of an average cellphone with that of a typical wi-fi router. It is twenty percent.

Now, cell phone use increases your chance of getting a brain tumour from 20 in 100 000 to 40 in 100 000.

So, 20 more people out of 100 000 will get a brain tumour.

Now, if the router is only 20% as powerful as the cellphone, the increase of cancer should only be 20% of these 20 in 100 000.

20% of 20 is 4.

So, the wifi should increase brain tumours by 4 people out of 100 000, from 20/100 000 to 24/100 000.

This is equal to an increase in 20%.

That explains the math. Or did you want to know why the kids have to hold the routers against their heads?

 

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
So, the damage only occurs if you hold the transmitter against your body for several hours a day, and only in that spot where you hold it.

So, if the students are holding the routers against their heads for about as long as they hold cell phones aginst their heads, they will be twenty percent more likely to get a brain tumor.

What leads you to make this conclusion?

I don't think there are any studies on Wifi and human health that would allow anyone to make such a wild claim.  Remember, the telecom dregulation act of 1996 in the states tends to protect fat-cat corporatists from frivolous public inquiries as well as public health and safety regulations. Corporations aren't interested in the truth about their products just the bottom line as a general all purpose rule.

But very many studies done outside of the ongoing deregulation experiment in the USA are clear, including the Interphone study -  increased cell phone use tends to increase one's chances of developing various kinds of tumors, and some are the deadliest kind of brain tumor. And most of the international reports all say that more study is needed.

Snert Snert's picture

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/05/17/cellphone-brain-cancer.html]The question of whether cellphone use causes brain tumours remains unsettled after the results of a major study on almost 13,000 cellphone users over 10 years.[/url]

Quote:
For some groups, cellphone use appeared to lessen the risk of developing cancers, which the researchers called "implausible."

 
Hehe.
 
"The bad news is that your Nokia cell phone gave you a brain tumour. The good news is that this Blackberry, used for 30 minutes a day, will cure it."

Quote:
"The tired refrain 'more research is needed' fully applies in this instance: without more research the public's question about the acceptability of cancer risk from mobile phones will remain unanswered."

I totally agree. That the refrain is tired, I mean.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Sineed wrote:

The trouble is, their case is based entirely on the presence of symptoms when they are at school, and the absence of these same symptoms when they are at home.  Couple of points: could be something else at the school, and also, how many of these kids have wifi at home?  Lots of them, I'd wagar.

The way to test this is to turn off the wifi without telling anybody (ie, wiring up the computers on a wkend, assuming they aren't using laptops that they roam around with), and see if it makes a difference to the kids' symptoms.  If it doesn't, they'll have to look at something else.  Food in the cafeteria?  The presence of toxic mould?  It needs to be investigated in a systematic way rather than catering to people's fears through speculation.

Yep. As though they don't all have cordless phones at home and probably more than a few wireless routers. But the part that raised my eyebrows the highest was the claim of skin rashes.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Now, cell phone use increases your chance of getting a brain tumour from 20 in 100 000 to 40 in 100 000.

Did you notice the date of publication on the article you've pointed us to? The important thing to remember here, maestro, I mean Pants, is that widespread cell phone use in the USA didn't happen until the mid-1990s. Nobody I know had much use for first generation cell phones of the 1980s. Not unless your were Gordon Gekko of Wall Street, the kind of person now being diagnosed with brain tumors mentioned in Ketcham's [url=http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-r... article.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Now, if the router is only 20% as powerful as the cellphone, the increase of cancer should only be 20% of these 20 in 100 000.

20% of 20 is 4.

So, the wifi should increase brain tumours by 4 people out of 100 000, from 20/100 000 to 24/100 000.

This is equal to an increase in 20%.

That explains the math. Or did you want to know why the kids have to hold the routers against their heads?

That's incidence. We're talking about incidence rate. Over how many years of exposure to WiFi are you taIking about? Your math is just as flunky in this discussion as it was in the 9/11 threads.

I like [url=http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/06/google-submits-initial-co...'s national broadband plan[/url], and [url=http://policies.lakeheadu.ca/policy.php?pid=178]Lakehead U's WiFi and Cellular antennae policy[/url] in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and broad band infrastructure projects in [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8068560.stm]Japan[/url] Japan's broadband access speeds and telecom infrastructure are world class. They aren't screwing around with dial-up in rural areas or cheaping out with WiFi in public schools.

They aren't cutting corners and compromising human health for the sake of saving a buck for corporations or their lackeys in government. Fiber optic trunklines and fiber-to-the-home and businesses and schools beats any wireless technology hands-down as far as speed and reliability are concerned. If the money people and bean counters think WiFi and wireless is so good, they should shove the microwave towers up their derierres sideways. A good thing can't hurt. And we need a real infrastructure plan in Canada, too, and not one that is based on what the suckers are willing to pay for regardless of public health and safety issues.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Did you notice the date of publication on the article you've pointed us to? The important thing to remember here, maestro, I mean Pants, is that widespread cell phone use in the USA didn't happen until the mid-1990s. Nobody I know had much use for first generation cell phones of the 1980s. Not unless your were Gordon Gekko of Wall Street, the kind of person now being diagnosed with brain tumors mentioned in Ketcham's [url=http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-r... article.

If you can find another statistic showing incidence of tumour rates, be my guest. I'll redo the math with your numbers.

Fidel wrote:
That's incidence. We're talking about incidence rate. Over how many years of exposure to WiFi are you taIking about? Your math is just as flunky in this discussion as it was in the 9/11 threads.

You are correct, Fidel. I forgot to mention that if wi-fi is causing brain tumours, the kids would have to be holding these routers to their heads sevral times a day every day for over ten years.

Fidel wrote:
I like [url=http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/06/google-submits-initial-co...'s national broadband plan[/url], and ....And we need a real infrastructure plan in Canada, too, and not one that is based on what the suckers are willing to pay for regardless of public health and safety issues.[/size]

Irrelevant.

PraetorianFour

I used to sleep with my cell phone under my pillow, it's alarm set to vibrate. That way if I was in a roomw ith a bunch of people, or beside my wife, I wouldn't wake them up when the alarm goes off.

 

The more I read the more it seems stuff like wi-fi and cell phones are dangerous so I've reluctantly went back to my old walmart screaming alarmclock, making sure to shut my cell phone right off at night.

 

Sad thing is you can't go hardly ANYWHERE today without being bombarded with Wi-fi.  I think in the future they will probably have " wi-fi free " zones instead of wi-fi hotspots.

remind remind's picture

what's the big deal anyway, 4 more children/people out of 100k getting brain tumours etc...

 

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
If you can find another statistic showing incidence of tumour rates, be my guest. I'll redo the math with your numbers.

Let's use the results of the [url=http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ije/press_releases/freepdf/dy... study(pdf)[/url] since no one in the USA participated in a similarly large study.

People in the study reported spending a median time of 2 to 2.5 hours a month using mobile phones. The heaviest users - ~10 percent of total - said they spent about 1,640 hours total on the phone. That's the threshold for heavy phone use,  roughly half an hour a day for ten years. I know people that do at least half an hour every day on their cells nowadays. Participants reported their use for periods ranging from one year to more than 10 years, according to the report.

More than one-third, or $6.8 million, of the study’s $23.7 million dollar funding came from the cell phone and other industry sources, That's just under 30% of the total funding coming from private sources.ie with private interests not public ones.

Cell phones emit radio waves and, at higher levels than that released by phones, the emissions heat body tissue and spur tumors, according to the [url=http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones]US National Cancer Inst.[/url]

Pants-of-dog wrote:
You are correct, Fidel. I forgot to mention that if wi-fi is causing brain tumours, the kids would have to be holding these routers to their heads sevral times a day every day for over ten years.

What makes you think so? Let's apply that logic to a similar scenario, one with posteriori knowledge of the health risks and work backwards. What if you were sat in a public school riddled with asbestos and lead paint for six to seven hours a day over nine years of your childhood? What if none of you or your classmates got sick or died within the next ten years after leaving the school?  Would you jump to the conclusion, similar to your own example, that asbestos and lead paint are compatible with human health? Why not do real scientific study on the effects of lead and asbestos on warm-blooded living things, and preferably lab rats well before deciding that the new and wonderful industrial products are safe for humans? Why not us empricism and the scientific method to prove these things beyond a doubt for the sake of public health and safety? Or will it be cheaper to allow corporations to milk profits now so that taxpayers can pay later when rising health care costs are realized? Those same corporations might be bankrupt, or broken up and pawned off to predator corps sometime down the road. But public health will still be an issue. I don't think we can't afford to run the country like a dregulated fly by night corporation, or even allow corporate interests to take priority over public good.

Fidel

Snert wrote:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/05/17/cellphone-brain-cancer.html]The question of whether cellphone use causes brain tumours remains unsettled after the results of a major study on almost 13,000 cellphone users over 10 years.[/url]

Quote:
For some groups, cellphone use appeared to lessen the risk of developing cancers, which the researchers called "implausible."...

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devra-davis-phd/cell-phones-and-brain-can_... Phones and Brain Cancer: The Real Story[/url]

Devra Davis wrote:
"...-top users of cell phones had a doubled risk of malignant tumors of the brain. When looking at all those in their study who had used cell phones to make one call a week for six months or more, compared to those who used cell phones less no such risk was evident. This is unsurprising.

So what the Interphone study says is that if you make one call per week for six months or more, and all usage levels below that, there is no evidence for risk of brain tumors. Does that level of usage describe you or anyone you know?

What about heavier cell phone usage? - apparently it doubles your risk of developing a malignant brain tumor according to the Interphone study! At that point they hide those results in the appendix of the report and suggest that further study is needed.

Magda Havis wrote:
[url=http://www.magdahavas.com/2010/05/17/interphone_parotid_gland_tumors_bra... Study: It’s not just brain tumors![/url]

If you read the abstract it is a bit confusing for the average person because it states the following:

“For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio = 0.87; p=0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated.” The odds ratio is scientific notation that identifies the degree of risk (above 1 is higher risk and below 1 is lower risk) and the probability value (p) indicates whether this finding is statistically significant (generally when p is less than 0.05 it is considered significant). So the above quote agrees with previous studies that there was no association between salivary gland tumors and cell phone use.

BUT – The very next sentence shows that there is a danger for some individuals and reads: “However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g. heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks.”

So what does this elevated risk amount to?

The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by . . .
34% if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.
58% if you had more than 5,479 calls in your life-time.
49% if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your life-time.
47% if you have used a mobile phone for 5 years or more and have had more than 5,479 calls in your life-time.
50% if you have used a mobile phone for 5 years or more and have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours.

And if you live in a rural away from major cities area your risk increases by . . .
81% if you have made more than 18,996 calls in your life-time.
96% if you have a life-time exposure of more than 1,035 hours.

. . . since towers are farther apart, mobile phones have to emit higher levels of radiation to communicate with the nearest antenna.

Get off the damned phone!

Snert Snert's picture

[url=http://www.thestar.com/parentcentral/education/schoolsandresources/artic... debate, then reject, wireless ban[/url]

 

Quote:
"Microwaves used to be scary and we got over that. And if the World Health Organization says there's no threat from exposure to wireless levels here in Canada, I think we should not limit it for students"

 

remind remind's picture

Yep we should always trust the WHO. They are not concerned about filling their pockets with tax payer dollars afterall.

Pages

Topic locked