Parents Sue School Over Use of Wi-Fi Network

ZZZZZ.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 11:52 · Score: 1, Funny

Can't type...radiation...killing..me

Re:ZZZZZ.... by serial+frame · 2003-10-09 12:20 · Score: 1

Rubbish! If anything, the wifi makes you stronger (in the USA, anyways)!! I can already type faster after transferring many hours of death metal over wifi! And it sounds better, too! I can also see the crumbs of Taco Bell meat wedged in my keys, now, too!

Woo, try 802.11a sometime...

--

-
And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"

they worry about THIS?! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 11:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

So wifi signals fuck up kids brains and that's worth suing over. But the fact that the school probably has an insecure wifi network letting all their children's information lay available to anyone who wants to crack into the system and grab it doesn't phase them?

Re:they worry about THIS?! by Poofat · 2003-10-09 12:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

Little billy's immunization record and the grade on his essay about trains aren't really super-sensitive information.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by wo1verin3 · 2003-10-09 12:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Little billy's immunization record ..... aren't really super-sensitive information.

You don't consider personal health information sensitive? That disturbs me.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by ameoba · 2003-10-09 13:03 · Score: 1

Actually, in the US, there -are- rather strict laws regulating how medical (HIPAA) and academic information (FERPA) is to be kept confidential.

--
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by eln · 2003-10-09 13:25 · Score: 1

Well, yes. I think if I had to choose between my kid getting a brain tumor and my kid's immunization record getting out, I'd have to choose the latter. I'm pretty positive every other parent on Earth would make the same choice.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by eln · 2003-10-09 13:31 · Score: 1

To clarify, I'm not trying to say that wi-fi causes brain cancer, I'm saying these parents probably think it does, and to refute the grandparent's main point, just about every parent will be more concerned about what they consider to be serious health risks to their children than the confidentiality of information about their children, particularly information that is of dubious value to anyone else anyway.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by kbeast · 2003-10-09 14:09 · Score: 1

You forgot to mention the microwave ovens throughout the school, or better yet-- The CAFETERIA FOOD!

I'm sure the parents have a few microwaves in their house..I'd love to sit in front of their house and wardrive and shove my 30db antenna up their ass

--
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right-- But They Make Me Feel A Whole Lot Better
Re:they worry about THIS?! by wo1verin3 · 2003-10-09 14:12 · Score: 1

>> Billy takes a certain pill every day at a
>> certain time and someone found out.

And what if they found out he had cancer? or was dying and his parents wanted him to live as normal of a life as possible?

Or if this followed him through life, stop being an asshat.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by chedderslam · 2003-10-09 16:51 · Score: 1

>> Or if this followed him through life,
>> stop being an asshat.

Should this bee two sentences?

I'm confused, but i don't blame your sentence structure. Please help?

/buzz buzz
Re:they worry about THIS?! by connorbd · 2003-10-09 17:28 · Score: 1

The fact is that if people knew something about physics, this would be dismissed in a heartbeat. Granted RF in large doses can harm you -- standing in front of a directional antenna pumping out, say, a few thousand watts will do a fairly good job of cooking your eyes like a boiled egg. But there are different kinds of radiation. Virtually all radio signals have longer wavelengths than visible light, and while some can create the same heating effect as a microwave oven, it's not ionizing radiation, which is what tears molecules apart and causes cancerous gene mutation.

Ionizing radiation -- which starts somewhere in the purple range and includes ultraviolet and x-rays -- can cause cancer, because it directly causes chemical change in the body. RF can't do that, and powerlines (a mere 60Hz) can't do that either, no matter what some class-action lawyer tries to tell you.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by wo1verin3 · 2003-10-09 17:30 · Score: 1

Sorry, I was ranting at the time. You can blame my poor sentence structure.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by sniggly · 2003-10-09 18:26 · Score: 1

There are a lot of studies done on the health effect of radiation, recently one in the netherlands about the health effects of 3g cellphones. http://silicon.com/news/500018/1/6241.html
Even if it isnt ionizing radiation it can obviously still be harmful. If someone feels ill and there is no scientific reason for that person to feel ill it doesn't mean that person isn't ill. Apples fell even before newton theorized gravity.
Electrical fields and EMR cause magnetic fields whose health effects are pretty much unknown. Dismissing something in a heartbeat because it doesn't fit your theology of science really isnt very helpful :P

--
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by Sj0 · 2003-10-10 01:08 · Score: 1

Still wrong. Many students have to take a pill every day, and it's the fabulous wonder-drug I like to call Ritalin.

Now...what could someone do if they were told how to get this often-abused drug? I'll leave that up to your imagination.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by chedderslam · 2003-10-10 01:40 · Score: 1

haha, sorry, I was a bit drunk and just playing with you. I applaud you on your polite reply to an obvious, though good natured, troll. Cheers,
Re:they worry about THIS?! by connorbd · 2003-10-10 16:06 · Score: 1

Well, as I said, it can cook you -- the microwave oven was invented because of a guy who found a chocolate bar in his pocket had melted while he was standing near a radar tube.

The fact is that the EMF thing has been studied in horrific detail, and nothing statistically significant has been found; in fact, the guy who started the whole microwaves-cause-cancer thing based his conclusions on the idea that the government was doing most of the research and therefore the data couldn't be trusted. He had his conclusion already mapped out before he did his reporting, which is sloppy journalism at best; it doesn't even get into bad science territory, never mind accurate scientific data (check out Voodoo Science by Robert Park for more on it).

As for the 3G thing... well, we'll have to keep an eye on that. For all anyone here knows, it might be one anomalous study out of a dozen, and future research will discount it for one reason or another. The body does run on electricity, true, and it's possible for EMF to disrupt that; otherwise we wouldn't have EEGs and defibrillators. But the specific issue here is about cancer risks, and all I see here is a bunch of greedy lawyers and undereducated parents.
Re:they worry about THIS?! by sniggly · 2003-10-11 05:57 · Score: 1

Undereducated I don't know. Gullible perhaps. I could name a dozen well educated people who upon learning of some lawsuits and some studies would try to get wifi banned in their childrens schools. They wouldn't have received a good education in physics but nevertheless. Occurs to me most if not all people really have an insufficient understanding of modern society generally. You understand your own specialty and for the rest you have to trust others to understand theirs and come to the right conclusions. I think debunkers often focus too much on making the uneducated look like morons which is very counterproductive especially if you have a few good speakers/lawyers that find a constituency in those declared morons. Interesting convo... too bad slashdot moves so fast by the time i have time to reply to anything convos have usually totally died down.

--
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.

But these by tarquin_fim_bim · 2003-10-09 11:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

same brats carry mobile phones, I bet $2.

Re:But these by zoobaby · 2003-10-09 11:58 · Score: 1

or stand 6 inches away from the microwave waiting for thier frozen dinner to cook.
Re:But these by rifter · 2003-10-09 12:26 · Score: 1

or stand 6 inches away from the microwave waiting for thier frozen dinner to cook.

And when it is cooked, they trot their lazy asses in front of the gigantic television to be bathed in its radiance for 6 hours while not reading or ding homework. NO they do not read or do homework. That is the point.
Re:But these by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 15:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

They should also stop using their microwave!! Lord knows how much 2.4 Ghz rf energy it might be leaking into the house...

And yes, microwaves operate on pretty much the same freqs as wi-fi. lol

And god help those people if they have a 900 Mhz or 2.4 Ghz cordless phone!!! They probably all have cancer by now! LOL!!!

Stupid people... the world is full of them!!
Re:But these by racermd · 2003-10-09 17:00 · Score: 1

Never mind that the common microwave oven and the majority of cordless telephones found in the parents' homes are stronger than a computer's wireless NIC. I'll put even more money on the fact that most of them have one of each. Heck, I get knocked off of my .11b network at home every few hours when my Moto-branded 2.4GHz phone decides to scan for unused channels while it has nothing else better to do. I'm close to switching one or the other to the 5GHz spectrum, and it'll probably the phone (hello .11g!).

I think someone at the school needs to do some FUD-bashing in a hurry before this catches on in other districts across the land. Anyone else remember the big deal with high-voltage, high tension power lines running through neighborhoods allegedly causing all sorts of medical problems in children a number of years back? As I recall, cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities, etc., were all blamed on them because there was no other commonality (and placebo and dumb-luck never crossed their minds). Is it just me, or is technology inherently bad until proven otherwise to some people? Sheesh!

--
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Re:But these by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 18:27 · Score: 1

I have been reading the posts by the "intelligent" /. community on this topic with some interest. Most of them sound like spoiled teenagers hurling insults of one form or another against the parents who initiated the lawsuit.

Here is my take on this: This is not about whether Wi-Fi networks are health hazards or not, but rather the right of the parental community to exercise control over potential health hazards. What is wrong with that? The argument posed by many that the kids are somehow losing out by not having Wi-Fi is ridiculous; I can think of several things more important and this should also be the core of the argument.

And the other popular argument about other sources of radiation being present is just as silly. Just because there are other sources doesn't mean that you can't do anything about any of them! Statements like "they probably use cell phones" or "microwaves are even worse" are pure speculation. It is easy to create a fictious person and then create a fictious argument to make you look good. For all we know, these parents may be well aware of all the other forms of radiation out there and are taking whatever precautions they can. (I don't have or need a cell phone or a microwave -- and there are many others like me out there)

If this action prompts independent scientific studies into radiation exposure or raises awareness of the issue, I consider this a good thing.

I just can't understand the mentality of the posters here -- they seem to religiously protect every piece of "technology" using irrational behaviour while labelling anyone with a dissenting opinion a Luddite. Sounds like a description of fanaticism to me.
Re:But these by orcrist · 2003-10-09 22:51 · Score: 1

Here is my take on this: This is not about whether Wi-Fi networks are health hazards or not, but rather the right of the parental community to exercise control over potential health hazards.

Is 'potential' defined as every uninformed fear someone has? If 5 parents were to define light bulbs as potentially dangerous would that justify removing all the light bulbs in the schools?

Statements like "they probably use cell phones" or "microwaves are even worse" are pure speculation

The first one might be speculation, though it is a reasonably good guess, statistically. The second is not what people here are saying. They are (mostly) saying if such radio waves were harmful, then microwaves must be worse. I think most people with a clue about physics are saying neither is harmful.

If this action prompts independent scientific studies into radiation exposure or raises awareness of the issue, I consider this a good thing.

You mean like the radiation coming from them durn lightbulbs ;-)

I just can't understand the mentality of the posters here -- they seem to religiously protect every piece of "technology" using irrational behaviour while labelling anyone with a dissenting opinion a Luddite. Sounds like a description of fanaticism to me.

Is it fanaticism to dismiss, say, arguments in favor of the flat-earth view out of hand? I think most people here are arguing from a standpoint of at least some knowledge of physics. These parents are taking the view that because it is 'radiation' (insert spooky music here) it is 'potentially' harmful which is reactionary and, yes, luddite.

-chris

--
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence

Sad by captain_craptacular · 2003-10-09 11:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unfortunately, the school district will now have to expend a significant amount of money to defend themselves against these bogus charges. Money that could otherwise be spent for some better cause such as, lets see, educating our children?

--
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security

Re:Sad by focitrixilous+P · 2003-10-09 11:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

You obviously haven't attended school in a while. This will probably get them a referendum to pay for the defense, as well as a hefty bonus for the superintendent who "saved the gift of technology for our children." Unfortunetly, the schools themselves get nothing but wifi.
Imagine 30 1st graders with laptops and 1 teacher. Or, imagine a beowulf cluster of broken laptops with snot on them, it's the same thing.

--
SAILING MISHAP
Re:Sad by tarquin_fim_bim · 2003-10-09 12:07 · Score: 1

education!

I think you'll find that's tuitification

GWB.
Re:Sad by tomstdenis · 2003-10-09 12:10 · Score: 1

or.... edumication.

Eddication...

Edsucation

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:Sad by h00dLuM · 2003-10-09 12:17 · Score: 1

liberty for security deserve neither?
so seatbelts restrict your movement.. toss 'em. I prefer to drive into oncoming traffic, it's my right to be free.
More on-topic, cel phone towers also don't tend to spam children with hardcore porn and i doubt the 12 year old "class admin" can effectively block innappropriate content ...
Maybe the parents real concern would be laughed off, while paranoid "health concerns" actually get attention.
Re:Sad by cptgrudge · 2003-10-09 12:25 · Score: 1

Imagine 30 1st graders with laptops and 1 teacher. Or, imagine a beowulf cluster of broken laptops with snot on them, it's the same thing.
Indeed. My employer, a school district, just bought wireless labs for students. Already we've had a dozen in for repair that have been dropped/broken or otherwise destroyed.

--
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
Re:Sad by captain_craptacular · 2003-10-09 12:26 · Score: 1

Right, so you would deny an opportunity to hundreds of children so that you could thumb your nose at the school board and say "neener neener, I need more money or I won't even try"?

Remind me again why you aren't a super?

--
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
Re:Sad by Mod+Me+God · 2003-10-09 12:28 · Score: 1

A Beowolf cluster of snot-covered mortars made by 1st graders is a thought indeed. Let us hope the 1st grade militia do not travel to Washington DC to make their case to congress...

--
-- FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
Re:Sad by cgb8176 · 2003-10-09 12:37 · Score: 1

In many counties in the USA, the school board (as well as the county itself) will have a lawyer/firm on retainer for a fixed price. His/her job will be to represent the school board in all legal matters. This is how it is handled in my county, as well as with the school board in my county.
Re:Sad by captain_craptacular · 2003-10-09 12:39 · Score: 1

OK, so what if parents sued because the books had chemically bleached paper. So the original AC then says "fine, I can't afford to fight it and organically bleached paper is too expensive, so no more books". How would you have learned to read then? Would you have recieved the same quality of education?

--
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
Re:Sad by scoove · 2003-10-09 12:41 · Score: 5, Informative

expend a significant amount of money to defend themselves against these bogus charges

Unfortunately this appears to be what happens when you combine a society fixated with junk science with a political class ruled by trial attorneys.

The State of Missouri had an issue a bit more than a year ago with a state legislator that was trying to get all communication towers banned. The reason? "It might harm children." A few folks did some research on the legislator pushing the bill and guess who one of his largest financial supporters was? Incumbant local telephone companies (the competition to wireless providers). Save the children unfortunately has become code for political and legal system payola.

Unfortunately this poster touches on the reality of the current US legal nightmare: many defendents cannot afford the fight for what is right due to the complete lack of financial accountability of irresponsible plantiff attorneys and their clients. I'm predicting the school will back out and turn off their wireless devices. Their students will lack the access to information that other students might have. Unless other parents get vocal and oppose this luddite activity, they'll further the progress of their children towards a future job at Burger King.

Per the allegation that the school has been ignoring evidence that electromagnetic radiation from Wi-Fi networks poses health risks, I'd invite the luddite parents and their attorneys to have a radiofrequency engineer show them what the airwaves in the classroom (or better, at home) look like. 802.11b/a/g is background noise compared to many of the narrowband signals out there. Better shut off the FM, AM and TV broadcasters immediately. Throw away that cellphone (you don't hold that anywhere *near* your head, do you?) Better start packing candles in the kids lunch bag... those fluorescent lights are little RF monsters ("to quote: while the intentional radiation of fluorescent light tubes lies in the visible light range, such tubes also generate very low levels of microwave and RF white noise (Mumford, 1949)... microwaves? That's not a classroom lit by fluorescents, it's a Easy Bake Oven from Hell!). Lock up the school TV sets - what do you think that gunnplexer is firing at your eyeballs? Get weather, aviation and police radar shut off immediately (sure hope that speeder doesn't crash into the school bus). And god forbid you have one of those Air Force E-4B 747's fly over your home as they do mine... one of those bastards wipes out my TV amplifier every time it flies over my farm! Heck, we haven't even thought about RF experiments like HAARP that can probably melt a human in milliseconds!

Of course, the final step for the trial attorneys and their luddite clients will be banning the ultimate producer of raw RF. Once that's done, we can all rest assured that no RF deathrays will harm us.

*scoove*
Re:Sad by sketerpot · 2003-10-09 12:44 · Score: 1

Wi-Fi doesn't spam children with hardcore porn. Perhaps you're getting it confused with unfiltered email or certain instant messaging services which are banned from just about every elementary school I know of. Could it be that your real concern is baseless?
Re:Sad by grasshoppa · 2003-10-09 12:45 · Score: 1

Money that could otherwise be spent for some better cause such as, lets see, educating our children?

Good placement of the question mark. See, in my district, they spend the bare minimum on the schools, and the rest magically dissappears.

We've had, on average, one board member a year arrested for stealing money from the budget. While most districts are not so bad, I would hazard a guess and say corruption is not an uncommon thing.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Sad by stripe · 2003-10-09 12:46 · Score: 1

The kids probably get more radiation exposure from their cell phones and from watching TV than from the schools Wi-Fi network! If I remember correctly the wi-fi hubs are one of the biggest sellers in the HOME market! Not business and not schools! I would not be too surprised to find wi-fi networks in the homes of some of these kids. They better shut them down fast before someone smart ass lawyer scans their homes for Wi-Fi broadcasts.
Re:Sad by jjhlk · 2003-10-09 12:55 · Score: 1

The kids' education will be fine, even without WiFi! The real comp sci students get produced at home, anyway. I cannot imagine how WiFi would improve my college education even. (I'm not defending them, though)
Re:Sad by nsample · 2003-10-09 13:00 · Score: 1

Your "interesting" post was hillarious! Thanks for the laughs! Your one source that says WiFi signals are background noise got their information from:

"WLANA and its sponsor members would like to thank Enterasys, a Cabletron Systems Company, for the information provided in this paper."

And Enterasys sells what again? Oh yeah, wireless products.

Too funny. Thanks for the laughs.
Re:Sad by salesgeek · 2003-10-09 13:02 · Score: 1
Money that could otherwise be spent for some better cause such as, lets see, educating our children

LOLx2. Educating children is the last thing that most schools spend money on. From what I've seen the top costs in a school are usually:
- Facilities - new taj mahal buildings
- Capital equipment - busses, computers, fixtures, etc...
Teachers come third...

Gotta have priorities.
--
-- $G
Re:Sad by dattaway · 2003-10-09 13:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Light dimmers and motor controllers are major offenders found around the house that would put a shielded microwave oven to shame.

We better shut off the electric grid. Start thinking of the children for God's sake.
Re:Sad by NanoGator · 2003-10-09 13:22 · Score: 2, Funny

"Per the allegation that the school has been ignoring evidence that electromagnetic radiation from Wi-Fi networks poses health risks, I'd invite the luddite parents and their attorneys to have a radiofrequency engineer show them what the airwaves in the classroom (or better, at home) look like."

It'd be amusing (though unlikely) if the school filed child abuse charges with the parents who brought up the case, citing that they owned cell phones.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Sad by taped2thedesk · 2003-10-09 13:32 · Score: 1

Reminds me of a great joke by lewis black... something like "The people of Alabama sued the state for having the worst schools in the country... this means... the people of Alabama... sued themselves!"
Re:Sad by the_2nd_coming · 2003-10-09 13:47 · Score: 1

you obviously have never worked in School administration.

what will happen is that the district will stop using the system becasue it can not waste the money on the suit.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:Sad by GreyPoopon · 2003-10-09 14:08 · Score: 1

citing that they owned cell phones.
Or, as mentioned earlier, TV sets. A much greater possibility I would think.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Sad by elmegil · 2003-10-09 14:13 · Score: 1

Wrong. They already got the money in a referendum last year.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:Sad by DeputySpade · 2003-10-09 14:32 · Score: 1

Wow. I never thought I'd seem the day some moron tried to equate seatbelts with the PATRIOT act. *sigh*

--

This space intentionally left blank
Re:Sad by Carmody · 2003-10-09 14:39 · Score: 1

Their students will lack the access to information that other students might have. Unless other parents get vocal and oppose this luddite activity, they'll further the progress of their children towards a future job at Burger King.

Why did you have to go and sully such an intelligent, thoughtful post with silly hyperbole?

You know, I have a hunch that it is possible, possible, if a teacher is sufficiently brilliant, to get an elementary school education without a wireless connection. A good enough education that it actually is a step AWAY from Burger King.

--
God is real unless declared integer
Re:Sad by Igmuth · 2003-10-09 14:48 · Score: 1

Light dimmers? What sort of radiation is emmitted by a reostat? Unless this is some sort of high tech dimmer that feels the need to ramp the 60Hz (or maybe 50 depending on the country) up to a few hundred kilohertz, just to convert it back again.
Re:Sad by fenix+down · 2003-10-09 14:54 · Score: 1

Shit, for a second I thought that said titification. Not sure what that would be, but I think I'd enjoy it.
Re:Sad by aggieben · 2003-10-09 14:56 · Score: 1

Well said, friend. I was going to post something like this, but you stole my thunder. Now I only need to post to compliment you.

--
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
Re:Sad by fenix+down · 2003-10-09 15:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, but you had non-Lynne-Cheyneyified books back then. Without internet, all they're going to come out with is that the Vietnamese torpedoed the Maddox at Tonkin and George Washington had a tragic neurological disease that prevented him from lying.
Re:Sad by mobets · 2003-10-09 16:16 · Score: 1

microwaves. They might claim the the cell phone or TV is on a different (harmless) frequency, but microwaves output the same frequency as wifi.

--

It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 16:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Lighting dimmers (the typical type used in homes) are NOT rheostats!

A typical (cheap) lighting dimmers is rated for about 600 watts of connected load. (You can get fancier ones rates for 1200 watts or more.) A rheostat capable of handling a 600 watt load is about 8" in diameter and 2" thick! (Hint: it wouldn't fit in the little rectangular J box used for home light switches and dimmers. Not to mention the fact that a high power rheostat dissipates the unused electrical current as heat - something it couldn't possibly do if crammed into a J box on a wall surrounded by fiberglass insulation.)

So how does the typical home lighting dimmer work, you ask? Well, it uses a solid state switch known as a TRIAC and a technique known as "phase control" to chop up the AC waveform. Basically, a timer circuit is reset at zero crossing (the start of an AC half cycle) and waits for a portion of the half cycle before switching on the TRIAC. If the delay is equal to one half of the half cycle, half the AC waveform is delivered to the connected lights, which glow at about half brightness.

A waveform with a relatively sharp edge is created when the TRIAC switches on part way through the AC cycle meaning lots of harmonics which ultimately means the wire running from the dimmer out to the lights acts as antennas and spew out the upper harmonics as RF / EMI. The harmonics are greatest when the half cycles are chopped in half (when the dimmer is set at approximately high brightness) - if you listen closely lighting dimmers buzz (mechanical vibration due to the lower harmonics) and you will actually notice this buzzing is at its worst around half brightness.

There is a related (patented) technique called reverse phase control that is built around a relatively new type of switching transistor called an IGBT. Same basic idea but (as the name implies) in reverse - instead of the half cycle starting in the off state and switching on part way through, it starts in the on state and switches off part way through. The elimination of the sharp turn on edge significantly reduces the harmonics generated.

The reverse phase control patent is owned by the Rosco theatrical products company (used in their IPS lighting control systems.) You can imagine that the harmonics generated by a typical theatrical lighting system (often up to 100,000 watts of lighting being controlled) can be a serious problem. (So much of a problem that electrical panels with oversized neutral buses are required to prevent the neutrals from melting and special power factor correcting transformers are required to prevent this noise from contaminating the rest of the AC system.) Anyway, the reverse phase control eliminates most of this problem - it also results in smaller equipment cabinets, less fan noise due to lower heat production, etc. Pretty neat.
Re:Sad by AZhun · 2003-10-09 17:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

And the old 50s floriscopes used for shoe fitting killed millions!

Yes, they were dangerous and yes, they did damage; it is the extreme other side (well, except for guys going on shoreleave thinking that the new RADAR thing would kill sperm or diseases so thay'd buy time in front of the energized antenna - zap -- God some of your people hold down the low end of the bell curve!)

Yes, your points are well placed. Examples of de-evolution. Here is more.

From the radicals demonstrating in '68 came the death of Eisenhower's education initiative for Scientific and Engineering education post-Sputniki. As steps were taken not to make'm too brite no mor. Dey hump rifle, go 10 bang-bang real good den.

What we see are ever lowered standards since 1968.
Follow the trends most of the textbooks are from an approved list coming out of some bent Texas board. McGuffy readers from the one room schoolhouse up through the later 19th Century are better. Than the bent askewed stuff now.
Want to have fun: download the Ontario standards and class cirriculum for High School it reads like most 4-year liberal arts degree down here.
Its not that they're so smart it what ours was in the heavy industry areas like the Rust Belt and New England because you couldn't get a job, keep the factories going or build new enterprises without it. Let alone enage in the Cold War.

Of course since coming to AZ from the rust belt I am still in shock -- as here as near as I can tell Arizona exists to make Mississippi and Alabama look good.
Why these lame lawsuits -- education and knowledge has been replaced by myth and ignorance.

On the Republic's gravestone: THEY GAVE IT AWAY.

--

AZhun
a bright tomorrow comes by new mistakes not by repeating the old ones
Re:Sad by dattaway · 2003-10-09 17:08 · Score: 1

Good information in there. :)

There is a related (patented) technique called reverse phase control...

They patented a high frequency switching power supply with filtering? Unbelievable. I'm in the wrong business.
Re:Sad by chedderslam · 2003-10-09 17:23 · Score: 1

TROLL? wtf
Re:Sad by glitch23 · 2003-10-09 17:40 · Score: 1

educating our children?

You mean like how to put a condom on a banana and how to find the right girls at strip clubs to spend your money on? (college level credit of course)

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:Sad by Blkdeath · 2003-10-09 18:25 · Score: 1

You know, I have a hunch that it is possible, possible, if a teacher is sufficiently brilliant, to get an elementary school education without a wireless connection.

While that may be true, why deny students access to the tools they'll be using in their day-to-day lives in future? Never before have our lives, personal and professional, been so dominated by a particular implement as the computer. While it may not be vital to their traditional "Three R's" educational model, wireless technology is now important, but soon crucial to their overall education.
Remember that the primary advantage of the public education sector is the mere fact that it makes children social. Socialization isn't vital to a child's ability to learn fractions or write prose. It is, however, vital for their survival in the Real World.

--
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Re:Sad by admiralfrijole · 2003-10-09 18:32 · Score: 1

Sad: Its great to see a sig like yours, but can you attribute it? I believe it was Ben Franklin who said it, or one of the founding fathers at any rate...

--
e to the pi i plus one equals zero
Re:Sad by mrjb · 2003-10-09 20:35 · Score: 1

> We better shut off the electric grid.
No, big brother performed an experiment with this recently and it wasn't a success.

Seriously though, after shutting down wifi there would still leave plenty of radio waves scattered around (public radio, GSM, airline communications, weather satelites,...).

I'm not saying that these parents shouldn't worry, but they're being a bit biased. The same parents are happily using cellphones and will probably see their kids using them (or even give them as a birthday present) as soon as they turn teens.

What's more likely to cause brain tumors?

--
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Re:Sad by Jellybob · 2003-10-09 21:33 · Score: 1

Sounds like you met the kids in a primary school I worked at once.

One of them was especially good, regularly screwing up the machine in their classroom by pulling wires, and pushing them back into other plugs.
Re:Sad by ponxx · 2003-10-09 21:51 · Score: 1

Surely even in the us you are innocent until proven guilty. Has anyone hit with a bogus law-suit ever tried *not* to hire a lawyer? Just go in the court room in front of the jury and say "we spend the money on trying to provide education and can't afford lots of lawyers, the charges are baseless, these devices are used everywhere in the country, don't be silly"
Re:Sad by tomstdenis · 2003-10-09 23:03 · Score: 1

How's that a troll? It's actually dead on point.

You see all these americans rallying behind bush [well not anymore but during March I was all teary eyed.... ;-)] in support of his war crimes rampage.

Now when all is said and done people want to sue already over burdened schools. It's as if americans are saying "who needs education when we got our fingers on the triggers".

And then americans wonder why other countries hate them.....shock, horror, surprise!

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:Sad by Carmody · 2003-10-09 23:26 · Score: 1

While that may be true, why deny students access to the tools they'll be using in their day-to-day lives in future? Never before have our lives, personal and professional, been so dominated by a particular implement as the computer.

I agree with you. I was responding to the previous poster, who made the ridiculous exaggeration "Unless other parents get vocal and oppose this luddite activity, they'll further the progress of their children towards a future job at Burger King." It stuck out particularly because the rest of the post was intelligent.

Why can't people discuss complex things, such as educational policy, without having to make wildass claims about the role of technology?

You say: "Socialization isn't vital to a child's ability to learn fractions or write prose. It is, however, vital for their survival in the Real World." Obviously this is true. And children have been learning socialization just fine on the playground, playing with toys and other children, for centuries. You cannot conclude "wireless technology is now important, but soon crucial to their overall education." from this. CRUCIAL? Come on, give me a break. I will grant you "NICE", I will grant you "USEFUL", I will grant you "HELPFUL" but why do you have to go and go for "CRUCIAL"? If the computers are in a computer lab, then the fifth graders will suddenly no longer be able to learn using computers and the internet? Spare me.

Think about this seriously - something can be Good without being Crucial. Banning wireless for fifth graders can be Stupid without causing them all to grow up having to work at Burger King.

I'll go further. Ideally a fifth grader should have a classroom with a small class size, a well-trained, excellent teacher, access to computers, and a wireless connection. If funding dictates that the child can only have three of the four, which do you think is the least "crucial"?

--
God is real unless declared integer
Re:Sad by killerc · 2003-10-10 00:07 · Score: 1

Their students will lack the access to information that other students might have.

Whatever happened to ethernet cable? Not that I disagree with the parent comment -- this case is complete BS -- but turning off a wireless network is not going to deprive these kids of an internet connection. In fact, wouldn't a wired network save the school district money, both in terms of hardware and maintenance?
Re:Sad by emdean091876 · 2003-10-10 01:57 · Score: 1

You see, this is why I hate people.

-- I used to think it was fun being smarter than the majority of the population. Now they just piss me off.
Re:Sad by pmz · 2003-10-10 02:00 · Score: 1

I'm predicting the school will back out and turn off their wireless devices.

Don't worry, other special interest groups will ban this case from the school's future history books, so once you forget this happened everything will be just fine.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Sad by multimed · 2003-10-10 03:17 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, the school district will now have to expend a significant amount of money to defend themselves against these bogus charges. Money that could otherwise be spent for some better cause such as, lets see, educating our children?
Hopefully they could get the WiFi alliance or some other WiFi trade group to foot the bill and lend their scientists & research. For them it would be a chance to prove in court and by extension public opinion that WiFi is safe, so they should do it for free. Of course you're right it is unfortunate the school would have to waste their resources on this rather than books & teachers but I guess on the other hand, the school district is roughly guided by the intentions of the parents so if a group of parents wants to them to spend money this way--may they get what they're asking for. Now if it were my district, I'd be pretty pissed and would have a conversation or two with the them.

--
Vote Quimby.
Re:Sad by Blkdeath · 2003-10-10 05:27 · Score: 1

You cannot conclude "wireless technology is now important, but soon crucial to their overall education." from this. CRUCIAL?

More and more wireless technology enters our lives. Hospital staff carry wireless tablets with them to dispense medicine and/or other treatment. Field engineers and contractors use wireless PDAs to organize their staff, materials, scheduling, etc. For that matter - even the likes of Burger King utilize wirless technology (drive-thru headsets aside, the Interac terminals are wireless).
For a carpenter, the ability to swing a hammer with precision is crucial. It's a tool he will use every day in his line of work. Same goes for a T-square or measuring tape. Wireless technology, on the other and, is pervasive in almost every line of work. Throw a rock in any major metropolitan city and you'll hit a wireless hot spot. If students aren't comfortable with and taught to use respect this equipment (not neccesarily even service it) they'll be at a defeceit walking into many new job positions.
Yes, I believe a tool that is the future of our information management in all lines of work is "crucial" to a student's future.
If funding dictates that the child can only have three of the four, which do you think is the least "crucial"?

Of course you realize in this context this is a strawman. The parents filing suit against the school board are contributing to (causing) a funding defeceit. By the logic above, they just may win their fight after the money dissapears.

--
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Re:Sad by Ironica · 2003-10-10 12:17 · Score: 1

Surely even in the us you are innocent until proven guilty.

In a criminal case. This is a civil matter, which is decided by "a preponderance of the evidence."

Has anyone hit with a bogus law-suit ever tried *not* to hire a lawyer? Just go in the court room in front of the jury and say "we spend the money on trying to provide education and can't afford lots of lawyers, the charges are baseless, these devices are used everywhere in the country, don't be silly"

Well, you have to answer the paperwork, first. And you have to follow the court guidelines. If you screw that up, then you lose the lawsuit by default. It's usually not a task that people want to leave to their free hours on the weekend... it should be done by a professional.

Also, judges worked hard to get where they are, and they were lawyers first. So they have a certain respect for the system, and anything that seems disrespectful isn't likely to sit well with them.

What's that Voltaire quote? Something about the poor having access to the courts the same way the Christians in ancient Rome had access to the lions? While government agencies aren't exactly poor, they also have nothing in the way of disposable income... since every cent has to be accounted for to their employers (i.e. their constituents).

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?

These parents deserve congratulations... by Tisephone · 2003-10-09 11:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

Not because their argument is right, but because they are actually seeking a solution instead of just obscene amounts of money. It's very refreshing, isn't it?

--
"Neque enim lex est aequior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire sua."

Re:These parents deserve congratulations... by cmowire · 2003-10-09 12:07 · Score: 1

Of course they are going to *say* that to the press. Saying that you want loads of money isn't going to get you any mass publicity, except as a nutter.

--
Gentoo Sucks
Re:These parents deserve congratulations... by slugo3 · 2003-10-09 12:10 · Score: 1

well its hard to ask for damages if there are none.
this just seems stupid to me, either way its bad for the school. they probably have the Wifi so they didnt have to spend the money to wire the buildings with cat5. so now they get to waste money on legal defense and possibly wire the schools as well if they loose. also they could be stuck with wireless equipment that they have already purchased but wont be able to use.
wifi is all over in both business and home so I hope these parents keep there kids away from say starbucks which has wireless hotspots. will they sue their neighbor when they find out they have a WAP?
Re:These parents deserve congratulations... by adrianbaugh · 2003-10-09 14:43 · Score: 1

It depends whether you think that seeking a solution to a non-existent problem is commendable, I suppose. As other posters have pointed out, the EM emission from a wifi network is tiny compared with other sources of EM; even for cellphones, which have been intensively studied, the only effect some researchers have possibly found is a slight improvement in recall. Until a researcher somewhere comes up with a half-way believable theory of why wifi emissions should be damaging or a pretty believable study to show that they are, this is just a waste of time and money.
Given the far greater amount of EM exposure from other sources there would have to be something pretty special about this frequency to cause such low levels to be harmful. Given it isn't any of the H2O resonant frequencies I suspect there isn't anything special - Occam's razor again.

--
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.

do these people have a sense of perspective? by rillopy · 2003-10-09 11:53 · Score: 1

I think they should worry about not crashing their cars and other more likely means of death.

Umm?? by dcstimm · 2003-10-09 11:54 · Score: 5, Informative

2.4ghz Cordless phones use the same freq! What are these parents smoking?

--
keanmarine.com

Re:Umm?? by japhyr777 · 2003-10-09 12:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Wait until they find out about Baby Monitors... That'll get them worked up..

All those hours of the day the poor baby was taking in the radio waves. Possibly right next to it's head. Bzzzzt..
Re:Umm?? by GammaTau · 2003-10-09 12:01 · Score: 4, Funny

2.4ghz Cordless phones use the same freq! What are these parents smoking?

I don't know... but whatever it is, don't tell the kids. It might be bad influence.
Re:Umm?? by OneOver137 · 2003-10-09 12:11 · Score: 1

I've used this little fact a few times when folks get paranoid over "radiation" from cellphones, laptops, and (while at a much lower frequency) powerlines. Just think about the myriad brain cancer cases roving this planet due to the lowly cordless telephone!
Re:Umm?? by SKPhoton · 2003-10-09 12:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd like to see the results of some wifi-crazed person setting up pringles cans and pointing them in all sorts of directions and sitting in front of the cans for hours on end.
Re:Umm?? by sunrein · 2003-10-09 12:34 · Score: 1

The lawyers for the school district should find out if they have a cordless phone in their house and charge the parents with reckless endangerment. Tee hee...
Re:Umm?? by MegaFur · 2003-10-09 12:54 · Score: 1

(fnord) Marajuana has been known to occasionally cause paranoia, but I think what these parents are on is the Standard American Paranoia Trip (Concerned Mom Flavor). You get high on it after watching a lot of American Media, espcecially your local news. It works best if you give up trying to critically analyze things and start acting like a knee-jerk marionet puppet. *sigh*

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Re:Umm?? by Exiler · 2003-10-09 12:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, for one thing they'd be pretty confused. "All these cans and my signal STILL doesn't reach?!"

--
Banaaaana!
Re:Umm?? by LocoSpitz · 2003-10-09 13:26 · Score: 1

Know how much that matters? Not at all. The microwave is thousands of times more powerful than a Wi-Fi device.
Re:Umm?? by gfilion · 2003-10-09 13:31 · Score: 1

2.4ghz Cordless phones use the same freq! What are these parents smoking?

So do microwave ovens! And they emits spurious emissions of several watts. Seriously, after years of research, the only proven effect of radio frequency exposition is temperature elevation of the body, the rest is just FUD.
Re:Umm?? by ctk76 · 2003-10-09 13:42 · Score: 1

thanks for the great idea! i'll get myself a 2.4ghz cordless phone from all phone manufacturers and sue all of them for failing to properly displaying the possible health risks. i can quit my job!
Re:Umm?? by r.future · 2003-10-09 15:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I do tech support for Belkin and I get no fewer than about 4-6 calls per day (I take 35-40 calls in an 8 hour shift)where a person will say something such as

"my wireless card will stop working randomly for no reason all the time."

The first question out of my mouth is do you have any cordless phones? When they say yes, I ask if they are 2.4GHz or 900MHz

if/when the person says "it's a 2.4" and I tell them that their phone will cause some interference most people are absolutely shocked.

Anyway, it's a great point to make, I wonder if it will come up in the court case.

I can just see the lawyer for the school district pointing out that the parents use the same technology that they think is so unsafe in thir homes.

-r.future

--
Note: this has been posted by r.future (a person who spends way to much time on the internet!)
Re:Umm?? by ACorvus · 2003-10-09 22:45 · Score: 1

The first line from that "study":

"Break down of the human life energy field or chi."

Sounds exactly like every other bit of quack paranoia on the net!

--
-- Sig Sig Sputnik
Re:Umm?? by Virtex · 2003-10-10 03:35 · Score: 1

2.4 GHz? Why would you need a phone that runs that fast? My pokey little desktop runs just fine at 1 GHz. The software in those things must be *really* bloated.

BTW, anybody know what the radio frequency is for those phones?

--
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.

I wonder how many parents ... by tomstdenis · 2003-10-09 11:54 · Score: 1

in the suit have cell phones, watch TV or have a computer [um, like monitors give you a warm feeling if you sit too close. That isn't because windows is friendly!], drive SUVs, eat fast food, use individually used products, swiffers, etc, etc, etc...

Fuck.

Stupid people. Why don't thse people sue the school for using windows? That's more hazardous to their health.

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Re:I wonder how many parents ... by tomstdenis · 2003-10-09 11:56 · Score: 1

"invidually used".... what the fuck?

invidually wrapped or single use... I think I meant one of those... :-)

All this 2.1Ghz Athlon radiation.... [speaking of which doesn't a 2.4Ghz P4 make the same RF band as Wi-Fi [albeit prolly lesser RF singal coming at people]

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:I wonder how many parents ... by bobertlo · 2003-10-09 11:58 · Score: 1

lol bet the parents stupidity is more hazardous than the little waves
Re:I wonder how many parents ... by tomstdenis · 2003-10-09 12:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Well there has to be RF leak, see jackass electrons going though wire makes a magnet field...RF low and behold is essentially many electrons going over a wire called an "antenna".

Now a 2.4Ghz clock over the copper inside a cpu would be a 2.4Ghz RF signal [or a multiple of it]

Good thing you finished yer grade 8 science...

Are all trolls on /. this stupid or just you specifically?

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:I wonder how many parents ... by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · 2003-10-09 13:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, technically speaking, if all the wires in the CPU are treated like transmission lines and properly terminated, the emission should be negligable. It's only when you have traces resonating at the clock rate that problems occur.
That said, modern clock distribution nets look more like big grid antennai with massive amplifiers (several watts of the 70W that an average CPU uses goes to clock distribution) powering it. So it does radiate quite substantially.

--
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
Re:I wonder how many parents ... by tomstdenis · 2003-10-09 14:07 · Score: 1

Well I really doubt you could pick up [with say a radioshack freq counter] a cpu running from more than 10 cm away.

My point was there is a field [albeit small] that is produced from the cpu. Keep in mind the power going through any one wire is *very* small.

Tom

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Re:I wonder how many parents ... by nolife · 2003-10-09 14:36 · Score: 1

if all the wires in the CPU are treated like transmission lines and properly terminated

Considering the size and density of a CPU and 2.4Ghz having a wavelength of 125mm, do you really think wavelengths are a design factor?

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:I wonder how many parents ... by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · 2003-10-10 01:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Considering how many kilometers of wire the average clock distribution net contains, it easily might be a design factor. The real issue is still one of poor termination, though, because even without resonance you can still radiate quite a bit of power.

--
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!

I guess they should sue the FCC, too. by fruity1983 · 2003-10-09 11:54 · Score: 2, Funny

For allowing the use of cellphones, FM and AM radio, wireless telephones and hey! How about power lines, too?

--
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.

Re:I guess they should sue the FCC, too. by John+Hasler · 2003-10-09 12:08 · Score: 1

How about any object warmer than absolute zero?

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:I guess they should sue the FCC, too. by pla · 2003-10-09 12:08 · Score: 1

I guess they should sue the FCC, too.

I would expect they need to sue the FCC as well... Since the FCC has permitted the use of 2.4GHz for various purposes, doesn't that place the burden on this group of parents to demonstrate some direct health hazard?

Idiots, the lot of 'em.
Re:I guess they should sue the FCC, too. by Esion+Modnar · 2003-10-09 12:10 · Score: 1

Internal combustion engines, nuclear power, steam engines (all that wood smoke). All radio frequency emissions, from AM to microwave. Catscans, MRI, X-rays. Let's get rid of all that evil technology.
Sound like technophobic luddite minivan-driving soccer moms to me. Have these people actually paused to think what might happen to the state of their health if a bunch of geeks' wireless toys got taken away as a direct result of their lawsuit? Like the dog chasing after a car's tires, suppose he actually managed to get his teeth in there?

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...

Stupid Parents by virex · 2003-10-09 11:54 · Score: 1

i'm all for parents being involved in their childs developement.....but this is retarded. sounds like the parents need education more than the children...

Re:Stupid Parents by mOoZik · 2003-10-09 12:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why does this surprise you? The average person is a moron. Yes, I said. The average person doesn't understand technology and its effects at the same level that /.ers do. They get their information from the mainstream news, which equally is stupid and irresponsible and instills fear in people for ratings. What a wonderful world we live in, eh? A world of ignorance.

--
A blog like any other.
Re:Stupid Parents by JustAnOtherCodeSerf · 2003-10-09 14:39 · Score: 1

HEY! You callin me stupid?!

--
-=sig=-
Re:Stupid Parents by Guppy06 · 2003-10-09 14:42 · Score: 1

"The average person is a moron."

And half of them are even dumber than that!
<RIMSHOT/>

" They get their information from the mainstream news"

While we, the "enlightened few" get our news from fine, reputable sources like Slashdot and blogs! And Slashdot. Oh, wait, that last was a dupe...
Re:Stupid Parents by LuckyPhil · 2003-10-09 14:50 · Score: 1

The average person is a moron
What is even scarier, is that if the average person is a moron, then half of the population is even dumber than that.
:)
Re:Stupid Parents by stochasticprocess · 2003-10-09 20:28 · Score: 1

Philip Larkin captures this situation beautifully in his poem Ignorance (1955):

Strange to know nothing, never to be sure
Of what is true or right or real,
But forced to qualify or so I feel,
Or Well, it does seem so:
Someone must know.

Strange to be ignorant of the way things work:
Their skill at finding what they need,
Their sense of shape, and punctual spread of seed,
And willingness to change;
Yes, it is strange,

Even to wear such knowledge - for our flesh
Surrounds us with its own decisions -
And yet spend all our life on imprecisions,
That when we start to die
Have no idea why.
Re:Stupid Parents by ross+axe · 2003-10-09 21:42 · Score: 1

Note on terminology: Mean, median and mode are all averages. In a mathematical context, does usually mean mean, if you see what I mean. When you say 'average person', however, you generally mean typical, i.e. modal.
Re:Stupid Parents by nospmiS+remoH · 2003-10-10 01:58 · Score: 1

Come on, TV's, TV signals, radios, flouresent lights, cell phones, cordless phones, police radios, power lines, computer monitors, microwaves, remote car entry keys, satellites, two way "family" radios, baby monitors CB radios, GPS, ON-Star(R), dopplar radar, air traffic control, garage door openers, "Atomic" radio clocks, hairdryers, power saws, drills, copy machines, electric pencil sharpeners, radio controlled cars and airplanes, wildlife tracking collars, alarm systems, marine radios, aircraft navagation beacons, space communications, XM Satellite radio were all fine, but Wi-Fi is obviously too much for the poor children to handle. For the love of god, THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

--
!hoD
Re:Stupid Parents by mdielmann · 2003-10-10 03:31 · Score: 1

Wow, you really put things in perspective for me. I've always thought tthat the average person is pretty dumb, but even dumber than the average slashdotter? Unreal. I mean, we're talking about people who use words that didn't even exist 5 years ago (i.e., Wi-Fi) and definitions for other words that are outdated by at least 50 years (i.e., piracy). And the average person is dumber than that?!? All I can say is...wow.

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?

Welcome to the 21st by agent+dero · 2003-10-09 11:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the 21st century, radio, UV, and all sorts of electromagnetic waves float around us. These schools are not sticking unborn fetuses in microwaves, they are simply putting up a radio network.

Why not sue the sun because it's barraging Earth with all these bad rays, sue cell phone companies for placing cellphone towers where your children may be. Sue HOT 95.5! for transmitting that crappy music.

Go get your aluminum foil beanie already.

--
Error 407 - No creative sig found

Re:Welcome to the 21st by c0dedude · 2003-10-09 12:03 · Score: 1

Wait, are you saying we can sue HOT 95.5 for playing crappy music? That sounds like a good idea!

--
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Re:Welcome to the 21st by Smidge204 · 2003-10-09 12:18 · Score: 1

Go get your aluminum foil beanie already.

Are you crazy?! Didn't anyone ever tell you not to put metal objects in the microwave?!
=Smidge=
Re:Welcome to the 21st by spoco2 · 2003-10-09 12:19 · Score: 1

sue cell phone companies for placing cellphone towers where your children may be
Um... Actually...
Re:Welcome to the 21st by Dumbush · 2003-10-09 18:10 · Score: 1

"Why not sue the sun because it's barraging Earth with all these bad rays, "

you don't get the point, don't you?

It's pointless to sue the sun. What can you possibly get out of that? Not even one cent!
Re:Welcome to the 21st by Marc2k · 2003-10-09 23:33 · Score: 1

1. Unborn Fetus
2. Microwave
3. Pre-warmed stem cell monopoly
4. Profit!

--
--- What
Re:Welcome to the 21st by Mr+Guy · 2003-10-10 00:46 · Score: 1

Perhaps he's implying they have enormous microwaves that bake the whole womb.

--
Never confuse volume with power.

Sewiouswy? by GregThePaladin · 2003-10-09 11:55 · Score: 1

BWAHAHA! Oh, that's rich.

Hmmm....Hope these parents by zoobaby · 2003-10-09 11:55 · Score: 1

Keep their kids away from wi-fi hotspots like Starbucks. Or better yet, they need to sue Starbucks too.

paranoia by hashish · 2003-10-09 11:55 · Score: 1

Are they Armish? Do they have no microwave, television, stereo, mobile phone etc at home?

Re:paranoia by AvengerXP · 2003-10-09 12:13 · Score: 1

You just gave me an image of a jewish guy in a camouflage suit. Armish hahaha

--
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!

This is what happens... by miketang16 · 2003-10-09 11:56 · Score: 1

... When people with money and lawyers get bored, in America.

--
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell

Duh... by WearyWanderer · 2003-10-09 11:56 · Score: 1

Not to mention florescent lights which are regularly used in public schools.

Re:Duh... by WearyWanderer · 2003-10-09 12:11 · Score: 1

http://www.mercola.com/article/emf/emf_dangers.htm

How about Cordless Phones by joelil · 2003-10-09 11:57 · Score: 1

I bet Every parent in the lawsuit has a Cordless Phone in there house. And if i am not mistaken the Frequency on the cordless phones are close to that of a WI-FI network. So why not sue themselfs for using Cordless Phones in there Homes.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Re:How about Cordless Phones by El · 2003-10-09 12:13 · Score: 1

Yep, microwaves, newer cordless phones, and even baby monitors are all in 2.4 Ghz range... the resonant frequency of water, so it's useless for outdoor communication. (Older cordless phones may be 960 MHz.)

--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Re:How about Cordless Phones by Igmuth · 2003-10-09 15:03 · Score: 1

Not really.. Here Though it is the frequency used by microwave ovens. Which makes me really wonder how healthy cordless phones (2.4GHz at least) can be. The power is very low, but all the means is you are slow cooking.
Re:How about Cordless Phones by El · 2003-10-10 05:29 · Score: 1

I stand corrected. 2.4 Ghz is not the resonant frequency of water. However, it is a frequency range that tends to be absorbed by H20 molecules, resulting in conversion to heat. This is why it is the frequency used in microwaves, and why it is less then perfectly usefull for outdoor communication, especially when it is raining (which here in Oregon is almost all of the time. So please don't move here. No, really -- we have too many software engineers here already!)

--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

its bad but ... by earlums25 · 2003-10-09 11:57 · Score: 1

its nice to see someone suing for action not money.

Alright, its dumb

soo...... by xao+gypsie · 2003-10-09 11:57 · Score: 1

if i work around access points and am surrounded by wireless routers in my apt complex, am i gonna get a low sperm count? if yes, can i sue my boss and get his first child?

xao

--

xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org

Re:soo...... by atomicdragon · 2003-10-09 13:36 · Score: 1

Seriously, this is the one thing that makes me think about these claims of the danger of EM radiation in this energy range. There are large numbers of network people that are around this equipment for long periods of time. The techonology might not have been used long enough to see the effects, but the damage can't be too large. Even more so I think of physicists who are probably exposed to much stronger sources of this stuff, and it seems like they don't have too many problems with it. Even nuclear physicsists who work with real radiation seem to do ok without significant increases in health problems (excluding those overexposed due to accidents, etc, like Curie). Some of the equipment I work on must put out a lot more power then wireless access points or power lines, so I guess I will find out years from now whether I get cancer or not...
If any of this stuff does contribute to cancer, it would probably be a small effect that would be hard to see above the background from other sources and normal cancer rates. I remember a statistician friend showing that looking at the number of people with brain cancer and use cell phones was actually lower than the what is expected from normal cancer rates. I haven't looked much into it, so I don't have any solid sources on the topic.

Tinfoil hats by Carnildo · 2003-10-09 11:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Does anyone have the address of these people? I've got a load of tinfoil hats they can use to protect their children!

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.

Re:Tinfoil hats by nsample · 2003-10-09 12:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

The parent post is a pretty funny comment, and one that should be appreciated by the majority of the /. readers. However, as a new parent, a scientist, and a PhD, I'll admit that I too have worries about WiFi and growing children. And I don't wear a tinfoil hat.

We had a WiFi network in-home before my son was born, but removed it during my wife's pregnancy. We *still* have a cordless phone, but stepped back to 900MHz. Why? Well, there's enough evidence out there to say that it's worth it to worry. We don't have a complete story, and that's the issue. Unfortunately, there were no equivalent localized high frequency sources in homes and schools 30 years ago. We don't have enough data to say definitively one way or another that something's safe or not.

And that's what scares the shit out of parents. We don't know enough to rule anything out yet. I know enough that I wouldn't live next to a cell tower, even though I'll risk holding a cell phone to my ear just about everyday. However, when it comes to my kids, I don't take that chance.
Re:Tinfoil hats by gfburn · 2003-10-09 13:11 · Score: 1

Tinfoil?! Don't you know how danagerous wifi is?

They'd settle for nothing less than lead.
Re:Tinfoil hats by Moofie · 2003-10-09 13:35 · Score: 1

I'm not telling you how to run your life, and I respect your right to do whatever you like in your home.

However, if you put your kids in a car, I think you might have disproportionate assessment of the risks posed by low-power high-freq radio.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Tinfoil hats by metamatic · 2003-10-09 14:22 · Score: 2

I assume you don't have a microwave oven. Even with the shielding, those things leak enough microwaves to drown out a WiFi network.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:Tinfoil hats by alienw · 2003-10-09 14:31 · Score: 2

If your cellphone functions inside the house, you are getting roughly as much (or more) RF from the tower as from a WiFi point. Now factor in all the other sources (satellites, microwave ovens, walkie-talkies, nearby cellphones, communcication towers, police radio, pagers, regular radio and so on). Obviously, a single wifi point does not matter much.
Re:Tinfoil hats by tgibbs · 2003-10-09 16:52 · Score: 2

Well, there's enough evidence out there to say that it's worth it to worry.
I would be more worried about flying saucers, for which there is about the same level of evidence. And there certainly is not enough evidence to rule them out as a danger, either. The good studies of non-ionizing radiation show no effect, the studies that show harm are small and generally show tiny effects of marginal statistical significance under circumstances where there are numerous potential artifacts and biases. And it is very hard to come up with even a remotely plausible hypothesis for how non-ionizing radiation could be harmful at all--and if it was, how one such source could make an appreciable difference considering the large number of sources in our society.
Re:Tinfoil hats by ChicagoBiker · 2003-10-09 18:47 · Score: 1

I live 10 miles from there. I could probably find out.
Oak Park Illinois is *not* exactly known for it's "hipness" or overly "evolved" citizenry. It's mostly a low rent blue collar *plumber* & *auto mechanic* suburb of Chicago's West Side. Lots of IROC Camaro's on the streets in front of the apartment converted townhouses.
Sounds like the people bringing this suit should move a little farther North to Niles IL, where the Mayor of that town went on a personal crusade for years trying to sue AT&T Wireless from putting up cell phone towers inside the city limits of Niles. Even though AT&T has three retail stores there that do a brisk business and who knows how many countless residents that use the phones.
Re:Tinfoil hats by HeghmoH · 2003-10-09 21:23 · Score: 1

Your Ph.D. is in English, and you're a "scientist" because you ask interesting questions in your Creation Science seminar at church, right?

Otherwise, if you're a "scientist" because your Ph.D. actually involved science, please tell me which university you went to so I can avoid it.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:Tinfoil hats by theonetruekeebler · 2003-10-09 23:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Welcome to being a new parent in a new era, because you're certainly talking like a parent rather than a scientist: "We don't have enough data to say definitively one way or another that something's safe or not." Safety is the absence of danger, and when is there ever enough data to prove the absence of a phenomenon? And thirty years ago, between your 1960s color television and the flourescent lights in the supermarket where your mother, pregnant with you, filled up her cart with fatty, chemical-laced foods, you were being exposed to a hell of a lot more radiation that your Wi-Fi, and believe me that's the least of the environmental poisons you were exposed to in 1973. Yet you still managed to grow up to get a PhD.
There's a lot of money to be made by scaring the shit out of you. When it comes to technology, the magic words are "there is not enough evidence that this product is safe". Remember when they were screaming that power lines were killing babies? Remember when saccharin was killing babies? Remember when Y2K was going to kill all of us and our babies?
Try this: "There may be a link between measles vaccinations and autism". Okay? Now, wrap your scientist mind around that word "may". It means non-zero probability, so good luck disproving the proposition. And I hope your math skills are up to the task of comparing the "may" above to the "may" in "measles vaccinations may prevent measles", because I made that up about autism. Scared you, though, didn't I? So welcome to the new era of parenting.
And the fearmongers are never going to shut up. Twenty year studies that turn up no statistically significant link between their pet fear and reality obviously didn't look long enough or hard enough. They like the attention, and their lawyers like the money.

--
This is not my sandwich.
Re:Tinfoil hats by theonetruekeebler · 2003-10-09 23:19 · Score: 1

It appears he received his PhD in computer science from Stanford University. I gathered this information by clicking the link right below his username.
When I clicked the link below your usename, I got a picture of a teddy bear wearing sunglasses and a quote from Hermann Goering.

--
This is not my sandwich.
Re:Tinfoil hats by HeghmoH · 2003-10-09 23:36 · Score: 1

You forgot the picture of the space shuttle and the poem from Jacques Prevert. Of course the poem is easy to ignore if you don't understand it, but I like it.

You also totally missed the point of the "teddy bear" (actually Winnie the Pooh); he's holding a Chinese flag! This one is supposed to merely be amusing.

The Goering quote, on the other hand, is just supposed to be scary. I don't know if you got "the point" of this one; I'm not even sure if there is a point. I put it there because I thought it was interesting and thought maybe it would make people think.

In any case, I withdraw my derisive commentary about the poster's university and replace it with the following derisive commentary: it just goes to show that lots of smarts in one area doesn't mean a thing about smarts in another area.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:Tinfoil hats by theonetruekeebler · 2003-10-09 23:52 · Score: 1

it just goes to show that lots of smarts in one area doesn't mean a thing about smarts in another area.
A valid observation.
I don't know much about Prevert, but to me the poem was about sitting in a coffeehouse and posing, which I've seen (and done) enough of and I'm not sure it's any more impressive when done in French. I've never read French poetry less than a hundred years old; clearly I've lost the ear for it.

--
This is not my sandwich.
Re:Tinfoil hats by turnage · 2003-10-10 01:01 · Score: 1

I'm glad we didn't have wi-fi when I was in high school. We needed every brain cell still living.
Re:Tinfoil hats by Stuntmonkey · 2003-10-10 01:55 · Score: 1
However, as a new parent, a scientist, and a PhD, I'll admit that I too have worries about WiFi and growing children. And I don't wear a tinfoil hat.

By coincidence I am also a new parent and a PhD (physics), and I understand firsthand your concern for your baby's safety. But consider the following:
1. Out of all the possible risks to your baby (SIDS, disease, falling, choking, etc.) where would you estimate WiFi exposure to be, on a ranked list?
2. The health impact of microwaves is one of the more intensively studied questions and yet there is still no statistically significant correlation. Doesn't this fact alone imply something about the answer to question 1?
3. Have you ever heard of a reasonable mechanism for low-frequency EM radiation to cause damage to biological tissue (beyond the heating effect, of course)?
4. How many more studies would have to be done for you to accept the no-correlation hypothesis?
Re:Tinfoil hats by straybullets · 2003-10-10 02:08 · Score: 1

oh yeah well, on the other hand Geneticaly Modified Organism are ACTUALLY going to kill us all ... it's quite proven and quite too late already.

--
With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
Re:Tinfoil hats by pmz · 2003-10-10 02:11 · Score: 1

fatty, chemical-laced foods.... Yet you still managed to grow up to get a PhD.

Fatty foods are good for children (up to a point, of course). I'm worried that modern kids might be put on low-fat diets by stupid parents and grow up retarded.

And by fatty, I mean things like whole meats, peanuts, etc. and not moon pies and french fries.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Tinfoil hats by BenEnglishAtHome · 2003-10-10 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's a lot of money to be made by scaring the shit out of you.

Truer words were never spoken. I remember when I first woke up to this fact. I was just a kid, watching Donohue's talk show. He was interviewing people who were imploring the public to be more cognizant of the possibility that their kids could go missing. Without specifics, they were giving the impression that there were pervy kidnappers around every corner, just waiting to snatch your kids, abuse them in unspeakable ways, and then sell them into sexual slavery.
Then one of the guests said that 50,000 kids go missing every year and something clicked in my brain. It may have been the fact that this guy dropped such a horrible statistic and the program then cut to a PSA for the organization he represented, a PSA begging for donations. But, more likely, I think it was that the Vietnam war had not been long over and we'd had 50,000 casualties in that war. Everyone knew someone with a family member hurt or killed in Vietnam. But I didn't know anyone whose kid had been snatched off a playground by some old man in a dirty raincoat.
I did some research. The horrifically inflated figures the guy was spouting included runaways, throwaways, kids living with non-custodial spouses, and a huge measure of just plain old exaggeration. The best data that I could find, from the Illinois State Police (the first law enforcement agency to really study the problem) was that true, non-family, non-ransom, oh-my-God-some-perv-just-grabbed-my-little-boy-off -the-playground abductions happened somewhere between 50 and 150 times a year in the U.S.
That's really bad. I'd be willing to give money to any organization that could help put a dent in that problem. But any organization that feels the need to pander for donations by scaring the crap out of everyone gets nada from me.
Of course, those of you old enough to remember will recall that in the late 1970s through the mid-1980s, the fear-mongerers won. We went through a long period where the media would have had us believe that Satanic child molestors were everywhere. Thank goodness everyone eventually realized that was all a bunch of bunk. Now, we've settled down to just a simple, constant state of excess paranoia.
Re:Tinfoil hats by bs_02_06_02 · 2003-10-10 03:17 · Score: 1

Are these people hypocrites?

I'll bet these people drive cars. In fact, I'll wager that they don't always obey the speed limit, or they don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Driving a car is one of the riskiest things you can do.
To me, it seems that people are selective about what they worry about. They want the freedom to go out and risk their lives (and others) on the highways, yet they want to complain about the possible risk of wi-fi to their kids.

I wonder if any of these parents smoke? Do they eat fast food? Drink alcohol? Do they work out? What kind of fertilizer and/or pesticides do they use around the house?

--
-- No sig for you!
Re:Tinfoil hats by AB3A · 2003-10-10 05:03 · Score: 1

Very well, Dr. Sample. I accept your expertise in software. Now will you please pay attention to someone with a couple decades of experience as an electrical engineer?

Many researchers have been working since the very beginnings of radio, trying to see if there are any unknown effects that might be RF induced. To date, besides the well known thermal effects, there have been no repeatable experiments suggesting anything else.

Now I know you want to see proof this sort of thing is SAFE. But proof of safety is difficult because the very definition of safety is a political definition, not a scientifically certain group of conditions.

Because of this fuzzy and moving definition, you have to realize that safety is a very individual thing. For example, there are weather conditions in which I choose not to drive to work. However, others might. There are no absolutes in the business of safety.

If you feel, after reviewing at least five decades of serious research, that there are still a few unanswered questions regarding exposure to RF, then you are in a very small minority of experts on this subject. However, if you haven't read this research, and you still feel that there are things that aren't known well enough to make a decision, then I strongly encourage you to please do so before making such uninformed comments.

You have more to fear from your kid sticking these things in to the Microwave Oven than you do from casual use of a cell phone.

I am a father of three myself. Relax. Your child will be weird. All kids start off that way. If you're lucky, they'll get over it when they leave home and strike out on their own. Until then, if you're going to be concerned over trivial stuff like this, I've go this really cool bridge I want to sell to you...

--
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
Re:Tinfoil hats by theonetruekeebler · 2003-10-10 10:42 · Score: 1

In 2002 there were about 160 by-stranger kidnappings of children under the age of twelve by strangers. In the vast majority of the cases the child was returned unharmed; often, a car thief steals a car with a child sleeping in the back seat.
The biggest risk to a child's life is her mother's cell phone: she's talking on it rather than paying attention in traffic. No, that's a tad glib. But car accidents kill about 18,000 kids a year, yet I still won't let my children trick-or-treat unsupervised.

--
This is not my sandwich.

What a waste of money by doomdog · 2003-10-09 11:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

Schools are always short of money -- not enough for textbooks, teachers, better facilities, computer upgrades, etc... And now they're being forced to spend money on lawyers to defend themselves against a lawsuit brought up by a few ignorant parents??? Yeah, that's a great way to spend the education budget...

If we had serious tort reform in this country where the losing party had to pay the legal expenses of the winner, these kinds of stupid lawsuits would never be filed in the first place...

Re:What a waste of money by ponxx · 2003-10-09 22:05 · Score: 1

are you saying that's not the case? So if i'm rich and you're poor, I sue you, loose, and you're bankrupt? Surely not...
Re:What a waste of money by StikyPad · 2003-10-10 04:15 · Score: 1

If we had serious tort reform in this country where the losing party had to pay the legal expenses of the winner, these kinds of stupid lawsuits would never be filed in the first place...

Oh that sounds great. I'm going to become a civil lawyer now. All I have to do is charge $5k/hr if I win, and the plaintiff will have to pay my fees! What a deal. If I lose I can drop my rates to something more reasonable, like $500/hr.

Lookout RedHat! If you lose your case against SCO, you'll be paying their legal fees as well. Oh, and you'd better start upping your donations to the EFF, or pray they don't lose any of their cases.

Reform indeed.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:What a waste of money by doomdog · 2003-10-11 13:15 · Score: 1

You know, for sarcasm to work, you first need to understand what you're talking about....

Radio waves by ruiner13 · 2003-10-09 11:58 · Score: 1

Ok, let's get rid of radio and broadcast TV too, it uses the electromagnetic spectrum as well. Hell, don't let the kids out in the daytime, those electromagnetic sun waves are a killer (skin cancer). Give me a break. This suit should be dropped faster than little boys pants at the neverland ranch.

--

today is spelling optional day.

Radiation... by WeblionX · 2003-10-09 11:58 · Score: 1

But doesn't radiation sharpen your memory?

--
(\(\ (=_=) Bani! (")")

Re:Radiation... by sparc_ · 2003-10-09 12:17 · Score: 1

>But doesn't radiation sharpen your memory?

It does if it makes the human brain running at a higher temperature. But the power of these WiFi emitters is so low, you'd have to be pretty damn close (1 inch?) to get any effect.
So it is very unlikely that this will cause any damage. This is what happens when the economy is bad, people without jobs, with nothing whatsoever to do try to find stuff to keep themselves busy...
Sad, really sad.
Re:Radiation... by mOoZik · 2003-10-09 12:40 · Score: 1

Even if you put it against your ear (like a cellphone), the change in temperature is only about 0.01 degrees Celcius. That is rather insignificant. Besides, cell phones can be up to 4 watts (usually much less, though), while most WiFi units are less than 1 watt. These people should be worried more about the microwave screen failing then WiFi. Such ignorance!

--
A blog like any other.

Nihil novi sub sole. by SharpFang · 2003-10-09 11:58 · Score: 1

When railways were introduced, stations were built far away from towns "because cows would stop producing milk".

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Ugh by c0dedude · 2003-10-09 12:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

The plantiffs claim to have over 400 articles about the harmful effects of radiation such as WiFi, yet cite 0. I know this is just the beginning of the case, but this seems like a scare tactic, get rid of it and lose $0 or we'll keep going and you'll lose more. The basis of the scientific method is query and data replicability. If you don't query and produce not one datum, you aren't scientifically proving anything, you're making a political statment. The style, but not the substance, of this article, troubles me greatly.

--
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?

Re:Ugh by Trepalium · 2003-10-09 12:32 · Score: 1

For harmful effects of 2.4GHz radiation, you need look no farther than your microwave oven. Exposure to that radiation will literally cook something. However, try as they might, I don't believe they've ever managed to link microwave ovens to any kind of cancer. Most wi-fi products use less than 1/10000 or 1/33333 of the power of any microwave, and I'd bet more radiation than escapes from just about any microwave oven that's been used for a while than you'd get from being near a wi-fi product..

--
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Re:Ugh by c0dedude · 2003-10-09 13:24 · Score: 1

Yes, but you know it's more complicated than that. Remember, the dose makes the poison. Is there a tolerance to low level radiation or is any exposure harmful? This is the central question. Also, the microwave example is limited exposure. These kids would have prolonged exposure. I don't pretend to know the answer, but I don't think that precludes asking the question. While I don't know, my gut is that you're right and 2 seconds of microwave == 2 years of wifi.

--
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Re:Ugh by atomicdragon · 2003-10-09 13:24 · Score: 1

I've heard stories of sailors using microwave based radar as a heat source when on cold trips. They would stand around the radar unit and get warmed slightly by it. The greatest danager was not really being cooked, but was damage to the eyes as they are suppose to have inefficient internal cooling, so heat easily builds up. I'm not sure how true this is, but heard it from a coast guard officer as a warning for installing radar on boats.
Re:Ugh by hawaiian717 · 2003-10-09 14:35 · Score: 1

The plantiffs claim to have over 400 articles about the harmful effects of radiation such as WiFi, yet cite 0.
SCO should sue the parents for using their legal tactics without a license.

--
End of Line.
Re:Ugh by afidel · 2003-10-09 16:02 · Score: 1

You're talking about multi-thousand Watt radar installations vs 100mW max wifi cards. I worked in a building with hundreds of wifi cards and base stations for years and suffered no effects. Many of my clients had been working on wifi and its predecessors for decades and none of them suffered ill effects (out of 185 none suffered from cancers, statistically lower than the national average). I wouldn't advicate standing in front of radar stations as good for your health but I have seen ZERO scientifically valid reports or papers showing a linkage between wifi/cellphone/other low power RF sources and cancer. It's like the high voltage powerline scare a decade ago, one badly done statisticall sampling was disproved by several hundred followup scientific studies. Cancer is the modern boogyman, it's horrible and with the exception of smokers it is often unexpected so people look for something to blame. The fact is that human DNA is not meant to withstand the environment as long as we live today.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Ugh by atomicdragon · 2003-10-09 22:47 · Score: 1

I think that was the point I wanted to make. That there are people exposed to levels way beyond what comes from household/office equipment, and the damage is still minor. Like claiming hitting people with toothpicks causes cancer, then observing that hitting someone with a baseball bat will do some direct damage, but still does not seem to cause cancer.
Re:Ugh by Idarubicin · 2003-10-10 00:53 · Score: 1

The plantiffs claim to have over 400 articles about the harmful effects of radiation such as WiFi, yet cite 0.
Indeed. How many of those 400 articles (give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they exist) are publications in peer-reviewed journals?
I've heard variations on this theme for years (non-ionizing radiation from source X will kill your children/cause brain tumours/make you vote Republican.) Someone, somewhere, publishes an obscure paper in an obscure journal on the effects of massive doses of radio waves on cell culture, and draws a cautious conclusion about possible risk (they have to say this--you don't get more funding if you say that everything is fine and you don't need to do more research).
After the publication of this journal article, so-called journalists descend on the unsuspecting researcher, and result in a flurry of media attention. Presto! The other 399 articles--none peer-reviewed and which all cite (usually inaccurately) the original paper.
This sort of journalism is also very popular in reporting on cancer research. I've lost track of the number of times we've cured cancer in the last ten or twenty years. At least this usually doesn't lead to lawsuits. Don't get me started on the measles/autism legal vultures.

--
~Idarubicin

if Wi-Fi is dangerous by aws4y · 2003-10-09 12:01 · Score: 1

Then they can sue pretty much every one on the planet for poisoning there kids. I mean, radio stations, high voltage powerlines,microwaves,cordless phones.(I bet most of these families own a microwave.) And if there really that all they have to do is wrap there kids head in tinfoil. It would be 100% effective in blocking thoes evil radio waves. (see: Fariday cage)

--
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com

This is beyond ridiculous by MoceanWorker · 2003-10-09 12:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Only in this country would you expect to find people sueing a person/company/organization/etc.. for such trivial nonsense.

As I type this post right now, the monitor in my room, my radio, lights, cell phone, speakers are all giving off radiation. Not to mention, objects in my room (i.e. fork) are strengthening these signals.

Radiation is around us.. everywhere.. We can't stop it. The big question on hand is, do we sacrifice technology and all its benefits for the risk of potential radition which may or may not hinder ones health and/or possibly lead to cancer?

Please, out of all those parents sueing.. how many of them smoke, have 5 TV's in their house, drive a car, use a computer, etc.. you get my drift.

I hope there's somebody out there in Illinois who can smack those parents around a bit.. and I think I say this for most of the /.'ers..

--

"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins

Re:This is beyond ridiculous by jvagner · 2003-10-09 12:23 · Score: 1

What, exactly, is it about "this country" that it would be the only place such a lawsuit would get filed?

I don't entirely disagree, but I think it's a slightly overused expression.

Let's stick with, only in "this country" do handguns kill 11,000+ people per year. Now we're on to something.
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by RayBender · 2003-10-09 12:35 · Score: 1

Only in this country would you expect to find people sueing a person/company/organization/etc.. for such trivial nonsense.
I would tend to disagree. There are many cases in Europe where people have many more irrational fears of modern technology; power lines, cell phones (ever noticed how everyone has these shouldder bags with a special pocket for the cell phone, held away from the head?), GM foods, nuclear power, etc etc.
It's true that there is more litigation in the States; but the Luddite fears are as common in Europe.

--
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by AnotherBlackHat · 2003-10-09 12:53 · Score: 1

Let's stick with, only in "this country" do handguns kill 11,000+ people per year. Now we're on to something.

Only in this country are the odds of not being killed by a gun %99.994

Compare that with Brazil, where your chances of avoiding gun violence is only %99.975,
or Italy, where it's %99.999.

Yep, neither of those is %99.994. Truly this is a unique country.

-- this is not a .sig
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by an_mo · 2003-10-09 12:59 · Score: 1

I don't remember the details, so somebody can fill in but in Italy there is a law that protects citizens from high voltage power lines, and forces the electric company to move those lines underground or elsewhere if they pass over somebody's house.

All of this based on pseudo-science claiming that magnetic fields generated by power lines may be cause health risks.

Even the vatican was sued a couple of years ago because their radio transmitters were on top of a hill next to an elementary school.
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by Webmoth · 2003-10-09 13:06 · Score: 1

I see the case as being dropped, because there is no indication of actual damages. It's my understanding that usually you have to suffer damages in order to have a case.

It's possible to argue a case to prevent damages from happening (think: restraining order), but there must be a reasonable understanding of risk, which is not present with wireless devices.

I!=L&&/.!=L
I am not a lawyer and neither is Slashdot

--
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by Some+Dumbass... · 2003-10-09 13:40 · Score: 1

Radiation is around us.. everywhere.. We can't stop it. The big question on hand is, do we sacrifice technology and all its benefits for the risk of potential radition which may or may not hinder ones health and/or possibly lead to cancer?

While I don't agree with this particular lawsuit, you've got to admit that this is a valid question. In general, of course, you can ask this about every pollution-creating, electricity-using, impossible-to-dispose-of-safely and god-knows-what-else-is-wrong-with-it product out there. That really is something to think about before you decide to buy another blinking LED thing to make your cell phone more "pretty" or what have you.

In this specific case, would it really have been so hard for this school to use land lines? Are there any benefits to having a wireless connection? I notice that the Wired article says that the school district installed a wireless network in 1995. I wonder what kind of wireless security they had, and what kind of data they were sending over those connections... Hopefully they used some kind of encryption (but how much to you want to bet that they didn't?)

My point is that there may be more costs here than just the "increased risk" from background radiation. How much do you want to bet that a wireless network uses more electricity than land lines too? How much do you want to be that it's unreliable in bad weather? And so on...
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by LordNimon · 2003-10-09 14:13 · Score: 1

There is nothing irrational about not wanting GM foods.

--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by sowellfan · 2003-10-09 15:39 · Score: 1

I seem to remember reading about how Italians are terrified of being inside a closed room with a runnnig fan. Something about how it would suck a persons breath out. It seems like the same article mentioned how they were also afraid of air conditioning, because it poisoned the air or something. I say let them stew in their own filth if they don't want AC...just so long as I don't have to sit next to them anywhere.
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by RayBender · 2003-10-09 16:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is nothing irrational about not wanting GM foods.
It's irrational to avoid GM foods, simply because they are GM. There may be specific instances of GM foods that are bad for you (e.g. if you're allergic to peanuts, and it has a peanut gene spliced in), but to avoid the entire class of food because "it's unnatural" simply shows a lack of biological understanding. Do you avoid all plants that were cross-bred, or selectively bred?

--
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by Epistax · 2003-10-10 00:24 · Score: 1

Not to mention, objects in my room (i.e. fork) are strengthening these signals.

Damn how well does that help? There's a radiostation back home that really needs a fork.
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by danila · 2003-10-10 01:41 · Score: 1

You are a fool. Next you'll be arguing that nytrogen atoms, like those in cyanide, are harmless! But I know better and I am suing the university for not filtering the nitrogen out of the rooms. Ban the atoms!

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by Cederic · 2003-10-11 12:19 · Score: 1

It's less a comment on the specific GM food being avoided, and more a protest at GM foods in general.

Maybe your 'wheat that wont create seeds that can be planted for next years crop' is perfectly safe to eat. That tells me nothing about the 300 variants you made to get that one, and their safety. It says nothing about preventing the propagation of those variants. It says nothing about the dubious marketing tactics you're using to encourage take-up of your new wheat.

So yes, it is irrational to avoid GM foods, simply because they are GM. But it is rational to avoid GM foods, simply because of the implications surrounding them being GM.

~Cederic
Re:This is beyond ridiculous by RayBender · 2003-10-11 14:39 · Score: 1

That's an interesting point. However, non-GM selective-breeding programs create many different variants as well. Some of them can and have propapgated. I don't hear people arguing against dwarf wheat because of how it was developed. Also, ask yourself how much pesticide was used to grow your precious non-GM crop? (And don't talk to me about organic crops - they can't feed 6 billion+ mouths.) As for the dark hint about the risks in development; let me tell you, most of the stuff done in lab wouldn't survive even if it were released. And even if it did, there is no way you would have some sort of world-ending catastrophy. That is the stuff of eco-thrillers (Neal Stephenson anyone?), not real science. Nature is robust. Hell, it has taken us hundreds of years of dedicated destruction to even begin to dent biodiversity; some accidental gene release won't do squat. Of couse, I'm not arguing that we abandon caution entirely, merely that we weigh benefits and risks in a rational way - in my view the potential benefits of research outweigh the potential risks. And the guaranteed damage that will occur without GM tech definitely outweighs the potential risks.
I suspect that much of the resitance to GM foods comes from an unthinking "yuck factor" that people have when they're told about "jelly-fish genes spliced into a pig" or some such. There are others who then play up "potential risks of release" etc, making the whole thing very scary. However, it's not clear that GM foods are at all dangerous, even if release occurs. Mutations occur in the wild all the time, as does species transplantation etc. To throw out an entire field of scientific inquiry (one with tremendous potential for improving our quality of life) merely on the basis of rather poorly-founded potential risks is shortsighted and stupid. GM technology, like all technology, has benefits and risks. It should be developed responsibly, not abandoned.
Now, that being said, I do agree with you that certain biotech companies have not been responsible. I think it's downright evil to develop plants that are resistant only to your specific brand of pesticide (even if that is self-defeating in the long run, when nearby weeds gain that resistance). I also am very worried about developments that mimic those in software (patenting of genes (how that is not a discovery escapes me), licencing of seeds, and non-propagating varieties that lock poor farmers in a cycle of economic exploitation). Clearly these sorts of things need to be stopped. However, GM technology, if used well, has the potential to improve nutrition, reduce pesticide use, and provide more efficient (and less polluting) manufacturing techniques. These are real, substantial benefits. Europeans should embrace these positive aspects of GM technology, not run screaming like technophobic luddites to the nearest Green politician who plays on their fear and ignorance.
Look, we have a planet with 6+ billion souls to feed, clothe, house and provide energy for. Doing that will require very advanced technology; no amount of feel-good mumbo-jumbo about biomass energy and vegan foods will provide the standard of living we in the West are used to. If given the choice between living in Green poverty and Texas-style gas-guzzling wealth, most people will choose the latter, even if it means their grandchildren won't have a livable planet. The only rational long-term choice is to develop technology that will allow people that wealth in a sustainable fashion. That will require GM technology.

--
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?

Cluelessness by deglr6328 · 2003-10-09 12:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wonder how quickly these idiots ran to their portable phones to call their lawyers in order to file this frivolous lawsuit. It's ironic that these people who are supposed to be products of an educational system which teaches basic science(for instance, oh I don't know....the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation) is now actively participating in the promotion of their children's scientific illiteracy. Horay for the triumph of knee jerk emotional reaction over rational analysis!!

--
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"

Re:Cluelessness by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 12:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

Newsflash: the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is not "basic science" unless you feel that "upper-level university level science" is "basic science." Get off your high horse.
Re:Cluelessness by ejaw5 · 2003-10-09 12:15 · Score: 2, Informative

I recently got the privledge to try out the Tech International's CellSensor (http://www.techintlcorp.com/cellsensor.htm).

It measures Cellular radiation (range: .1-10 mW/cm2) and EMF radiation (range: 1-50 milliGauss).
I measured a Nokia 3360 of emitting ~8 mW/cm2 Cellular radiation and over 50 milliGauss EMF (outside the sensor's range). What else gives off 50+ milliGauss? 5.1 receiver, microwave in operation. Refrigerator gives off ~35 milliGauss and a table fan gives off ~40 milliGauss.

I didn't have a Wi-Fi device to measure, but yea, why don't they sue Pioneer, Panasonic, Whirlpool, Kenmore, et al while their at it. And if they're genuinely concerned, there's a number of things they should get out of their homes.

--

$cat /dev/random > Sig
Re:Cluelessness by deglr6328 · 2003-10-09 12:38 · Score: 1

mmmnope, sorry, actually it is just basic science. Electromagnetic radiation that is energetic enough per photon to eject an electron from an atom --> Ionizing radiation. Electromagnetic radiation that is NOT energetic enough to eject an electron from an atom --> non-Ionizing radiation. So yea pretty simple unless you have the IQ of a squirrel.

--
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Re:Cluelessness by geoffspear · 2003-10-09 12:57 · Score: 1

And I'm sure you're very proud of your high school, where all students were required to take 2 years of physics.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Cluelessness by Moofie · 2003-10-09 14:35 · Score: 1

Those are useful figures. However, consider that mobile phones go next to your melon, whereas refrigerators and 5.1 receivers, typically, do not.

Aside: I read once that a mobile phone earpiece with the phone at your waist doesn't really decrease radiation hitting your cranium, as the wire acts as an antenna. Is there anything to this I wonder?

I don't know if mobile phones are dangerous or not, but I am mighty respectful of the inverse square law. A refrigerator 5 feet away is very different from a phone in my ear.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

Well... by spoonist · 2003-10-09 12:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would bet serious money that these are a bunch of Soccer Moms who drive like freakin' maniacs in their minivans and feed their fat lethargic kids fast food.

"Oooh... I don't want my child hurt by WiFi."

Meanwhile they're driving their freakin' POS minivan at 90 mph down the freeway zig zagging in and out of traffic as if they were driving a sports car while screaming at their morbidly obese kids in the back who are stuffing their faces full of fast food.

And you're worried about WiFi? Come on.

Sorry for the rant. I just had to get that off my chest. Yeah, maybe these parents are very health conscious... I dunno...

Re:Well... by pmz · 2003-10-10 02:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, maybe these parents are very health conscious...

It seems many suburban moms think they are health-conscious, but in reality they are in denial about their kids passing 130 lb. in the sixth grade.

If you look in the grocery store at food marketed to suburban teens, it's clear that kids are eating crap daily (that 15% fruit "juice" peeves me to no end, and it has to be good if it says "with calcium").

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Please say it ain't so... by morganjharvey · 2003-10-09 12:05 · Score: 1

I have the feeling that these are those overly protective parents that make their kids wear tons of safety gear while engaging in extremely hazardous activities, such as walking.

We could ban tons of stuff from schools because it's 'dangerous'... Considering what people are exposed to every day, I'm suprised they went after this. While I can appreciate the whole be a good parent, look after kid's safety bit; I really don't recall anyone proving, substantially, that wi-fi poses any sort of safety risk. One can argue also that television and radio waves can also cause cancer/epilepsy/satan-worship/etc., so why not go after those too?

Just my rambling opinion...
-mo

Ban Microwaves too! by interiot · 2003-10-09 12:05 · Score: 1

Microwave ovens 1) use the same frequency as WiFi networks, and 2) give off 10 times the radiation as a WiFi network. So schools should be sued for gross neglegence if they have microwaves too! Or plaintiffs who own microwave ovens should be shot.

much too much! by E1v!$ · 2003-10-09 12:06 · Score: 1

Let's not forget EM from TV's, Microwaves, my brain, etc.

WiFi news? by gmuslera · 2003-10-09 12:07 · Score: 1

This sounded more like SciFi news. How much time before the same parents sue cellphone companies?

OMG by WebMasterP · 2003-10-09 12:07 · Score: 1

Using the same logic: Someone should tell them their new cordless phones are probably killing them!

Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie by trp642 · 2003-10-09 12:08 · Score: 1

I got one of these puppies and it has managed to keep the voices in my head at bay. Perhaps it could help those kids too...

Operated by school and effectively required by squashed · 2003-10-09 12:08 · Score: 1

The WiFi network is operated by the school, and the laptops used for Internet research at desks are for all practical purposes required.

This is therefore, in the eyes of the law, a completely different case -- with a vastly different defendent -- than in the case of the potential issue of injury from the use of cell phones.

My school dsitrict by Ledora · 2003-10-09 12:09 · Score: 1

At all the local area public schools they are paid to have cell phone towers in the school campus. I think THAT is a danger to the children more than anything eles with radiowaves but they won't take them down despite protest.

Re:My school dsitrict by flossie · 2003-10-09 12:27 · Score: 1

It has been pointed out to me previously that installing masts for mobile phones by schools may actually be beneficial; it means that the kids' phones don't have to transmit at high power to communicate with the network.
It made sense at the time :o/

--
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Re:My school dsitrict by Ledora · 2003-10-09 12:32 · Score: 1

glad it saves my battery power.... :) I don't worry about wifi I can barely get a signal to start with but being 10 feet from a cell tower 7 hour 5 days a week for 180ish days a year kinda disturbs me.

I assume then... by El · 2003-10-09 12:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

that these same parents never use baby monitors, cell phones, cordless phones, microwave ovens, or cathode ray tubes, as these all emit radio waves which pose a risk to their children? And that their houses are also sheilded against stray RF from power lines, the Sun, and even outer space? In other words, they must live in caves with only a wood fire for heat and light?

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Owww! My brain! by jlowery · 2003-10-09 12:10 · Score: 1

I will be sueing all of mankind for emitting dangerous electromagnetic radiation from their heads! Only those with flatline electroencephalograms will escape my litigious wrath!

--
If you post it, they will read.

Stupid humans by Izago909 · 2003-10-09 12:10 · Score: 1

I hope none of these parents use cordless phones, TVs, microwave ovens, chlorinated tap water, computers, or folding chairs at home. God knows WiFi is 100 times worse than that healthy radiation comming from the TV or monitor.

The intergenerational propagation of stupidity by Aardpig · 2003-10-09 12:11 · Score: 1

Dumbass parents sue school
School spends lots of money on lawsuit
School unable to spend money on education
Children of dumbass parents do not get proper education
Said children grow up as dumbasses themselves
???
Profit!!!

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.

Re:The intergenerational propagation of stupidity by KoshClassic · 2003-10-09 12:19 · Score: 1

Ah, a small flaw with your sequence - I think (and hope) its more like this...

1. Dumbass parents sue school
2. School spends lots of money on lawsuit
3. School unable to spend money on education
4. Dumbass parents place their kids in other schools
5. Parents of remaining children wonder why school doesn't have money to educate their kids.
6. Parents of remaining children sue the aforementioned dumbass parents for depriving their children of a decent education

--
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
Re:The intergenerational propagation of stupidity by dissy · 2003-10-09 13:38 · Score: 1

What I would like to see:

1. Dumbass parents sue school
2. School spends lots of money on lawsuit
3. School then sues parents for endangering their childrens lives at home with microwaves TVs and radios.
4. School has parents children taken away from them and parents issued jail time.

Once the president is set, may as well use it to an advantage...

floride by delirium+of+disorder · 2003-10-09 12:12 · Score: 1

Wait till these tinfoil hat wearing parents hear about floridation.

--
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.

They should become Amish by retro128 · 2003-10-09 12:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I suspect that once they heard that WiFi uses the same frequencies as microwave ovens they got worried. Too bad the power output of WiFi at the antenna is 1/10000th of what a microwave runs at. Maybe they should sue to shut down all radio stations, all cell networks, all electrical stations, and all TV's.

The parents need to be clued in on some wonderful news: It's impossible to escape RF radiation. As a beginning electronics hobbyist, one day I was playing with my new oscilloscope and touched the metal part of the probe, and a very rough waveform came up on the screen. Wondering what it was, and having a hunch, I plugged my function generator into the secondary inputs and set it to 60Hz sine, and guess what, they matched. My body was acting as a giant antenna for the RF waves coming off the electrical lines in my house. I'd write more, but I've decided to sue Socal Edison.

--
-R

As if that LAST LAWSUIT WASNT PETTY ENOUGH by falcon5768 · 2003-10-09 12:14 · Score: 2, Funny

I have a feeling this one is going to go just about as far as the electric lines over the school deal did.

Lawyer "There is no tests that prove they are safe"

Judge "You use your cellphone about once every half hour right?"

Lawyer "Yeah"

Judge "Have you gotten a tumor yet?"

Lawyer "No"

Judge "There's your proof its safe asshole"

course if only the real world was this easy

--

"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

Re:As if that LAST LAWSUIT WASNT PETTY ENOUGH by rice_web · 2003-10-09 12:58 · Score: 1

But of course, if that were to ever happen, legal analysts would question, "There's your proof its safe asshole". If the judge were to neglect the comma after safe, it would appear as though cell phones are actually safe assholes, and would set an awkward precedence in court cases.

I could see it now:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, just imagine the effect of holding an asshole up to your ear, let alone 10,000th the power found in a microwave! 10,000 filthy, entrenched assholes every time you want to cook some food! This is not the America I learned about in elementary school."

--
The Political Programmer
Re:As if that LAST LAWSUIT WASNT PETTY ENOUGH by G-funk · 2003-10-09 13:13 · Score: 1

If you're to be a grammar nazi, do it right! You forgot the apostrophe in "it's" you insensitive clod!

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:As if that LAST LAWSUIT WASNT PETTY ENOUGH by andrewmc · 2003-10-10 00:08 · Score: 1

Counterexample:

Smoker: There are no tests that prove smoking is safe

Cigarette company: But you smoke twenty a day, right?

Smoker: Yeah.

Cigarette company: Have you got cancer yet?

Smoker: No

Cigarette company: There's your proof it's safe asshole.

Do you still think the world is that easy? In this case, I think most would disagree.

They have no idea by jcsehak · 2003-10-09 12:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

My father works on the electronics systems on the latest military aircraft, and he mentioned once, a year or so ago, that one had a box that would report on all the different signals coming in through the air -- radio, TV, cell phones, whatever; and when he turned it on without any filters, the screen just kept scrolling. He couldn't believe how many there were.

I have to wonder that if someone evolved to be able to percieve more than just the visible light spectrum or regular sound waves, they'd go crazy, thinking they heard voices in their head. Then I have to wonder if at least some people who are "crazy" don't simply percieve some of these signals, and their brains don't know how to process the information.

--

c-hack.com |

Re:They have no idea by StarFace · 2003-10-09 12:27 · Score: 1

Interesting theory, except that people have been hearing voices since long before the advent of wave transmitted information.

--
V
Re:They have no idea by tiohero · 2003-10-09 12:50 · Score: 1

I once read "somewhere" that it is possible to "beam" sound into the brain via microwaves using an AM carrier though it was believed that the effect was due to resonant mechanical coupling between the bulk tissues of the head and the microwave signal to generate sound in the skull. (Seems like a good mad scientist Wi-Fi experiment!)
Re:They have no idea by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-10-09 13:16 · Score: 1

Well, there's plenty of stories of people picking up radio stations on their fillings. So far as I know there has never been a definitive proof of this though.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:They have no idea by dknight · 2003-10-09 14:11 · Score: 1

Some people actually can hear beyond the range of normal human hearing. I, myself, am very sensitive to the sounds of electricity (not high voltage, but like, the stuff that runs through your walls in your house). It's just a matter of learning to tune it out ;)
Re:They have no idea by LucidityZero · 2003-10-09 14:44 · Score: 1

Yup. I'm the exact same way.

Supposedly people who had Asthma as a child, but outgrew it, somehow have a link to those of us who hear above the normal hearing range.

--
Sig.i>
Re:They have no idea by mahart · 2003-10-09 17:17 · Score: 1

OMG Mutants! You should all be registered and monitored!

So easily resolved.... by KoshClassic · 2003-10-09 12:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Wouldn't it be much simpler for the parents simply to have their children wear hats made from aluminum foil? :)

--
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5

Well by ajberg · 2003-10-09 12:15 · Score: 1

Obviosly they havent seen this privios article http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/01/131122 6&mode=thread&tid=137&tid=193

What's the point of getting all upset about wi-fi? by jgarland79 · 2003-10-09 12:15 · Score: 1

Lets see.. corless phones, microwave ovens, cell phones, television, satelite, radio, walkie talkies, rf id tags, wi-fi, garage door opener, car alarms.. the list goes on.. What's the point of getting all upset about wi-fi?

--
Microsoft Windows runs on stress and frustration.

Tin foil... by kaamos · 2003-10-09 12:16 · Score: 1

And my classmates were wondering why I went to class with my trusty tin foil & duct tape hat. Now they know. Now they all know. Now they will all wear one. Now they will all reflect the deadly radiations coming from above. Now I need a full-body suit. Dangsarnit! Dangsarn slashdot!

--
In Canada, we don't fancy things like socks

lay knowledge by sstory · 2003-10-09 12:16 · Score: 1

As a physics guy who advocates greater science education and literacy, I'm occasionally asked by otherwise intelligent people, "Isn't it just a waste of time? We have division of labor, so why should I have to know anything about science?" This is the sort of headline which implicitly answers that question.

suburbanites by 1lus10n · 2003-10-09 12:18 · Score: 1

And todays humor is brought to us by Paraniod suburbanites, who dont think before they act.

In the Spiffy town of "Oak Park" a few peon.... err parents have decieded to sue the local school district over the usage of a Wi-Fi network in the schools. The reason is unclear has to why they would sue the schools yet still have some wonderful things around the home that are far more damaging Such as:

1. Cell phones
2. Microwaves
3. TV. its eviillll
4. Themselves.

Think about it, exactly how harmfu .... err helpful could parents like these be .......

I can see it now. the children are forbidden from eating any foods that have preservatives. wearing any clothing that is not 100% organic material. They cannot play outside because dirt may contain BADDDDD things, like toxic waste.

and then of course there is this additional wonderful factiod: "the radio waves in a Wi-Fi network use the same frequency as wireless home phones, and have one-thirtieth the power of cordless phones"

hhmmmmmm, sounds to me like these parents had better lock there children in a sterile room, there be dangerous things out there .... there are even bad things in the air ...... maybe they should take up a class action lawsuit against The_almighty_ (TM) for allowing cancer/aids/picksomethingbad ?

--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein

Re:suburbanites by Ixitar · 2003-10-10 08:01 · Score: 1

Don't forget to place the sterile room within a faraday cage.

Any takers? by skia · 2003-10-09 12:21 · Score: 1

And of course, these same parents are so concerned about the effect of 2.4Ghz waves on their childrens' health that they've all thrown out their microwave ovens, right?

...Right?

...Is this thing on?

--

Haha. by ziggyboy · 2003-10-09 12:22 · Score: 1

Thank God I don't live in the United States.

What about existing radio sources... by Ibby · 2003-10-09 12:23 · Score: 1

...like those coming from large, 150,000 (or more) watt commercial FM transmitters? Or from aircraft guidance systems? Or emergency repeaters? I guess they all gotta go too...

--
Karma: Good. I'm hoping in the same way as pizza is 'good'...

seeking a solution to what exactly? by bob_calder · 2003-10-09 12:23 · Score: 1

How retarded are these people?
I'll bet they all have cordless phones at home.

I just wish the wireless signal would even reach my classroom laptop. The walls are solid concrete with tons of rebar and the signal is soooooooo weak I will probably kill myself in frustration before I die from cancer.

--
Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)

Re:seeking a solution to what exactly? by seriv · 2003-10-09 12:34 · Score: 1

maybe so the "awful internet" won't have to degrade the morals of their childerns brains :-p
-seriv

Re:What a waste of money-the foots on the other sh by doomdog · 2003-10-09 12:25 · Score: 1

If it *was* a legitimate grievance, I would probably win. However, if I happened to lose, I would have to pony up legal fees for the other party -- that's just part of the risk equation when you decide to file a lawsuit...

Actions should have consequences. Apparently, far too many people have forgotten that.

Re:Wow, They may not be crazy! by zjbs14 · 2003-10-09 12:25 · Score: 1

You may think I'm crazy, but lead drain pipes were considered a safe in their day.

I don't think lead drain pipes were/are a problem. Now lead water pipes...

Al I know is that I don't Wi-Fi for one reason: I get Headaches from it. I know I sound like a member of the tinfoil mafia, but I have had it happen to me too many time to ignore it.

So, you must not use a microwave either. Or have a cordless phone. Or a cell phone. Or a baby monitor. Or go to any public places with WiFi access points. Or go to any large retail stores with wireless inventory terminals. etc.

For the Record I am NO luddite, I work in IT! I just don't work on Wi-Fi any more,

Working in IT is no defense against being a Luddite.

--
No sig, sorry.

Cordless phones by dnoyeb · 2003-10-09 12:25 · Score: 1

I was thinking the same thing. Glad I read your post before I posted a duplicate.

I fully expect that unless the parents can show they are NOT using any cordless appliances or cellphones they will loose this case HARD.

Usually it takes research but they seem to be saying, stop just because. You could challenge the flouride in the water too...

Oak Park District 97 by Infonaut · 2003-10-09 12:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Based on the "About Us" info found here, this is an upscale, academically successful school district located in the 'burbs west of Chicago.

I wonder if the parents of students in the inner city are laughing or crying when they read about this lawsuit. "Hah! Our kids have a tough time getting textbooks, and the parents in Oak Park are worried about wireless networks?!"

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Just waiting for the next logical step. by mcc · 2003-10-09 12:27 · Score: 1

I am now just waiting for the next logical step in people who believe that the fact they have children means they can make anyone do anything

Specifically, I am waiting for the movement of concerned parents to ban WiFi on the grounds that it is beaming harmful pornography into their children

OH GOD WONT ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts

Dateline--Backwoods, AL by Jouster · 2003-10-09 12:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Backwoods, AL--A group of parents in this small town, calling itself "Citizens for Safer Classrooms", is suing their school district over the installation of what they call "massive portals designed solely for the purpose of subjecting our children to radiation." They claim these portals (which the school district contends are called "windows") are made of material carefully selected to ensure the maximum range of radiation is hitting their children.

"Well, I think it's an outrage," said Patti Jo, a mother of two children in the school district and one of the plaintiffs in the suit. "It's becoming more and more obvious that they're maliciously subjecting our little boys and girls to a whole host of EMR [electro-magnetic radiation], simply so they can save a few pennies on their electricity bill." She started to cry softly. "We intend to petition for a criminal trial, too. We're claiming it's premeditated murder. The school board should fry," she added.

Although both sides are trying to reach an agreement on how best to contain the situation, a school board member we contacted, speaking on condition of anonymity, was resolute. "Sure, they get a little UV radiation burned at times," the anonymous boardmember stated. "But have you looked at the cost of fluorescent tubes lately?"

Punitive damages, if the plaintiffs succeed, are expected to be in the millions.

Jouster

Re:Dateline--Backwoods, AL by GileadGreene · 2003-10-09 13:38 · Score: 1

Actually, I don't think UV propagates very well through window glass...
Re:Dateline--Backwoods, AL by MrWa · 2003-10-09 14:21 · Score: 1

Why do you have to drag Alabama in to this? Doesn't that state get made fun of enough without being compared to or mistaked for damn-Yankee-ignorant-luddite-rednecks from Illinois?
Re:Dateline--Backwoods, AL by WolfWithoutAClause · 2003-10-10 00:33 · Score: 1

There's 3 sorts of UV radiation, UV-A UV-B and UV-C.
UV-C never makes it to ground level. Forget about that one unless you're an astronaut.
UV-B only makes it to ground level when the sun is high in the sky- it's linked to skin cancer, and deep tanning. That's the one that triggers production of melanin in the skin.
UV-A is the one that makes you look old. It makes it to the ground throughout the day, and ages your skin 50x quicker than UV-B. It doesn't trigger melanin production very well, but if you were already exposed to UV-B then it brings out the colour. It's linked to some forms of cancer, but is probably a little less harmful than UV-B.
Window glass blocks UV-B but lets most of the UV-A through.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Dateline--Backwoods, AL by infinite9 · 2003-10-10 01:46 · Score: 1

And the beverages the cafeterias are giving the kids are polluted with 2,1 dihydrogen oxide, a powerful solvent!

--
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.

How about the other emissions? by jhkoh · 2003-10-09 12:34 · Score: 1

I would never have guessed that the emissions from a wireless network are bad, unlike the healthy emissions given off by the now inescapable cell phones that are everywhere in public.

Parents are worried about Wi-Fi "emissions"? How about the toxic emissions from their cars? Or from the big old yellow buses?

Re:How about the other emissions? by bigjnsa500 · 2003-10-09 12:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, I have to agree. City transport lines are converting or have converted their buses to propane or a clean burning fuel. But school kids still are subjected to diesel engine fueled buses.
Shoot, their parents subject them to more RF/microwaves than any WiFi network will. Can you say HotPockets?

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

Roaches by SunPin · 2003-10-09 12:34 · Score: 1

The real problem with Wi-Fi is that the single mimics the mating songs of giant roaches. If our children are exposed to such frequencies they might use the school computers to download roach porn or other deviant roach activities. This is definitely a time to stand up for the children. According to our great president Dubya, the only question that schools are responsible for answering is this:

Is our children learning?--George W. Bush

--
Laws are for people with no friends.

education by tonythejuice · 2003-10-09 12:36 · Score: 1

I guess this will do well to educate our children how to become good american citizens - citizens that are afraid of flashlights and other wave-emitting devices of lower energy levels. These citizens of tomorrow might not understand physics, but atleast they will understand the legal system. Why earn a living when you can just sue?

Fo Sheezy by devphaeton · 2003-10-09 12:37 · Score: 1

I would never have guessed that the emissions from a wireless network are bad, unlike the healthy emissions given off by the now inescapable cell phones that are everywhere in public.

These days we are already bombarded with so much RF it's not even funny.

--

do() || do_not(); // try();

please, please countersue by BlueboyX · 2003-10-09 12:38 · Score: 1

I REALLY hope that other parrents who have kids going to this school district sue the parrents who are suing the schools. They are trying to steal away educational tools from their children! For the sake of insane paranoia! (and this is comming from a slashdotter!) Heck, this can even cause other school districts to not follow this upgrade. MY children may not get to have this technology in their schools in the future because of these losers, and I don't even live in Indiana.

The actual class action movement does mention compensation, so it seems to me that the real reason for this is that some losers found a 'surefire' way of making a ton of money through a lawsuit that just happens to have a side effect of removing tools from children's schools.

BTW, WiFi is regulated by the federal gov; it is 'officially safe.' Realistically no finding-of-fact can legitimately ignore that. Let us pray that this can allow the lawsuit to recieve a quick judgement before it does too much damage.

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet

Re:please, please countersue by Mr.+Slippery · 2003-10-09 15:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

They are trying to steal away educational tools from their children!

Outside of programming, engineering, and clerical skills classes, computers are not educational tools - educational tools must actually be useful for education.
Computers in the classroom are a wonderful distraction, and they give politicians something to point at and say "See my commitment to education!" But they do fsck-all to enhance learning.
Clifford Stoll's book High Tech Heretic" is a good look at the subject.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:please, please countersue by BlueboyX · 2003-10-09 17:28 · Score: 1

Hey, that as a pretty neat article. While I don't agree with all of it, it has some pretty good points.

"Computers in the classroom are a wonderful distraction, and they give politicians something to point at and say "See my commitment to education!" But they do fsck-all to enhance learning. "

I think that realistically the having computers in classrooms will help kids in only one important way. Yet it is indeed important. It will help them not be technophobic. It won't make them computer geniuses, but it will help take the fear out of computing. That will help them be able to learn whatever software they need to use in the future.

Alot of people only know how to use the software that they need for their jobs, and that is fine. But for the people who are too afraid to do even that... that is cripling.

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Re:please, please countersue by GORby_ · 2003-10-09 20:58 · Score: 1

And since when is a wireless network better for educational purposes than a wired network (which is faster and more reliable).

I really don't understand why you make that link. Saying that these parents are trying to deprive their children of educational tools is just ridiculous.

On the other hand I think that the radiation of these devices is pretty harmless indeed. I hope the court comes to a decision based on some decent study (which would probably mean that these wifi networks can continue to exist).
Re:please, please countersue by Mr.+Slippery · 2003-10-10 01:41 · Score: 1

I think that realistically the having computers in classrooms will help kids in only one important way. Yet it is indeed important. It will help them not be technophobic.

Kids today grow up with cell phones, MP3 players, and GameBoys in their pockets. Technophobia is not a significant threat to this generation. Really, how many kids do you know who are afraid of computers?
I'm much more worried about kids who can't do arithmetic without a calculator; who think that it's too hot to be outside when the temperature hits 80 F, because they spend all their summer inside air-conditioned houses watching TV or playing GTA on their X-Boxen; kids who never ride bikes, or climb trees.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

2.4GHz by SiMac · 2003-10-09 12:38 · Score: 1

Wireless networking is fairly low power. It's not going to create near the amount of energy of a microwave, which operates just slightly higher on the spectrum. Should we illegalize microwaves in schools too?

WHAT?! by MrScience · 2003-10-09 12:39 · Score: 4, Informative

This is insane. My company rolled out 802.11 a while ago, and they had a few statistics they sent out to address safety concerns.

Stuff like, "Since these run at low transmit power (.03 Watts), it's 1/10-1/20 the power of a cell phone." and "You'd have to hold a body part within 2cm of the antena for 30 minutes while the radio operated continuously at 100% capacity for that time."

Just look at IEEE C95.1 1991, which details the maximum safe exposure for any EM radiation.

Or, gosh, here's a thought... what about OSHA?! They've got a bazillion links on the research involved.

I hope this gets thrown out of the courts faster than you can blink. The last thing students need is to be shoved back into the backwaters of technology.

--

You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

Re:WHAT?! by Rex+Code · 2003-10-09 14:27 · Score: 1

This is insane. My company rolled out 802.11 a while ago, and they had a few statistics they sent out to address safety concerns.

Stuff like, "Since these run at low transmit power (.03 Watts), it's 1/10-1/20 the power of a cell phone." and "You'd have to hold a body part within 2cm of the antena for 30 minutes while the radio operated continuously at 100% capacity for that time."

You'd have to do that to cause WHAT? Seems like they leave out an important detail there... you do X, and Y happens.

I'm curious because there's an 802.11b antenna sticking out of the front of the machine under my desk (it has front PCMCIA slots, and I run a laptop card and Linux for an accesspoint+two way firewall). My leg is often right up against this antenna and I've been thinking nothing of it.
Re:WHAT?! by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2003-10-09 14:31 · Score: 1

The IEEE standards are from 1991. What the lawsuit alleges is that research from 1995 onward uncovered some previously unknown hazards. It goes on to raise the point that humans who are still growing might be more vulnerable.

Your skepticism is still justified given that the power levels are mind-bogglingly low, and the complaint didn't cite a single controlled study or peer-reviewed paper.

Now, if the parents would sue over things that are known for a fact to injure students, like tolerance for bullying ...
Re:WHAT?! by cooldev · 2003-10-09 17:15 · Score: 1

I'm curious because there's an 802.11b antenna sticking out of the front of the machine under my desk (it has front PCMCIA slots, and I run a laptop card and Linux for an accesspoint+two way firewall). My leg is often right up against this antenna and I've been thinking nothing of it.

You'd better get that leg checked out right away...

Amish Paradise by n3tcat · 2003-10-09 12:41 · Score: 1

You know, if you aren't against raising barns before lunch, the safest place away from "harmful" radio waves is to buy a big farm somewhere in montana and live off the land, homeschool the kids, and fight the government every couple of years until you get declared a separate country (or tax exempt. whichever comes first)

I hear the problem is actually 10x worse... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 12:41 · Score: 1, Funny

I hear the problem is actually 10x worse, if a teacher within 20 feet has breast implants.

Seriously, when are people going to stop going all "Chicken Little" every time something that seems to be a hazard is proven to not be a hazard?

-- AC

I live nearby by Lord_Dweomer · 2003-10-09 12:42 · Score: 1

First this isn't a troll/flame. As someone who lives in a burb nearby Oak Park....well....anybody who knows the stereotype of Oak Park parents wouldn't be really surprised by this. I heard a mom from Oak Park speak on radio about how siblings with different last names had family issues. Yeah....only from Oak Park. If you lived nearby, you wouldn't be nearly as shocked at the stupidity of this as I'm sure some of you are right now. This kind of stuff happens all the time there, it just doesn't normally happen with geek related things.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:I live nearby by bigjnsa500 · 2003-10-09 12:45 · Score: 1

Seems to me they need a local chapter of the GNAA.

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Re:I live nearby by ChicagoBiker · 2003-10-09 19:04 · Score: 1

I live nearby too and the only thing that surprises me about this is that the school even HAS Wi-Fi or computers.
Oak Park is pretty much the land of Guido sons and daughters of plumbers and auto mechanics with an IROC on every street and an El Camino up on blocks in every *shared* garage.
Lots of mullets in Oak Park.

I share their concerns but . . . by CustomDesigned · 2003-10-09 12:42 · Score: 1

there is a much better solution to this and many other problems. Homeschool. I don't like WiFi either, but the sun puts out microwaves too, and I'm *much* more concerned about the content of Family Life Education here in Virginia. So we homeschool.

In the early days of public schools in America, each school was closely supervised by a relatively small number of parents with mostly compatible philosophy. Think Oklahoma! or Anne of Green Gables. This arrangement worked well. Public school today is a gigantic institution where parents are unwelcome nuisances. The huge NEA union is concerned about maintaining their cash flow and social engineering rather than education as most of us understand it.

Some who agree with me on the problem, think that the Public Schools can be fixed. I think they are too far gone.

Re:I share their concerns but . . . by windex82 · 2003-10-09 16:40 · Score: 1

>> I don't like WiFi either, but the sun puts out microwaves too,

do you sit off to the side of your monitor too? duh

What about... by fdawg · 2003-10-09 12:42 · Score: 1

SUVs? The complaining parents dont understand physics which would explain their use of SUVs. If 100mW is enough to get their attention, why doesnt the byproduct of 9 miles per gallon? Sure, sue the school over something trivial and neglect their own affect on their children and the health of everyone around them.

People fear what they don't understand by xtal · 2003-10-09 12:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Given the incredible lack of information taught in public schools about RF and electromagnetic energy, this doesn't suprise me. People think that wireless data communication is like magic. Science programs glaze over even the most basic introduction to electromagnetics. I don't think I even had an iota of a introduction to the topic until I started university in an Electrical Engineering program. How many people could answer the basic question: How are EM waves produced? (Or rather, why are they produced?")

I hope these parents get smacked down, because there is far more RF energy coming from other sources. What they MIGHT want to be concerned about is the placement of electical substation transformers for the power grid. Would they like to teach schools without electricity?

Ignorance brought us great things like witch burning and the inquisitions. I hope this doesn't turn into one..

--
..don't panic

Re:People fear what they don't understand by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-10-09 14:08 · Score: 1

Science programs glaze over even the most basic introduction to electromagnetics. I don't think I even had an iota of a introduction to the topic until I started university in an Electrical Engineering program. How many people could answer the basic question: How are EM waves produced? (Or rather, why are they produced?")

Hey, c'mon, be reasonable, there're only so many hours in thirteen years - they just never had time for it. :P

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:People fear what they don't understand by rosewood · 2003-10-09 16:46 · Score: 1

Ill be honest - even though Im about to get my BA, I took the req physical science, bio honors, chem honors in highschool - we really did glaze over how radio waves work.

IVe always found it facinating ... and I have not the slightest clue.

If you have a good URL for basic this is how radio waves, work ie this is how TV works etc. -- that would be cool

--
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Re:People fear what they don't understand by xtal · 2003-10-09 17:20 · Score: 1

Here's some quick good links. I'm sure there are hundreds of others. Please educate others. There is no voodoo and radio waves for the most part will not hurt you, unless you stand in front of a high power transmitter.
How Radio Works
How Antennas Work

--
..don't panic

I hope this bunch of morons don't win... by Shanep · 2003-10-09 12:44 · Score: 1

and set a completely unfair precedent.

WiFi uses non-ionizing radiation. After so many tests over so many years, scientists have very easily found ionizing radiation to cause or accelerate cancers, yet they have never been able to find evidence of the same with non-ionizing radiation.

Their kids are at infinitely more risk playing in the playground, soaking up UV from the Sun or sitting in front of a CRT which emits small ammounts of x rays.

What's more, typical WiFi puts out no more than 0.2W! Even if you have a highly directional antenna the effective radiated power is likely to be less than my Nokia 2110 (at 2 watts). Compare this with the absolute saturation of non-ionizing radiation that is all around us at much higher power levels from Cell phone, pager, TV, radio, etc etc!

This is a crazy lawsuit.

--
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?

No problem.... by iamhassi · 2003-10-09 12:45 · Score: 1

counter-sue the parents for frivolous claims, either that or we're going to have to have "designated cellphone rooms" in public areas...

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

Not all states are like yours, by xgamer04 · 2003-10-09 12:46 · Score: 1

because here in Minnesota, we don't have county school boards. Each school district is independant. I'm sure other states have completely different setups as well. Thank you for generalizing the country that is impossible to generalize.

--
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?

Re:Not all states are like yours, by mobets · 2003-10-09 16:26 · Score: 1

I think his point was that whoever runs the district will probobly have a lawyer paid for no matter who what your state decided to call them.

--

It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese

Let's Take Some Action by sabNetwork · 2003-10-09 12:47 · Score: 1, Flamebait

The names and addresses of the parents weren't difficult to find. Let's give them a call or two and teach them a thing or two about radio waves. Or, if you aren't the talking type, write them a nice little letter.

PLAINTIFF #1: Baiman, Michelle & Rhon (708) 445-9052 205 S Humphrey Ave Oak Park, IL 60302

PLAINTIFF #2: parents of John Davis (good luck finding this)

PLAINTIFF #3: Cabral, John T
(708) 524-0205
134 Clinton Ave
Oak Park, IL 60302

Re:Let's Take Some Action by sabNetwork · 2003-10-09 12:55 · Score: 1

By the way, Rhon Baiman is apparently the most active participant and was interviewed by Wired. That would be a good place to start.

"I'd just like to say that your lawsuit against Oak Park Elementary is absolutely ludicrous. Radiation from wireless networks is a joke compared to cell phones. You simply can't avoid that amount of radiation and it isn't measurably harmful. You have no case against the school and must have no purpose but to harass them."

Just a little inspiration. Revise as needed.
Re:Let's Take Some Action by gangien · 2003-10-09 14:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why has slashdot posted home addresses and stuff so much lately? I mean it's one thing for that spammer and for the Telemarketers and such. But for this? what the hell? even if the lawsuit is ridiculus, how the hell does that give you a right to post personal information? and i'm not talking about whether this is legal or not.
Re:Let's Take Some Action by sabNetwork · 2003-10-09 14:06 · Score: 1

Speak again?

Baiman attracted publicity to this lawsuit with his C|NET interview. Loud and clear, he made claims that he can't support. I hardly feel guilty about publishing his contact information. He babbles to the press, he gets feedback.

As for the other plaintiff, I sure hope he didn't expect to simply put his name on a list and wait for his check from the school.

--
Re:Let's Take Some Action by utexaspunk · 2003-10-09 17:16 · Score: 1

i called the baiman residence. michelle answered. i wasn't rude or anything, just told her i thought their lawsuit was absurd. she says: "well, my husband is out, but i can have him call you" i say: "no, that's okay. i just wanted to state my opinon". end of conversation. i think if enough people called and told them that, it would get the point across without being threatening...
Re:Let's Take Some Action by gangien · 2003-10-09 17:32 · Score: 1

two wrongs make aright? let the courts decide the outcome. Not this vigilante(spelling?) harrassment of these things.
Re:Let's Take Some Action by swv3752 · 2003-10-10 03:46 · Score: 1

If we as a Society took a more active role in protesting idiots, the world would be a better place.

--
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

quick! by daniel2000 · 2003-10-09 12:48 · Score: 1

Quick! quick! Look there are people installing some weird technology which has rays coming out of it.

Hand me my CELL PHONE so i can start a class action against it. I am glad that my kids are watching the safe TELEVISON and talking on the safe CORDLESS PHONE while resting on an ELECTRIC BLANKET wating for the food to heat up in the MICROWAVE OVEN.

They don't need wifi, though by localghost · 2003-10-09 12:48 · Score: 4, Informative

I might care more about this if the district had a legitimate use for wifi. It's an elementary school district, grades K-8. None of the students have laptops, and the majority of the teachers are incapable of using anything other than Internet Explorer, Microsoft Word and Gradequick.

Now the high school, on the other hand, could benefit from wifi. One student in my math class recently got a tablet PC, and we were talking a couple days ago about how nice it would be if there was a school-wide 802.11b network. Unfortunarly, our school is way behind the times as far as technology goes. We watched laserdiscs the other day in psych.

Money isn't an issue for either of them, though. Both the elementary schools and the high school have more money then they know what to do with. The middle schools just built two new buildings, and the high school got a new $3 million artificial turf football field, an artificial turf soccer field with stadium lighting, and built a parking garage. The issues are stupid parents and stupid administration.

(In case you couldn't tell, I attended the district the lawsuit was filed against)

Re:They don't need wifi, though by localghost · 2003-10-09 13:52 · Score: 1

I personally don't need it, I don't own a laptop. A lot of high school students do, though, and could benefit from wifi. In addition, the physics and chemistry classes use laptops in lab. They would benefit from wifi as well. Nobody in elementary school needs it, though. Teachers all use desktops, and no students carry laptops.
Re:They don't need wifi, though by fdawg · 2003-10-09 14:14 · Score: 1

The only thing I used the internet for in highschool was to download music/pr0n and talk to my friends....about music and pr0n. I dont see how having a wifi setup at HS would have made my life any more fruitful.

Sorry, perhaps more effort in expanding the curriculum would be better use of funds.

Im just waiting for some odd ball catastrophe to happen and some crazy soccer mom blame the ubiquitous internet at the highschool. Then Wifi will be branded as a sin.
Re:They don't need wifi, though by truesaer · 2003-10-09 14:19 · Score: 1

I can't speak to the specific circumstances here, but maybe they needed additional network connections and thought that it would be easier to install a few wireless access points instead of tearing apart the concrete block walls to run new cables (by highly paid union contractors of course). Or maybe this is one of those places where they gave teachers laptops.

And anyway, just because they aren't hurting for money doesn't me you shouldn't be outraged when parents sue over something like this. It is YOUR money they're wasting, you and your neighbors fully fund that school district with your taxes.
Re:They don't need wifi, though by enjo13 · 2003-10-09 15:33 · Score: 1

http://www.alphasmart.com

I work for Cutting Edge Software (http://www.cesinc.com) and we supply office software with network capabilities that are being used RIGHT now in elementary schools running on the Alphasmart Dana devices. It's worked out great for both students and teachers as the kids have gotten comfortable with a variety of technologies, and the teachers have used our products to enrich the education of those kids.

--
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Re:They don't need wifi, though by c0nner · 2003-10-09 16:41 · Score: 1

At the school district I work for we are deploying wireless in our elementary schools... not because people have laptops but because the buildings are very old and all have cinderblock walls. we could run cable to every classroom and deal with that head ache but as someone else pointed out, all they use is internet explorer so they don't need alot of bandwidth. This means that they won't overload the wireless as we only feed them internet service over DSL.

The upside to wireless is if we manage to get a consolidation plan into effect we can pull the APs and the single switch and the only parts of the network we can't salvage are the few cat5 runs that we were able to take through drop ceiling instead of drilling all those holes. It makes much more financial sence in our case. The APs and cards cost a bit more then the wired equivelent until you get to need 40 or 50 ports then you either have to go with better switches or just more of them. With the AP the 'switch' cost stays the same no matter how many machines you have connected (barring connection limitations on the APs)

-C0nner
Re:They don't need wifi, though by pmz · 2003-10-10 02:22 · Score: 1

I might care more about this if the district had a legitimate use for wifi.

They plan to use it so parents can access students' grades on an unsecured webserver (remember that one?).

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:They don't need wifi, though by bluGill · 2003-10-10 02:54 · Score: 1

Why don't they need WiFi? I think they do. Not for classrooms, but for teachers. Most teachers have a comptuer near their desk that they use after school hours to enter student's grades. Those comptuers need WiFi, becauser running cables everywhere is expensive.
Now if you had said that they don't need WiFi in every classroom so students can play with comptuers in class I would agree. However don't assume that just because most uses for computers are bad that all are. I'm against comptuer in every classroom because it always implys it is for purposes of educating students, but I'm not against comptuer in every classroom if it is for teachers to use. (Entering grades, or usenet type chat with other teachers of the same grade sharing ideas) If someone demonstrates a use for young studnets using computers every day that is better than spending that time on traditional classwork I'll support all students getting a computer.
Re:They don't need wifi, though by bourne · 2003-10-10 03:36 · Score: 1

I might care more about this if the district had a legitimate use for wifi.

Do they have a legitimate use for network connectivity?

Pulling cable is much more expensive, especially with the cinder block and concrete that is usually used to build a school. Wifi is cheaper to implement. Whether they're going to be mobile or not, it may be the cheaper way to wire up the school - and more flexible, if someone wants to rearrange desks.
Re:They don't need wifi, though by toddestan · 2003-10-10 10:21 · Score: 1

There's nothing wrong with VCRs. What do you want in your school? DVD home theatre systems?

When I was in high school (1990's) it was not uncommon at all to watch film/film stripes that dated back from the 50's and 60's. It wasn't towards the end that they got a TV/VCR in most classrooms, and even then they still ran the projectors because all their movies were in that format.
Re:They don't need wifi, though by localghost · 2003-10-10 11:05 · Score: 1

There's no problem with VCRs. I never said anything about them. However, it would be nice if the school got a few DVD players. A few times last year, some of my teachers wanted to play DVDs, and had a very difficult time locating a TV with a DVD player.

As for film strips, the only class they've ever used those is in physics. We watched film loops last year, with no sound and everything. It was kind of amusing, actually.

come on by MegaFur · 2003-10-09 12:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Are Wi-Fi signals all that different from standard radio signals? Aren't all of us being bombarded by stuff like this all the time that we're able to listen to good tunes on our AM/FM radios in our car?

I mean--I am basically clueless here--what's the issue? Is it the wavelength or what?

Okay, here's me actually clicking on some links, and I get this:

The Wi-Fi Alliance says Wi-Fi networks are safe. The radio waves in a Wi-Fi network use the same frequency as wireless home phones, and have one-thirtieth the power of cordless phones, said Grimm, the spokesman for the group.

Now the only catch is that's from the Wi-Fi alliance and they cannot be taken to be entirely neutral in this affair. Can anyone not associated with them back them up on this claim? Is a Wi-Fi network really the same frequency as wireless home phones but 1/30 the power? 'Cause if so, I think we can just chock this one up to Standard American Paranoia (Concerned Mom Flavor) and move on.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

Re:come on by KC7YRN · 2003-10-09 14:44 · Score: 1

Like brunes69 said, it's the same frequency (2.4 gighertz) as lots of other unlicensed devices, along with the leakage from your microwave oven. WiFi uses clever spread-spectrum techniques in place of raw power to get its range. A typical WiFi card sends a twentieth of a watt to its antenna, and the inverse square law applies, and you're usually not holding a WiFi card up to your head like you do with a cordless phone. That frequency is two to four thousand times higher than AM broadcast, and a couple of dozen times higher than FM broadcast. Each photon is proportionally more energetic, though still not energetic enough to break chemical bonds the way a photon of light can. Every time you change frequencies that much, you can get fascinatingly different interactions with matter.

Every time I read one of these stories... by NanoGator · 2003-10-09 12:50 · Score: 1

... I have the urge to call my dad and thank him for being sensible.

--
"Derp de derp."

Wait a minute... by ThenAgain · 2003-10-09 12:51 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I thought I typed in slashdot.org not theonion.com. Whoops.

simple solution by Casca · 2003-10-09 12:51 · Score: 4, Funny

There is a simple solution to this really. The geek kids all need to get together and kick the shit out of the kids whos parents are suing. Damnit, nevermind...

--
Casca

Re:simple solution by Rorschach1 · 2003-10-09 14:14 · Score: 1

That's not the way geeks play dirty. What the parents need to worry about is the anonymous calls to the FBI about all the kiddie porn they've got on their home computers.
Re:simple solution by rhuntley12 · 2003-10-09 14:34 · Score: 1

And then spawn areality TV show, "When Geeks attack"

RTFA by BlueboyX · 2003-10-09 12:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry, but they are seeking $. The pdf outlinging their wannabe class action suit does include "injunctive relief," as well as "other and further relief" immediately after "threatened immediate, irreparable harm." Further up they clearify what they think this harm is "threatened with irreparable harm by Defendants' conduct in that they have been exposed to grave health risks, many of which lead to permament injury, disease and death."

That is the language you use when you are trying to get a few $million per kid. They are indeed seeking vast amounts of money, which is the only sane reason for this suit to begin with.

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet

Re:RTFA by echucker · 2003-10-09 13:15 · Score: 1

I think you use the term "sane" rather loosely. "Idiotic" or "money-grubbing" might be better suited in this case.
Re:RTFA by BlueboyX · 2003-10-09 13:51 · Score: 1

I am actually think of 'sanity checking,' like in software or math problems. You can easily perform a sanity check on the equation 99999+12345 = 30. You can easly see that the answer is going to have more than two digits.

Their assertions are indeed idiotic; they don't pass a sanity check and neither do their alleged reasons for filing this suit (cellphones, microwaves etc are all over... they have no chance of changing that and no evidence there is even a problem)

Trying to get money is the only aspect of this that does pass the sanity check. "I can use the goofed up courts and some pseudo-science to make a few $" does pass the sanity check. It is something that is quite possible to do, and desirable if you are a leech. It is evil and money-grubbing, but it is a reasonable explanation for their (wacky) behavior.

Now you understand my strange logic a little bit better. :P

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Re:RTFA by fenix+down · 2003-10-09 15:27 · Score: 1

Relief != Money

They want the Wi-Fi shut down by injunction, and then they want the school to agree to not start it up again. Maybe they'll decide to go looking for money later, but quit making shit up until then.

We have insipid little sayings for a reason, you know. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity." It's because not everybody who fucks shit up royally is a greedy bastard. Sometimes they're just as moral and even just as smart as you, just ill-informed on the subject at hand.

Whoa, hold on, I just came up with a sig. "There's no such thing as evil, just stupidity and insanity." Damn I'm good. Like some kinda philosiphizing tornado, motherfuckers. Out of my way!
Re:RTFA by robmered · 2003-10-09 19:32 · Score: 1

Their assertions are indeed idiotic; they don't pass a sanity check and neither do their alleged reasons for filing this suit (cellphones, microwaves etc are all over... they have no chance of changing that and no evidence there is even a problem)
Actually, if you had RTFA a little closer, you would note that they, in fact, cite 400 peer reviewed scientific articles stating the contrary. Now, they may be blowing smoke up the judge's arse, but at the risk of perjury if they are so doing. Without seeing their 400 articles, I don't know how sound their evidence is, but your churlish technoweenie protestation of 'it's safe 'cause it's ubiquitous' is certainly devoid of scientific support. Since when has general use of something ever meant that it is, in fact, safe for use? Where's *your* evidence to say that it is safe?

Its a case of pay now or pay later by fireboy1919 · 2003-10-09 12:52 · Score: 1

If they had educated the parents on EM fields a little more, they might not have the problem they have now. Of course, such ignorance might be unstoppable.

Things that are invisibly harmful provoke more superstitions of harm than things that are more well known, like sunlight (and by that I'm not just referring to the visible spectrum).

I wonder what currently educated children will complain about when they're adults? Photographs that steal people's souls (giving them cancer)? The evil, cancer-causing voodoo magic of the internet? That salvation (from cancer) can only be had by following everything our benevolent media masters tell us to do?

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but half a mind is a terrible thing.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

Re:Its a case of pay now or pay later by evilempireinc · 2003-10-09 18:18 · Score: 1

" If they had educated the parents on EM fields a little more, they might not have the problem they have now. Of course, such ignorance might be unstoppable."

Yeah, thank god most Americans took some EE courses on electromagnetics... That being said, these people do have a bad case of the stupids.

--
we can rebuild this sig. we have the technology

if the point is education... by Not+Public · 2003-10-09 12:52 · Score: 1

then someone should correlate all of the coherent, relevant, intelligent data (as in measurable, and reproducable) and examples presented throughout these discussions and submit them to the parents (Ron Baiman?) and their legal staff in an effort to educate them.

give them the data, allow them to draw their own- now more informed- conclusions.

I would imagine it being gladly received from such a body of technology specialists.

(I wish I knew how much of this was sarcasm and how much is an honest suggestion)

Totally offtopic. by smack_attack · 2003-10-09 12:58 · Score: 1

Rather, the statement should have been this

Those who will trade political liberty for security deserve neither.

Listen up son, that's not what it says. It's literal, not figurative. You're right in saying that you don't have the right to endanger others, but wrong in trying to morph Franklin's words to fit into simple "political security". It applies to physical security as well.

If someone drives a car down the wrong way of a freeway, you do not install cameras and remote engine kills in everyone's car.

--

Hammer of Truth

Re:Totally offtopic. by CrowScape · 2003-10-09 15:07 · Score: 1

"essential"

It's one of two words that are so often ignored when throwing Franklin's quote about (the second being "temporary"). You're right to say that the grandparent shouldn't morph Franklin's words, but the great-grandparent should have read the entire phrase as well. Driving into oncoming traffic is not an "essential" liberty, so his example did not apply to the quote.

--
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Re:Totally offtopic. by smack_attack · 2003-10-09 15:16 · Score: 1

You're right, you can't half-ass a quote with that much gravity.

--

Hammer of Truth

In defense of the scientific method... by MegaFur · 2003-10-09 12:59 · Score: 1

I must point out that the determination of whether cell phones are safe to use should not be based on what does or does not happen to a single cell phone user. Rather, we have to test a whole bunch of cell phone users over a period of many years. That's how us scientists get our money. Of course, while we're doing our research we'll be sure to help stir up controversy about whether cell phones may or may not be dangerous because the publicity makes us feel important and, more importantly, helps us get more money. So it goes.

I had originally intended to defend scientific method in this post even though I know your post was a joke, but my cynicism is in overdrive today.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

Suing Suers by adzoox · 2003-10-09 13:00 · Score: 1

I think a group of taxpayers should should sue these parents. This costs money to defend (taxpayer money)... even if it doesn't make it to court.

I also guess (like my Dad) that these parents don't realize what social harm they are doing their kids by being obnoxiously demanding of the educational process.

Many people have said in these forums and mentioned stray cellphone, radio, and microwave signals. I guess the "suers" don't consider those in their uninformed decision.

See this journal entry of mine from a few days back:

http://slashdot.org/~adzoox/journal/46392

--
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny

reminds me of a bad movie by forgetmenot · 2003-10-09 13:00 · Score: 1

Sort of reminds me of a really bad movie some years ago that takes place in the near future in which one of the problems plaguing society is mental illness caused by the over-abundance of electronic signals in the air waves.
Except instead of parents suing schools, it involved some action hero butt-kicking.

Well.. my productivity just took a nose dive because now I'll be spending the rest of my day trying to remember the name of that damn movie. Unless someone here knows what I'm talking about?

"Meat" of complaint by SeanAhern · 2003-10-09 13:01 · Score: 2, Informative

For those too lazy (I almost was) to read the text of the complaint, I'll include the relevant portions here:

Specifically, the Defendants have installed wireless networks in each of the school buildings under its jurisdiction. In so doing, the Defendants have ignored the substantial body of evidence that high frequency electro-magnetic radiation poses substantial and serious health risks, particularly to growing children.

And later:

16. In fact, there is a substantial and growing body of scientific literature studying and outlining the serious health risks that exposure to low intensity, but high radio frequency (RF) radiation poses to human beings, particularly children. For example, responsible scientists have reported that prolonged exposure to low intensity RF radiation can break down DNA strands, cause chromosome aberrations and break down the blood-brain barrier, thereby permitting toxic proteins to invade the brain. And, these occur at radiation levels below what a child would be exposed to by sitting in front of a computer on a wireless network.

17. Other researchers have observed other potential health risks that they believe are traceable to exposure to low intensity RF radiation at levels that are at or below the levels that children would experience by using wireless LANs in a classroom. In fact, at present, the lawyers for the Plaintiffs and their clients have collected more than 400 scientific articles, summaries and references outlining health risks from low intensity RF radiation exposure, all or most of which have been researched and written after 1995. By way of example only, attached as Exhibit 2 is a listing and a summary of thirty-one articles, all of which deal with the potential health risks from prolonged exposure to low intensity RF radiation, i.e., radiation given off by, among other things, wireless LANs.

And finally:

19. Defendants have stated publicly that they have examined the current, prevailing government regulations relating to safety of wireless technology and the system installed in District 97 poses no health risks to humans. This statement is false. The only U.S. standards that relate in any way to radiation exposure were developed by the F.C.C. before 1993 and relate only to thermal radiation. The radiation that Plaintiffs object to here is non-thermal and the federal government has not promulgated any standards relating to this.

Re:"Meat" of complaint by elmegil · 2003-10-09 14:23 · Score: 1

There is no "substantial" body of work documenting this. And there *are* documents from the federal government specifically addressing the 2.4GHz range and its risks. I found them online trying to research to write a letter to the editor refuting these morons. I eventually gave up on that though, and just wrote a ltter so sarcastic that apparently the editor didn't think it was printable.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001

What happened to resonsibility, reason and logic? by WebCowboy · 2003-10-09 13:02 · Score: 1

You'd think these people would be suitably equipping their children with tinfoil hats? That would obviously block the Wi-fi rays from cooking their precious childrens brains. Hell, why aren't they doing that already? The aliens and the CIA most surely have already been reading their entire family's brain waves for some time now.

Tsk Tsk...people are becoming more careless and irresponsible by the day.

complete waste by CAIMLAS · 2003-10-09 13:02 · Score: 1

Once again, why do people think that grade schoolers need computers at all (beyond the most basic), let alone in such abundance?

How is such institutional lock-in on hardware any different than lock-in on software? There are millions of dollars spent annually on computers for school children when the basics are being ignored. Most kids - even the 'smart' ones in well-funded districts - can barely write, let alone write well, when they graduate nowadays. It's fucking disgusting.

It's things like this that are the cause of why my children will never be put into public education. I'd rather have them in a high-quality "holy roller" school than in an environment that produces ignorant masses as it's primary goal. I'd rather them not go to school at all, and just sit around the house/roam about outdoors finding things to amuse themselves! at least then they'd have the freedom, time, and opportunity to learn at their own rate.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

Failure in credibility of science by dbIII · 2003-10-09 13:04 · Score: 1

Once again we have people getting confused and applying medieval principles of magic to things they can't be bothered to understand (ie. sympathetic magic - that which is similar is alike).

Either that or someone is after a quick buck via litagation - and do not realise that it won't be quick and it's their tax dollars anyway.

We have people lumping all electromagnetic phenomena together and assuming that they are harmful at any intensity. Somehow haematite sewn into blankets is exempt from this, but it doesn't need to be logical. So how has this happened? Science has lost a great deal of credibility over the years with issues such as asbestos, smoking and power lines all declared absolutely safe at times despite all available evidence. One consequence is that fairly well educated people are taking things the opposite way, and assume that if you can see a high voltage transmission line in the distance you are getting undesirable amounts of electromagnic radiation. I wouldn't want to live under a high voltage line, but you don't have to go far (inverse square law - intensity drops proportional to the square of distance) before the intensity drops below what you get from mains in your walls. Conversely, if you are close enough to a machine with a high intensity electromagnetic feild that it keeps you warm in winter (eg. defective PVC welder) your unborn child is not likely to be normal.

We also have all kinds of snake oil remedies being sold on daytime TV on our top networks. So while science has lost credibility, a lot of odd things with no proof (which only work if you have "faith" in the new wonder lawn clippings) have gained credibility.

If the teachers, journalists and those that draft laws are talked to enough by those of us with a basic understanding of simple scientific issues, they may develop adequate bullshit detectors which they can pass on.

Technology doesn't have to be advanced to look like magic if you can't be bothered to think.

literacy != knowledge by BlueboyX · 2003-10-09 13:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

The people who started this suit were probably literate but rather stupid if they believe that WiFi is magically evil. In the modern world, literacy is merely the beginning of education. You learn how to read so that you can study more.

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet

Re:literacy != knowledge by ifwm · 2003-10-09 13:26 · Score: 1

"most american children can't even read" Source?
Re:literacy != knowledge by BlueboyX · 2003-10-09 13:37 · Score: 1

"If someone studies law or business or theology instead of science and engineering, does that make them less important? Does it mean their opinions don't count?"
It means that I don't see how idiots get off suing people over things they know nothing about.

Besides, I think that in this case this is just an attempt at easy $ from the gov. I read their claims. These people aren't really that stupid; they know exactly what they are doing.

"Besides, despite all the money that is lavished on public schools in the US, most american children can't even read. That's the crisis in education the G. W. Bush is trying so hard to fix."

We sure are getting further and further down this tangent. :> I spent the last four years working with 'at risk' students; even the very worst students in the worst schools in my area (GA, 49th best educational system in the US) were able to read a little. Literacy is not a binary thing; the 'illiterate' students just read VERY slow. They can puzzle it out given time, unless you are talking about mentally challenged kids. That is something most people misunderstand when they quote illiteracy rates.

It is a big problem though; reading really is the golden source of education in our society (be it in the form of books or the Internet).

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Re:literacy != knowledge by Sj0 · 2003-10-10 02:04 · Score: 1

If someone studies law or business or theology instead of science and engineering, does that make them less important? Does it mean their opinions don't count?

You know, if I, an electrical engineer from Ontario Canada, waltzed into a courtroom and started making grand decisions on a regular baisis, I could see your point. If I went into a hospital and started telling the doctors that they were doing things abusively badly so I sued them, I could see your point. On the other hand, I'd look just as stupid as these parents.

But this is a couple yokels suing over a medical and engineering problem which may or may not even exist. It's like suing someone because they might hurt you someday. WiFi hasn't been proven to be damaging, otherwise we'd all know the risks. Instead, this is a couple parents suing for monentary damages over an unsubstantiated worry that high frequency radio signals might be harmful.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:literacy != knowledge by jdavidb · 2003-10-10 02:52 · Score: 1

most american children can't even read.

Not true. I'm way into homeschooling, but I know the public school system's not that bad.

"Most" means a majority. Are you seriously expecting people to believe you that >50% of American school children can't read?

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:literacy != knowledge by Ironica · 2003-10-10 12:49 · Score: 1

most american children can't even read.

Not true. I'm way into homeschooling, but I know the public school system's not that bad.

"Most" means a majority. Are you seriously expecting people to believe you that >50% of American school children can't read?

Maybe the poster has more info than we suspect. Since 26% of Americans under the age of 18 ("kids") are under 5 years of age, they probably can't read too good yet by and large. Of the 28% that are 5-9 years old, there's probably a quite few late bloomers that can be lumped into the illiterate category. Add in all the ones in the higher age categories that were good enough at basketball or football that they evaded expectations of literacy, and it's quite possible that half of them "can't read."

But you do have to count all the infants for that.

(Data obtained through the US Census 2000.)

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?

Uh oh... by sammy+baby · 2003-10-09 13:05 · Score: 1

The frequency used by wifi networks is bad for you? And I've been sitting here on my 802.11b network with my laptop.

Like, in my lap.

I'm never having kids, dude. The boys have had it.

Sorta hurts. by Safiire+Arrowny · 2003-10-09 13:06 · Score: 1

I have some wireless stuff that I use all the time, and I love them, and I'm in no way going to give them up.... but, I was wondering if anyone else experiences anything like this:

When I use my 802.11b card in my laptop, I find that when it's sitting on my lap, my leg where the card is will often begin hurting a bit, or if I rest my arm touching it for a bit, my arm will begin to hurt. I also experience this from carrying my cell phone around in my pants pocket.

At any rate, I really only feel an effect if the wireless things are physically touching me so I know how to avoid it. I wonder how many others experience this and how bad it actually is for a person.

I recommend search and arrest by briancnorton · 2003-10-09 13:09 · Score: 1

I think that the court should go house to house to the plaintiffs and charge them one count of child endangerment for each wireless phone, cell phone, video camera, RF remote control, RC car, TV, and Monitor. (CRTs put off more radiation in a few seconds than a Wifi base station does in a few days)

--

People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

"But we drive SUVs..." by Artsy_Me4 · 2003-10-09 13:11 · Score: 1

These stupid people probably drive SUV's and talk on cell phones while doing so and fly away on family vacations and hide under trees during lightning storms...all of which kill more people than wireless would, if it could...too bad it doesn't for OUR sake.

Hmmn by Starve · 2003-10-09 13:14 · Score: 1

this remind me of the parent who threw a fit at the fact that we had metal slides and there for posed a risk to us getting burned on our arse's they had to close the playground for 2 days to put up a plastic slide it was ugly and like pink. I despise hell raising parents.

--
You have been sig'd

Children sueing their school? by moosesocks · 2003-10-09 13:14 · Score: 1

Based upon the complete PDF complaint, it appears as though the Elementary School students are listed the Plantiffs, rather than their parents.

Does this strike anybody as odd?

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose

Reminds me of... by iamroot · 2003-10-09 13:14 · Score: 1

In other news, parents seek to ban the use of dihydrogen monoxide in schools because it may cause serious health effects in large enough quantities.

"We are outraged at the irresponsibility of these school officials," said plantiff Rebecca Gilmore, "countless studies have PROVEN that prolonged exposure to large quantities of dihydrogen monoxide without proper protection is almost always fatal!"

We interviewed Gary Richardson, a self proclaimed expert on the subject. "Thousands of people have already been killed due to dihydrogen monoxide inhalation! Now we are letting this deadly chemical into our schools and putting out children at risk? It takes less than a gallon of dihydrogen monoxide to kill an adult, and these schools are using thousands of gallons of it, enough to kill everyone at the school!"

Another man remarked, "I think its terrible that this has gone unnoticed for so long. Its time the parents step up to protect our children from this stuff."

and they use their kids names on the documents by Not+Public · 2003-10-09 13:15 · Score: 1

now this may be standard in juvenile cases.. but it seems very wrong to have the children listed as the plantifs. I sincerely doubt any child EVER has given any thought to the EMF in pervasive technologies. To make it sound as there is a child sitting in fear of the network at school is manipulative and wrong. And even more wrong is to place their names on a public document of this nature which will associate them with ridicule for a long time to come.

nope by BlueboyX · 2003-10-09 13:17 · Score: 1

They are claiming 'grave' damages to their children's health. That is a pretty big 'indication of actual damages' if they actually can 'prove' this chrud. But no, they won't get kicked out because they are claiming no damages. They are setting themselves up to get $ millions in 'damages.'

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet

When will the stupidity stop!!! by lothrids · 2003-10-09 13:19 · Score: 1

Yet another stupid law suit by some uninformed mouth breather who should have done a little homework before attacking an already under funded institute.

Re:When will the stupidity stop!!! by August_zero · 2003-10-09 14:58 · Score: 1

I am willing to bet, that the parents involved in this case are anything but uneducated, i am guessing that they are upper middle class college educated "afluent" people that are well respected by their communities. They likely own the largest SUVs, and I would bet that every memeber of the family has their own cell phones.

Otherwise I think your description is dead on.

--
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?

Ignorance is also ridiculous by vlad_petric · 2003-10-09 13:20 · Score: 1

The waves being around us is one thing, having a strong microwave source close to your head is completely different.

It is for instance a known fact that the brain absorbes ~60% of a cellphone's emission. That's one of the reasons cellphones have antennae - not for signal quality, but to reduce the absorbtion ratio.

It is also known that the old analog cellphones (brain friers) cause brain damage to rats (fully-repeatable experiments). While experiments with human subject aren't that conclusive, it's quite clear that some people are more likely to develop conditions than others.

Furthermore, an imature body/brain is much more susceptible to develop problems than an adult one.

Conclusion: test, but never with children.

--

The Raven

Re:Ignorance is also ridiculous by elmegil · 2003-10-09 14:18 · Score: 1

So a cellphone is generally right next to my head.
A WiFi network is usually going to be at least 2 feet away (on top of the desk at the laptop end) and if it's just one computer per schoolroom, it's going to be a lot further than that.
But the parents are concerned about the network, not about the cellphones that their kids, other kids, other kids parents, and probably they are using.
Tell me again how these people are not ludditious morons?

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re: Ignorance is also ridiculous by vlad_petric · 2003-10-09 14:40 · Score: 1

As far as rats are concerned, here's a recent source - this is in fact a study of the GSM system.
Regarding the second statement, it was a personal conclusion. There are a couple of cases of mobile phone "abusers" who developed tumors spatially close to the cellphone's antenna. There are studies that show how the blood brain barrier is negatively affected by cellphone-like radiation and some others that show how mininuclei are formed when blood is subjected to the same kind of radiation (mininuclei are thought to be a cause of cancer). Other studies (some of them sponsored by you-know-who) say that statistical data regarding cancer and cellphones is inconclusive and that the risk is clearly small. But cancer is not completely random, some people are more likely to develop it than others (in other words it is an uneven russian roullette).
P.S. I'm clearly not a microbiologist, and there are many things that I'm missing. I just happened to be alarmed by the continuous reports on cellphone unsafety.

--
The Raven
Re:Ignorance is also ridiculous by vlad_petric · 2003-10-09 14:48 · Score: 1

I quite agree with everything you said - but you read my message out-of-context. In the parent message it was argued that "radiation is all around us" and you basically can't do anything about it, which, IMNSHO is completely untrue - cellphones are a clear example of that.

--
The Raven
Re:Ignorance is also ridiculous by elmegil · 2003-10-10 07:54 · Score: 1

Your example is still unclear. How are cellphones an example of either radiation is NOT all around us or there IS something you can do about radiation? Sure, you can not give the kid a cellphone, but that doesn't stop him or her from hanging out with those who have them, borrowing them, etc.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:Ignorance is also ridiculous by vlad_petric · 2003-10-10 08:12 · Score: 1

Well, when a colleague is talking on the phone, 5 feet away from me, my brain absorbs considerably less radiation than my colleague's brain (it's mostly a matter of solid angle/spherical source). And yes, borrowing works - but so does borrowing cigarettes/alcohol (completely different issue).

--
The Raven

Re:Finally somebody is standing up for their healt by westlake · 2003-10-09 13:20 · Score: 1

One thing that MIGHT make WiFi more dangerous than it seems is the bandwidth of the signal. Recent studies have suggested a connection with wider band signals and health reactions (3G cell phones have been shown to create headache and nausea, while legacy phones don't. The big difference is bandwidth)

Are there distinctions to be made when exposing young children, adolescents, and adults to these low level but very high frequency signals? Any group known to be more vulnerable?

The missed quote! by dema · 2003-10-09 13:23 · Score: 1

This quote was not included in either article!

One parent recalls "I was talking to my neighbor on my cell phone while watching my popcorn in the microwave when I was told of this TERRIBLE thing called WIFI! My poor child is failing classes because of this brain-damaging super ray!"

I noticed that too by BlueboyX · 2003-10-09 13:23 · Score: 1

I noticed that too. However, the children were not the only plantiffs listed. I think that it is basically supposed to be the children suing through representation of their parrents and lawyers in a legal sense. Of course it is the parrents who are actually doing this. I am sure law school teaches you all sorts of chrud like this. :P

--
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet

must be more unhealthy than by the_2nd_coming · 2003-10-09 13:30 · Score: 1

the thousands of OTHER Electro-magnetic feilds we live in.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Easy fix by John+Jorsett · 2003-10-09 13:30 · Score: 1

Personal EMF Shielding devices! Be sure to check out the boxer shorts.

School by LittleBigScript · 2003-10-09 13:31 · Score: 1

I don't know how they can run wireless in their school? Must have a port in every classroom. The signal is basically line of sight.

I remember when I went to school I couldn't play a radio in a classroom unless it had a window. All the schools were too well shielded. Something about running an antenna on the roof of the schools. Some kind of repeater

Re:School by aXis100 · 2003-10-09 17:58 · Score: 1

2.4HGz WiFi will go through a wall or two, albeit with significant attenuation. Still, you'd probably want an Access point in each room just to cope with the numbers on connections.

Lets say 30 students/laptops + one AP, 30mW each. Total max radiation would be 930mW, though average levels would be much lower. The direct effect of microwaves is to cause heating in water, so this situation would be equivalent to shining a pocket torch at the classroom.

As for the radio/window issue - probably too much lead in the paint ;)

Obese and Stupid by vnguyen6 · 2003-10-09 13:33 · Score: 1

No wonder the world hates Americans, we have become obese and stupid enough to believe in junk science and eager trial lawyers.

Re:Obese and Stupid by BlacKat · 2003-10-09 15:47 · Score: 1

Yuppers, over 60% of Americans are overweight or obese according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention!

If you don't believe me feel free to check for yourself.

BTW, here is another dirty secret.... by AetherBurner · 2003-10-09 13:34 · Score: 1

I wonder if they know that moving the computer mouse back and forth too many times results in blindness.....

2.4 Ghz by brunes69 · 2003-10-09 13:37 · Score: 1

Bluetooth, WiFi, cordless phones, baby monitors, and many other devices all operate in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz spectrum. Also, given the range and badnwidth cordless phones need over WiFi, and I don't doubt the 1/10th claim for 1 second.

This lawsuit is just a bunch of retarded. soccer moms with nothing better to do.

Damn hippies by Raven15 · 2003-10-09 13:41 · Score: 1

These people are made of stupid! A quick glance at the pdf of the complaint shows how completely slanted their case seems to be.

For example, Allegation 19 states that the only federal regulation with respect to radiation is an older regulation dealing with thermal radiation. Now, I've not researched this or anything, but I'm fairly certain that electronics folks have to deal with lots of stringent FCC radiation regulations. It seems like that'd probably qualify as a federal regulation.

Even better, Allegation 20 says that since different nations have different standards on radiation exposure (although the US apparently doesn't, per Allegation 19), there's clearly scientific uncertainty! It couldn't **possibly** be a simple case of differing opinions in the details!

Oh God! The horrible RF death rays are breaking down the brain-blood barrier in our precious precious children! Quick, sue someone!

In other news, the parents of the students have also filed a suit requesting that all classes take place in a grove of trees and that each teacher be addressed by titles similar to Starshine Leaf-flutter, Gaia-friend, etc.

Out damned hippies!

Maybe they should just... by HexRei · 2003-10-09 13:42 · Score: 1

...send their kids to school in tinfoil hats!

What is radiation? by Hagmonk · 2003-10-09 13:42 · Score: 1

Radiation is all around us. You can feel it when you go to school. When you pay your taxes. When you ... go to church.

Unfortunately nobody can be told what radiation is. You have to experience it yourself.

You drop your class action lawsuit and wake up believing whatever you want to believe.

You keep your class action lawsuit and step inside my microwave oven, and I show you just how tasty your litigious brains can be, with a side of steamed broccoli and some fresh green peas.

--
Ash OS durbatulk, ash OS gimbatul, ash OS thrakatulk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul! Uzg-MS-ishi amal fauthut burgulli.

*sigh* by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · 2003-10-09 13:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, compared to the amount of RF energy travelling through most homes, WiFi *IS* background radiation. You don't need a fancy source for that. All you need is a little technical data.

WiFi is limited to 80mW or less of power output. The leakage alone from a 900W microwave oven is considerably higher than this, and in the exact same frequency spectra. The power output of radar of various types dwarfs either, although the distance normally provides some protection (inverse squares and all). And don't even ask about the output from a 20,000W AM radio station.

The X-Rays from an average CRT (including that television set) are much more harmful, since, unlike the microwave radiation used by the above, X-Rays are ionizing radiation and *DO* cause cellular mutations (basically, anything longer wave than UV, including visible light and microwaves, doesn't have the energy to ionize the cells in a human body (photoelectric effect), anything shorter wave (including the deadly UVC, X-rays, and Gamma rays) will ionize cells, break down DNA, and other wonderful things).

--

Hardware, software, and blinking lights!

Re:*sigh* by Trejkaz · 2003-10-09 15:08 · Score: 1

If WiFi is limited to 80mW of power output, how is it that a friend of mine is bragging about owning a 200mW output card? :-/

--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:*sigh* by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · 2003-10-10 01:02 · Score: 1

Some hardware supports much higher than the mandated limit. It usually requires driver hacks to enable, though.

--
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
Re:*sigh* by pmz · 2003-10-10 02:03 · Score: 1

The power output of radar of various types dwarfs either...

If you don't believe him, just ask the testicles of early radar technicians.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:*sigh* by EvvL · 2003-10-10 03:41 · Score: 1

WiFi is limited to 80mW or less of power output.

Just a small correction. FCC regs limit 802.11b signals (the use of the freq specifically) to 1W max. A few of my friend that work at a isp and do wireless hosting via 802.11b have the amps to do that. You usally can't get your hands on that type of equipment without a lot of money. But you can easily get 100mW cards like the XI-325H and suposedly there is the XI-325HI that is 200mW both are made by Zcomax. The internal amp in the prism2 chipset is around 35mW, for a manufacture to get over that they have to add a external amp and disable the internal amp.

--
I'm not taking sides anymore...
I'm just gonna sit back and be a pest.
Re:*sigh* by jaf1230 · 2003-10-11 09:49 · Score: 1

"The X-Rays from an average CRT (including that television set) are much more harmful, since, unlike the microwave radiation used by the above, X-Rays are ionizing radiation and *DO* cause cellular mutations"

Then my cells are horribly mutated... My parents should sue Syba and KDS... and Sony for the tv, and everyone else.
We should become Amish.

--
SIG 666 - Signature stolen by the devil
Re:*sigh* by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · 2003-10-11 13:03 · Score: 1

Well, it's all a matter of scale... one mutated cell will be eaten by your immune system. A modern TV puts out so few X-Rays that the amount of mutation that you'd receive is negligable.

--
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!

Wefee! by CherniyVolk · 2003-10-09 13:43 · Score: 1

They probably contacted their lawyers via cell phones.

Those kids think THEY'RE screwed? by JustaGiga · 2003-10-09 13:43 · Score: 1

I'm more worried about the cell phone a few inches away from my balls than I am the WiFi APs in the buildings around me!

Ridiculous but it raises an interesting point by digitaltraveller · 2003-10-09 13:44 · Score: 1

As many others have pointed out RF emissions in the deregulated 2.4ghz range are no different then that used in baby monitors, DECT phones, etc. However, the widespread intentional use of RF for communication is a very recent phenomenon in human development.

I think it's quite likely that increased RF usage IS causing us an indeterminate level of harm as a society. The question is how much (or how little). I suspect it's greater than people (technologists) think. There was a paper published recently that showed cell phone use in metal carriages (trains) could easily approach unsafe levels. Does humanity deem this unknown cost worthwhile? So far the answer seems to be a resounding yes. Or at the very least -we don't care.

Realistically a tremendous amount of ambient radiation in the environment could be mitigated by better managed spectrum allocation policies. But nowadays the public interest is a seconday concern to that of entrenched business and politics.

Misplaced priorities by El · 2003-10-09 13:48 · Score: 1

Cell phones: Constant 600mW output, inches from your brain.

Wi-Fi: Intermittent 35mW output, several feet away.

Which would you go after first, if you thought RF was harmful?

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Tinfoil hats... by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · 2003-10-09 13:50 · Score: 3, Funny

... might be useless against alien mindprobes or whatever it is that conspiracy theorists keep ranting about, but they do work pretty nicely to block radio waves, especially at higher frequencies.

So just have the paranoid parents send their kids to school wrapped up like a baked potato. Sure, the resulting bullying might be unhealthy, but the kid won't be exposed to the evil 2.4GHz radiation.

--

Hardware, software, and blinking lights!

May as well get it over with by peacefinder · 2003-10-09 13:56 · Score: 1

This was inevitable. That was clear to me from the moment I found out that 2.4GHz is the same band as microwave ovens. I could already hear the cry: "You're microwaving me?!"

It's probably stupid, to be sure, and there are most likely many worse risks around these children than wireless networking. But there was bound to be a lawsuit, and we may as well get it over with. I just hope that it is so crushingly defeated as to deter more suits like it.

--
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd

I agree with the parents by Cyno · 2003-10-09 13:58 · Score: 1

I think there might be potential health risks to radio frequency radiation. But not enough to be concerned about.

I would ask each of those parents if they heard anything about the Plowshares project. Back in the 1960s the US government allowed this project to explore the economic potential of nuclear excavation on Nevada soil, among other places. Who knows how many other toxic or radioactive projects have existed or been in direct contact with the public. Anyone who thinks that WiFi, cell phone, TV and radio signals are harmful needs to look around them. I'm sure they can find something far more dangerous to their children than a little RF. How about each of those SUVs passing them by at 30 mph only 5 feet away as they stroll down the sidewalk.

Re:I agree with the parents by EmagGeek · 2003-10-09 15:08 · Score: 1

You're clearly misinformed about the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I suggest you visit your local library and read up on the subject.

Radiation from nuclear materials is particulate in nature and is therefore capable of ionizing atoms - either stripping electrons or fissioning a nucleus. At the genetic level, the latter can be harmful. Furthermore, the most damage is done by the more-rare higher energy particles such as Beta and Gamma particles. Alpha particles, which are substantively a simple Helium nucleus, are large, slow, low-energy, and are unable to penetrate a piece of tissue paper.

Radiation from radio sources is electromagnetic in nature and is only capable of inducing surface and volume currents in the object on which they are incident. Merely moving electrons around between atoms is widely known to be non-harmful to human tissue.
Re:I agree with the parents by Cyno · 2003-10-09 18:46 · Score: 1

So it is your opinion that non-ionizing radiation has no heath risks?

The internet is a library of information.
Re:I agree with the parents by EmagGeek · 2003-10-10 01:13 · Score: 1

Not at all. For example, if you stare into the aperture of a high-power microwave transmitter, you can suffer permanent eye trauma. Likewise, if you cram yourself into your microwave and turn it on, you're likely to suffer injury.

The FCC has established exposure guidelines for non-ionizing radiation. These exposure limits are established for certain frequency ranges and power levels and are based on the ANSI C95.1 RF Exposure Standards document published first in 1982.

http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technolog y/ Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65b.pdf

This is a good document that explains a lot about why the limits were imposed.

Happy learning...

Wait until they find out... by DeCappa · 2003-10-09 14:01 · Score: 1

...that the CB "radios" they use to talk to each other about the latest government conspiracy and the current status of the militia also use "radio" waves!

OH WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
Mrs. Rev. Lovejoy

This goes to show... by simba17 · 2003-10-09 14:03 · Score: 1

As one of the youngest school directors in Pennsylvania, I know the importance of technology in schools. Wireless network access is becoming increasingly vital as we become more mobile. I cannot believe that the lawyers think they have a case, as they are probably not digging into the matter all that much. As someone mentioned above, you might as well stop using anything else that emits any sort of waves, as those are just as harmful as 802.11x, which is practically nothing, or the FCC would probably not allow it to be commercially developed. Hopefully a judge laughs at the attorneys and those who are trying to impose this, and that this probably goes away. However, I would probably think that this is not the last we have heard of it.

Purity of Essence by Latent+Heat · 2003-10-09 14:06 · Score: 4, Funny

There was a time when it was the right-wing nuts who were charging every kind of conspiracy and risk to health. Remember fluoride in water and how the issue was lampooned in Dr. Strangelove?

I had a libertarian friend who liked to poke fun both at the right-wing nuts who were upset about fluoride along with the liberals who were in a big huff about how bad the conservatives were. He offered up the "fluoron" theory: fluorescent light bulbs emitted "fluorons", subatomic particles smaller than an electron so they were not yet detected by science, but they were shaped like a hammer and sickle (the Soviet emblem), and if one penetrated your skull it would explode a brain cell and turn it into a Communist idealogue. Light exposure (small number of Commie brain cells) turned you into a liberal while heavy doses turned you into a pinko -- and fluorescent lights were everywhere in public schools and government buildings.

I guess we have come full circle and now the loony Left has become what the loony Right once was.

Re:Purity of Essence by cpeterso · 2003-10-09 16:10 · Score: 1

This sounds a lot like that "The Moon Is A Liberal Myth" troll.. ;-)

--
cpeterso
Re:Purity of Essence by StillNeedMoreCoffee · 2003-10-10 02:31 · Score: 1

I suspect this group is actually part of the Looney Right. But then it just may be those "anti-flurons" coming from the Wifi that has turned them to the Looney Right. Bush probably could not gotten elected without massive conservative investment in Wifi installations in key States.

Ducking, that anti-fluoron just missed, thank god.

this is my stupid district by elmegil · 2003-10-09 14:06 · Score: 1

They're a bunch of goofballs. It's the same thing as with GMO's except that they have even LESS scientific basis for alarm. I wrote a sarcastic letter to the editor a couple weeks ago, but I spose I was too rude, it didn't get published. Bottom line is: 1) Cell Phones are more dangerous; closer proximity, higher signal strength. 2) Are parents going to sue other parents who have wi-fi if their children visit? How about Starbucks, McDonald's, and several hospitals? 3) I can get a handful of scientists who claim that UFO's are real too, does that mean they really exist and I can sue the government successfully for covering up?

It makes me ashamed that I live here sometimes.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001

Your "suit" makes more sense than the Wi-Fi one. by chadjg · 2003-10-09 14:06 · Score: 1

UV Radiation is proven harmful, and sulight has buckets of it. we know plain old glass lets in plenty of this harmless radiation. So, in a pedestrian, idiot world, it could win. Welcome to the United States of America. The few Alabama hicks I know have already figured this out, they just don't care. They are too busy having fun, and working to pay of their Fish & Game citations. By the way, wasn't the guy that first popularized the power lines cause cancer thing found to be making up data out of thin air? I am proud to be a USAian, but this kind of thing has me freaked out.

--
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.

Not as dangerous... by Rorschach1 · 2003-10-09 14:09 · Score: 1

as a lot of things you'd find at school - lunch, for example.

Come on, people... it's 100 miliwatts of power, max, and you're not going to be sticking an access point up to your head. If they used exposed lumps of Cobalt-60, I could see where it'd be a problem.

Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by fmaxwell · 2003-10-09 14:10 · Score: 2, Funny

People that mind-numbingly stupid should have their children forcibly taken away by the state and put up for adoption. Then the parents should be sterilized so that they don't breed again.

In the meantime, science teachers throughout the school district should be telling their classes that these parents are examples of morons who have no understanding of science.

Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by sniggly · 2003-10-09 18:14 · Score: 1

Explain, since when is any form of electromagnetic radiation not harmful? Low band low energy radio is not very harmful while high energy gamma rays aren quite harmful. Wifi is pretty energetic so has the capability to dislodge atomic structures and hence arguably is carcinogenic.
Next time when you talk about sterilization for stupidity include a clause that when in retrospect you are the stupid one they can stop your machinery from working...
Have you ever used google like for http://www.google.se/search?q=radiation+wifi+healt h

--
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by ACorvus · 2003-10-09 20:39 · Score: 1

No, it can't "dislodge atomic structures" - it's not ionising radiation. It might cause some heating if you shoved the antenna through your eyeball and directly into your brain though...

--
-- Sig Sig Sputnik
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by jejones · 2003-10-09 22:42 · Score: 1

Can you say "post hoc ergo propter hoc"? Sure...I knew you could.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by JCMay · 2003-10-10 00:10 · Score: 1

No, it can't "dislodge atomic structures" - it's not ionising radiation. It might cause some heating if you shoved the antenna through your eyeball and directly into your brain though...

Not ionizing? Pray tell, why then do transmission lines have maximum power handling limits? Waveguide, for instance, can't handle any more power than that which provides an electric field equal to the dielectric strength of the filling material. Any more power and the dielectric ionizes and arcing occurs.

Walk outside near a power line here in Florida, and you can here the lines crackling, as small arcs in the damp salty air jump from the transmission cables to their support stuctures.

Now EM radiation won't do anything to nuclear structures, if that's what you mean. Transmutation requires more energy than possible through EM bombardment.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by ACorvus · 2003-10-10 00:22 · Score: 1

Erm, that's not radiation causing the breakdown into ions. It's the local electric field - you can cause this just as well with DC, and no radiation takes place at DC - just a static e-field is present

The distinction is tricky, but look at it this way: you won't see any ionisation from microwaves travelling through an absorptive medium, such as air or flesh. However, if you take a beta particle or X-ray, you will certainly see electrons being knocked off the atoms as soon as such a photon impinges on one.

The breakdown of the dielectric (in the waveguide, air), is simply the breakdown of the medium's standoff capability caused by excessive voltage - and that can happen with DC, inside a flame, and so on.

Agreed on the nuclear stuff though.

--
-- Sig Sig Sputnik
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by fmaxwell · 2003-10-10 00:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Explain, since when is any form of electromagnetic radiation not harmful?

You're right! Quick: Run around your house and unplug your lamps, flourescent lights, computer, television, cordless phone, microwave oven, anything with an electric motor, since they all emit electromagnetic radiation.

Low band low energy radio is not very harmful while high energy gamma rays aren quite harmful.

So let's just extrapolate from gamma radiation to WiFi networks. That's good science.

Wifi is pretty energetic so has the capability to dislodge atomic structures and hence arguably is carcinogenic.

Then show us reputable, peer-reviewed studies published in reputable medical journals like The Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine that bear out your theory when it comes to the low-power 802.11 networks that we're talking about here.

Next time when you talk about sterilization for stupidity include a clause that when in retrospect you are the stupid one they can stop your machinery from working...

That was implied from the beginning. But there's no chance of that happening any time soon because, unlike you, I value science more than google results that show up a bunch of blog entries from pseudo-science nutcases.

Have you ever used google like for http://www.google.se/search?q=radiation+wifi+healt h

Have you ever used Google like for http://www.google.com/search?q=aliens+roswell+UFO.

Run for your lives! The extraterrestrials have landed on the Earth.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by calethix · 2003-10-10 01:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't worry, the wi-fi network will surely sterilize their children so the stupidity will stop there. ;)
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by AB3A · 2003-10-10 01:33 · Score: 1

The power limits come about because there are standing voltage wave and standing current wave limits. At voltage nodes, you run the risk of arcing. The arc itself is what ionizes the dielectric (usually air). At current nodes, you run the risk of heating the copper surface enough to damage the cable or waveguide.

Note that these limits involve power densities many orders of magnitude more than the ANSI limits for electromagnetic radiation in free space.

The only known and documented effect of non-ionizing low density radiation is thermal heating. People have been searching for some form of non-thermal effects for nearly as long as radio has been in common use. To date, no such effect has been demonstrated in a repeated experiment.

This is a difficult issue to work with because it's extremely difficult to construct a well controlled experiment. Most of the positive results in the past have been shown to have had poor controls.

Concerning these parents, however, I think they need an education on exposure to electromagnetic fields. One would get more exposure using an electric shaver or a cordless phone than in a class-room setting such as this school district has.

I know that school systems are there to teach our future citizenry, but clearly they need to teach these parents a lesson too. This is sort of poetic justic in a way. Those who are too ignorant to open a book and use their high school physics education are about to learn an expensive lesson. The irony would be complete if it turned out that these parents were educated by this same school system.

--
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by JCMay · 2003-10-10 02:19 · Score: 1

The original poster said that elecro-magnetic fields don't cause ionization, I was refuting that. I know full-well that a strong enough static electric field can ionize things; I own a cat (ZAP!). Frequency has nothing to do with the fact that a strong enough E-field will strip electrons from the atoms in the dielectric that it permeates, ionizing it.

I know that most arcing situations in a waveguide are due to mismatch-induced standing waves. Locality has nothing to do with the fact that a strongenough E-field will strip electrons from the atoms in the dielectric that it permeates, ionizing it. It's that VSWR mismatch limit that sets the power handling limit for the waveguide.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by sniggly · 2003-10-11 06:41 · Score: 1

Someone with your helpful attitude should consider joining clan debunkers and rush all those who are "stupid" into your eugenics program.
When I post here do I have to qualify everything I say? It would be an endless discourse. Have you ever used google... does that mean all results from that query should be taken literally? Hell if thats how you read posts you should really evaluate your communications skills.
It's easy to debunk especially when you feel that you are intellectually superior to the one you respond to. It's exactly that holier than thou attitude that is making a lot of common people loose trust in science and government because the moment they witness something or are concerned about something that is outside the parameters of conventional society they get debunked with the passion and arrogance you so eloquently display. You do know that a huge proportion of americans believes in aliens and harmful effects of powerlines exactly because people like yourself think they are stupid and should be neutered. You troll.

--
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by fmaxwell · 2003-10-11 07:49 · Score: 1

When I post here do I have to qualify everything I say?

Okay, just make any claim that you want and I'll take your word for it. Just accept everything that I say as fact, too, and don't challenge me to support it either. Should make for shorter discussions.

Hell if thats how you read posts you should really evaluate your communications skills.

Other people already have. See +5 insightful karma bonus. If the poster had found reputable articles to support his position, he should have linked to them instead of telling me to do a Google search looking for evidence to support his contentions.

It's easy to debunk especially when you feel that you are intellectually superior to the one you respond to.

Whether I believe that I am intellectually superior or not has nothing to do with the quality of their arguments -- though the quality of their arguments is why I feel intellectually superior.

It's exactly that holier than thou attitude that is making a lot of common people loose trust in science and government because the moment they witness something or are concerned about something that is outside the parameters of conventional society they get debunked with the passion and arrogance you so eloquently display.

A parent is suing a school district and that school district is having to fight this in court, incurring all of the costs to do so. That's money that's not going to textbooks, computers, lab equipment, sports equipment, etc. Hell yes, I'm passionate. When tax dollars are having to be spent because someone with no understanding of science is afraid of something, then, yes, I do get emotional about it.

You do know that a huge proportion of americans believes in aliens and harmful effects of powerlines exactly because people like yourself think they are stupid and should be neutered.

So that's a valid basis for a belief system! "I'm gonna believe in Bigfoot cuz it makes people think I'm stupid!" said Cletus, as he moseyed back to his double-wide.

You troll.

Not usually. Most of my fishing is either with live bait, cut bait, or casting from my boat. I caught quite a lot of catfish this summer with clam snouts on the Potomac.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by sniggly · 2003-10-11 13:04 · Score: 1

I agree that the money wasted on fighting superstition and ignorance in court and in other places is alarming. But the approach of the establishment towards people's ignorance is all wrong. Bush believed all these evil things about Saddam Hussein most of which were true but the general picture led him to believe something that wasn't exactly warranted. Total cost to the US taxpayer, far over $100b and counting. They call Bush stupid and apparently he tries to make that point stubbornly :)
A lot of people claim to have seen UFO's and Yetis and bigfoot. Maybe that's what they saw, maybe not. A lot of 'establishment' people rage against these perceptions and don't help any in unnerving suspicions. They flatly deny the possibility that such things exist while the scientific method dictates that something cannot be proven not to exist, since we know very little and our theories might be wrong or unrefined.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1089 40% believe in astrology, 30% in UFOs (NSF study)
http://images.google.com/images?q=troll Hey google has them so they exist!
:)

--
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by fmaxwell · 2003-10-11 14:20 · Score: 1

They call Bush stupid and apparently he tries to make that point stubbornly :)

I just wish that I didn't have to pay $500+ (the cost of the 'Bush wars' to every man, woman, and child in the U.S.) to fund the effort.

They flatly deny the possibility that such things exist while the scientific method dictates that something cannot be proven not to exist, since we know very little and our theories might be wrong or unrefined.

I don't flatly deny that such things exist. What I rage against is the unreasoned belief in them when the evidence against them is so much stronger. When the Bigfoot and UFO and Loch Ness Monster believers continue to trot out footage and testimony which were debunked years earlier, it makes me nuts. How many times does something have to be debunked before the debunking sticks?

40% believe in astrology

Being an Aries, I am far too enlightened to believe in astrology.

30% in UFOs (NSF study)

I believe in UFOs. I just don't believe that they are extraterrestrial.

Hey google has them so they exist!

I can't refute that kind of logic.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by sniggly · 2003-10-12 02:19 · Score: 1

>> 30% in UFOs (NSF study) >I believe in UFOs. I just don't believe that they are extraterrestrial. I've had someone tell me in confidence that he had seen a UFO. It's someone who'se opinion I had learned to respect and scientific integrity to trust. I've had to suspend disbelief on that and I really don't know what to think. From his description of its movement and total lack of respect for impulse & momentum ... I'd rather believe it's aliens than not :/
It's also pretty much his experience (I think he's a bit embarassed that he told me) that makes me dislike debunking so much. We after all live in a fascinating universe on an expanding scientific discovery. There are marvels to be discovered and enjoyed if we keep our minds open enough to see them.
... (I had been calculating how much the avg taxpayer has to contribute to Bush's war and his 'tax cut' and it's a rather appaling figure)...

--
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Re:Why the fuck weren't these parents sterilized? by fmaxwell · 2003-10-13 12:20 · Score: 1

From his description of its movement and total lack of respect for impulse & momentum ... I'd rather believe it's aliens than not

There is a tremendous human desire to believe that we are not alone in the vacuum of the universe. That's all the more reason why we have to remain alert against logical fallacies. Not to be insulting, but what you've just committed is an argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). You don't have an explanation for what the person told you, so you attribute it to extraterrestrials -- despite having no evidence that extraterrestrials, if they exist (and, based on probability and statistics, I believe that they do) would be able to circumvent the laws of physics.

We after all live in a fascinating universe on an expanding scientific discovery. There are marvels to be discovered and enjoyed if we keep our minds open enough to see them.

Good science relies on skepticism. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, then require extraordinary proof. Remember Occam's Razor at all turns: All other things being equal, the simplist explanation is usually the best. Did you misplace your car keys or were they transported by aliens to another space-time continuum? Bet on the former rather than the latter.

One should always be willing to question their own beliefs and, if that is what you meant by keeping an open mind, then I'll agree. But don't trade one set of beliefs for another just because it makes you feel good to do so.

For you: PhD = Phucking Dummy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-09 14:11 · Score: 1, Funny

First of all, just being a PhD means is that you spent too much time and money on schools.

Second, you make it sound as if there were some "question" about 2.4Ghz devices, but *DON'T ACTUALLY POINT TO ANY RESEARCH THAT RAISES QUESTIONS*.

I put you in the category of people who believe in ghosts, government conspiracies and think "The X Files" was a documentary.

You're not well thought out, and you wave around a diploma as proof of intelligence.

Pathetic. I'll bet you school wishes they'd pull your diploma right about now.

Real parents understand that children are not fragile creatures. If they were, the human race would have died out millions of years ago.

You *have* heard of evolution, right?

Square law strikes again by Nightlight3 · 2003-10-09 14:16 · Score: 1

WiFi is limited to 80mW or less of power output. ... although the distance normally provides some protection (inverse squares and all). And don't even ask about the output from a 20,000W AM radio station.

Well, using your figures of 80mW vs 20,000W, it follows that the ratio is 250,000 which, applying the distance square law for intensity, says that a Wi-Fi at distance of 1 foot is equivalent to AM radio station at 500 ft. If someone were to build a 20,000W AM station at 100-200 yards from a school there would be a huge outcry (it happened in my town, Lexington MA few years ago, with much lower power RF station).

Today's parents are not only stupid, but dumb, too by slappyjack · 2003-10-09 14:17 · Score: 1

New Commandments of the Modern American Parent:

- Thou shalt not tell my child they are anything other than special and above average. Not giving them praise for waiting until they are 15 to learn basic mathematics will not be tolerated, and you will be sued.

- Thou shalt not challenge my child in any way. IF you give my child an "F" for not turning in any of his schoolwork, you will be sued.

- Thou shalt not make my child exert themselves. Making tests difficult and/or full of questions in which they have to apply knowledge ti discover an answer will get you labeled racist, or ageist, or whatever term we can think of. We will use this term in the lawsuit.

- Thou shalt give unto my child all they want. My child does not eat healthy foods, you will supply them mwith whatever junk food they want, when they want it. Attemptign to get them to burn off these wasted meals in gym class will get you sued for harrassment.

- Thou shalt not expect me to raise my child, that's why I pay property taxes and send my child to school; unless I have a good tax attorney, in which case I will find a way to NOT pay my taxes.

- Thou shalt not make my child carry textbooks. You will make textbooks lighter, or I will buy them a rediculous rolling carryon luggage thing as to not force them to exert themselves by actually carrying their textbooks. A guy on TV said backpacks will hurt them. If my kid gets a sore muscle, I'll sue.

- Thou shalt not be told what I want you to do in raising our childern for us. You should know these things as professional educators, I should not have to be involved with their upbringing; but if I don't like it, I'll sue.

- Thou shal be given the responsibility of raising our children, then be striped of any and all power to do so. These are our children, and we can sue.

- Nothing that happens involving my child is their fault. My little angel would never do that, so it must be something you did to them - like not raise them properly, which is now YOUR job. You will hear form my lawyer soon.

I realise this doesn't apply to all parents. I know good parents, and their kids are a joy, well behaved, and know their place.

[rambling rant]

This article and string of posts brings something else to mind...

We all have one friend or another that insists on forwarding stupid shit to us incessantly, and for whatever reason we DON'T grind them into dirt for doing it. On rare occations, onf of these forwards will not be total shit and provide an interesting read. You all tnkw the one I'm getting to:
"By modern logic, we should have all been killed during our childhood long ago"

Then it goes on to describe things most of us have done as children, chronicling all the stuff we'd make each other eat ("I dont know if its dog doo... I'll give you $5 to eat it! C'mon you fairy, eat it! ... SO what did it taste like? gimme that!"), shit we pulled that these days would be a national scandal ("RUFFIANS BURN ITEMS IN CORNFIELD! LOCAL ECOLOGY THREATENED!"), acts of daring-do we'd commit on our undestructible 75 pound all-steel bicycles (the best daring-do being "why can't WE play demo-derby with our bikes! Just try not to hit each other's legs.")

Our parents? Not only did they not konw we did this stuff, but when they found out about them were more agitated the adult that busted us didnt punish us IMMEDIATELY in addition to the ass-whomping they were about to inflict on us.

How many of us built science projects with your old man involving semi-poorly wired items built with tools that sould rip large hunks of flesh off of you?

How many of you had parents what worked in the garage on vehicles, hurt yourself while "watching" (read: fucking around) and were then told "See? This is why I told you not to goof around in here"

Parents today have pretty much lost all touch with reality as we know it. Completely. Americans are going soft and allowing themselves to be scared by

--
s'wut i sed.

To the parents. by CrazyDuke · 2003-10-09 14:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Dear Parents;

We at your local public schools appreciate your concerns over the installation of a radio frequencey AKA wireless or wifi computer network. Since we have become aware of your concern over the exposure of children to radiation, we have studied the situation in ernest to better understand your concerns.

We have decided henseforth, that no wireless network access will be available at the local schools.

In addition, during our research, we have discovered more sources of potentially harmful radiation, many even more dangerous. We appologize for our negligence; And keeping in mind your concerns with this problem, we are immediately initiating steps to stop these dead rays from damaging the lives of our children. In the interest of openness, we are providing a list of these steps so that we may recieve constuctive feedback from the community. They are:

1. Effective immediatly, all electronic devices of any type are banned. This includes all computers, calculators, air conditioners, heaters, ovens, refrigerators, electric pencil sharpeners, electronic office equipment, lighting (which is notorious for the amounts of radiation it emits), smoke alarms (which also have significant amounts of Americium-241, a highly radioactive metal in the same group as Uranium and Plutonium), and communications devices. In addition:
- Cell phones, cordless phones, walky talkies, and all other cordless electronic communication equipment are considered weapons. Possession
of such weapons will result in immediate expulsion and immediate contact with the appropriate authorities.
- Children with pacemakers, motorized artificial limbs, or other electronic health assistance will be required to attend a special school for radioactive children located off the main school grounds. Parents possesing any of the afformentioned equipment are banned from school grounds.

2. We will be disconnecting from the power grid, telephone network, and cable network immediately in order to curb radio frequency radation that is emitted from even the wires themselves.

3. The school will be renovated with aluminum and lead radiation sheilding in order to protect the children from extraterrestrial radiation including x-rays and gamma rays. We would appreciate donations so that we may purchase the lead required to construct a 1 meter (approximately 3 foot) thick dome over the school in order to make sure none of this radiation harms the children.

4. Since busses contain electronic components that emit radiation themselves, all bussing services are to be halted. All students are required to walk or ride a bicycle to school while wearing lead radiation sheilding.

5. Parents who are suspected of exposing students to the above radiation sources shall be refered to social services for further investigation.

Thank you for bringing this grave matter to our attention. We will continue to take all the steps necessary to keep the children safe and protected.

Sincerely;

XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

(It's funny! Laugh!)

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.

Re:To the parents. by bhima · 2003-10-09 17:26 · Score: 1

Yes, it's funny and I am laughing, but you have to know that this is how the rest of the world is beginning to see Americans.
Here in the EU the US is considered a 'nanny state' with most of the population too stupid to care for themselves or take a positive role in their community.

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Re:To the parents. by poofmeisterp · 2003-10-09 22:53 · Score: 1

I am definitely laughing.. and hard. :) I'm glad someone else had the same internal reaction I did.
No matter what anyone says, my opinion will not change; that is that this entire debacle is about MONEY. The "good parents" just want to make a quick buck, and they figure the only way of obtaining any measurable return is to get class-action status. They're banking on the idea that theywill only be able to get a few nutcases interested in joining the class, so the payout per capita is likely to be larger.
These people should be ground up and fed to hungry pigs. So should anyone else that uses their kids or their kid's health/intellect for personal gain.

Re:What a waste of money-the foots on the other sh by Moofie · 2003-10-09 14:28 · Score: 1

I'd agree with you, if the legitimacy of the grievance were more relevant to the judgement than the net salary of the opposing legal teams.

Does Erin Brockovich win sometimes? Sure. But, there are also zillions of well-meaning crusading lawyers out there who get ground into a fine powder by corporate legal teams.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

It's the schools' fault anyway . . . by Mysteray · 2003-10-09 14:29 · Score: 1

It's the schools' fault anyway . . .
for failing to teach the critical reasoning skills necessary to evaluate relative risks.
I've got a K in school now. Which would you rather have, a kid who encounters the occasional 2 GHz photon, or one that's never seen a computer?
They get far more natural radiation on the playground anyway.

Home WiFi Usage Linked to Autism by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-10-09 14:35 · Score: 1

I just know two years from now I'm going to be standing in a line at the supermarket and that story will be staring back at me from the tabloids.

Sorry, we all know it's just too juicy for somebody to pass up...

Oh, and once WiFi is widely deployed in schools, "Cancer hotspots developing around wireless school networks."

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Home WiFi Usage Linked to Autism by lxs · 2003-10-09 21:34 · Score: 1

So true. However, I suspect that reading tabloids is linked to stupidity. Is there a study to confirm my suspicions? And if not, why not? Must be a government plot...

fire....bad by jman101101 · 2003-10-09 14:36 · Score: 1

rays badddd. school badddd. lawsuit goooodd

--
3y3 c4|\| |\|0t u|\|d3rs74nd j00

what's wrong with....... by hhknighter · 2003-10-09 14:36 · Score: 1

a nice healthy glow? Or they don't want to ruin their night hunting trips?

These parents aren't related and named Cletus and Ann-Marie, right?

If more parents are like this, I think I wouldn't have so much trouble finding an IT job.

Why am I not dead? by WCMI92 · 2003-10-09 14:43 · Score: 1

I've been exposed to TONS of RF... CRT's... access points... 5 50kW FM stations in the city..

ETC.

This is all over blown.

--
Corporatism != Free Market

WiFi Fashion News... by vudufixit · 2003-10-09 14:48 · Score: 1

tinfoil hats suddenly become all the rage in wi-fi equipped schools as legal eagles duke it out over possible harmful RF effects on developing children.

wireless is cheaper by karb · 2003-10-09 14:50 · Score: 1

wireless is much easier and much cheaper. Can you imagine wiring a desk or two for every child in the school?

--

Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

Re:wireless is cheaper by Some+Dumbass... · 2003-10-10 01:33 · Score: 1

wireless is much easier and much cheaper. Can you imagine wiring a desk or two for every child in the school?

Nope. I can't imaging paying for a computer on every desk in the school and then complaining about the cost of networking them. Having said that, if they are putting multiple computers in every classroom, it makes sense to cut down on wires, if only to avoid injuries and hardware damage due to tripping. :)

Re:What a waste of money-the foots on the other sh by doomdog · 2003-10-09 14:50 · Score: 1

The key part of tort-reform, where the loser pays the winner's legal fees is this: the amount you have to pay to the winner cannot exceed what you paid for your own legal advice.. So, if you spent $3,000 suing someone and lost, you'd have to pay $3,000 to the winner, even if they spent $3,000,000 defending themselves. This is what protects the little guy against the other side rolling out the million dollar attorneys.

prophets or Savanarolas by jacklebot · 2003-10-09 14:56 · Score: 1

Well, assuming they're not hipocrites, and don't use cordless phones,baby monitors or cell phones, we have to consider the idea that maybe they're right. Imagine if all those mysterious ethereal waves DO give us cancer? Then again, they could just be backwater holdovers from the middle ages, not wanting to imbrace new scary ideas (like electricty, or flight ;-P) A Dark Age monk named Savanarola tried to stop the Rennaissance in Italy. Maybe this is about the same?

In other news... by EmagGeek · 2003-10-09 14:57 · Score: 1

The parents who initially filed the lawsuit were found to have never graduated elementary school...

This has got to be the most uninformed, ignorant jibberish that I've seen in a long time. I bet these idiots have WiFi at home even...

The legal system is not meant to be an attention-getting device, nor a platform on which to build a political career...

Re:What a waste of money-the foots on the other sh by Moofie · 2003-10-09 15:03 · Score: 1

Hmmm.

So what if I'm a shyster lawyer, and I bring suit against a company on my own behalf? I spend nothing, and risk nothing, and maybe I can get a pile of dough from a corp.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no corporate apologist, but I don't think that your idea is workable and/or fair.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

It's simple by CitizenJohnJohn · 2003-10-09 15:03 · Score: 2, Funny

These parents just need to send their kids to school in smaller versions of their own tin-foil beanies.

Other Radio that is around by GeXX · 2003-10-09 15:06 · Score: 1

So, I guess these people don't have a CRT monitor, or cordless phones, or any phone for that matter that puts off any kind of energy. I wonder if they are going to due direct tv, xmradio, sirus radio, and the 5000 other satelites that are putting off radio waves, that may cause damage also. Oh hell, I wonder if they are going to go sue the sun for causing skin cancer.. These people need to wake up and realize that we are all dying, it is just a matter of time, and nothing is really good for us anyways, but who cares, we are dying..

Heh. Oak Park. by Kyn · 2003-10-09 15:21 · Score: 1

I grew up in the next town over.

Yes, there are a lot of parents like this in Oak Park. Overprotective, PC assholes that ruin everything for the rest of society.

As Ernest Hemingway (I believe) said of Oak Park: it's a town of "wide lawns and narrow minds."

And I laugh.

They're suing the school for wifi...and yet if you drive around Oak Park, you encounter a nice large number of wifi networks (most unsecured). Maybe they should start suing each home next. Radiation pollution after all. And after that, maybe the sun...

Feh.

Burger King to be outsourced by HiggsBison · 2003-10-09 15:22 · Score: 1

Unless other parents get vocal and oppose this luddite activity, they'll further the progress of their children towards a future job at Burger King.

Guess again! McDonald's is working to automate the food preparation. They have also outsourced ALL of their IT to India. So now all they have to do is fully roboticize the kitchen, close the counter, and outsource the drive up to India. Wendy's, BK, and KFC should follow quickly.

Anybody remember McSwiney's in A Stainless Steel Rat is Born?

--
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.

Re:Burger King to be outsourced by Lurker · 2003-10-10 02:11 · Score: 1

Anybody remember McSwiney's in A Stainless Steel Rat is Born?

Yep. Wasn't everything there formed from the same base substance? Even the packaging?

in related news... by raarky · 2003-10-09 15:35 · Score: 1

United States sues itself for allowing ridiculous lawsuits to come to light.

Re:Misinformed or Hidden Agenda??? by leery · 2003-10-09 15:47 · Score: 1

It's standard petition language:

From Lectric Law Library:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF - This is the name of that part of the bill, which, as the phrase imports, prays for relief. This prayer is either general or special but the general course is for the plaintiff to make a special prayer for particular relief to which he thinks himself entitled, and then to conclude with a prayer of general relief at the discretion of the court.

--
"This is not a sig." -- R.

Holy hell already by g0at · 2003-10-09 15:47 · Score: 1

Can we add a new /. category for "ridiculous American litigation stories" so that we can filter this out?

That's two articles (q.v. story, comment) in under one hour whose premises follow the formula:

<party A> is suing <party B> for <indefensible gratuitous reason>

On the upside, reading this kind of tiresome crap repeatedly is helping instill a greater pride in my being Canadian.

-ben

--
myselfmusic

Overblown by mick88 · 2003-10-09 15:48 · Score: 1

I live in Oak Park, so let me shed some light. This town has a lot of well educated, socially concerned, and politcally involved citizens. This kind of crap happens any time the city/school board wants to do anything.

These parents are mostly intelligent people who have no clue about technology. But it makes sense to them that WiFi might be dangerous, so they want a thorough review. The school board tells them "we reviewed it, and it's safe" but the trial-lawyer parents and CFOs don't like to be brushed off, so they sue.

Like I said, this happens with any change in this town, be it making a street a one-way or putting up a new high-rise apartment complex.
Don't get fooled and think this lawsuit has a real technological base - it doesn't...it is just our village citizens bitching like they do about everything else.

The school board is not backing down and they won't turn off the WiFi. It won't cost much to win the lawsuit, because the claims have no actual merit. The studies that the plaintiffs site are not studies using 802.11 or 2.4 gHz technology - look it up. The studies refer to other wireless technology but not the kind being implemented at OPRF high school. The board has said as much and basically told this group: bring it on, you guys are idiots.

--
I created this account just so I could comment on this story

Re:What a waste of money-the foots on the other sh by soft_guy · 2003-10-09 15:56 · Score: 1

Yeah, OK. If you have that kind of time. Remember, you normally have to work to make money to live. So, you're taking a pay cut since you aren't billing for those hours and this ends being similar to paying a lawyer.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score

Please excuse me while I vent.... by 56ksucks · 2003-10-09 16:08 · Score: 1

AAAAHHHH STUUPPIIIID... ok I feel better. Now.. Why are these people afraid of radio waves? These people probably have a cordless phone, microwave, and a cell phone. Why is everyone so sue happy that they always have to find something stupid to sue over. Would they be happier if they took out the WiFi and install hundreds of feet of cabling? I think the noise of all the drills and men stringing cabling through the school would be more of a problem for the children then a harmless radio signal.

----

--

---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

I attended district 97 schools for 9 years... by gleam · 2003-10-09 16:12 · Score: 1

From September 1985 to June 1995, so I'm not eligible to become a member of the class. Not that I would anyway.

I still live a block away from a district 97 school, and many of my neighbors send their kids to the school.

The school installed wireless links between the district 97 offices and each school in the summer of 1995 (I believe) because the overall cost was significantly less than using a leased line. A few years later they rolled out wifi throughout the interior of the building, and now have carts of laptops available to classrooms.

More than anyone else I've seen post here, I have a personal financial interest in this lawsuit -- my tax dollars fund the school district, and thus my tax dollars will likely be spent defending against this suit. I'm disgusted.

Hell, we're even a town with a few bright people. Bruce Schneier of Blowfish fame used to live and work in Oak Park, and Oak Park is a haven for professors from many of Chicago's schools. Heck, Dan Castellaneta (Homer Simpson's voice) grew up here too.

And yet we have these people.

There's a statement mistakenly attributed to Ernest Hemingingway (who also grew up in Oak Park): "Oak Park is a town of broad lawns and narrow minds." It's likely he never spoke it, but it seems no more true than today.

Regards,
Ed

Lincoln Elementary School, 1985-1993
Emerson Junior High, 1993-1995

--
this .sig is not a .sig.

Kids will die by canineK9 · 2003-10-09 16:14 · Score: 1

These are the same parents, no doubt, that refuse to vaccinate their kids. At least when the children die or become permanently maimed by some totally preventable disease, their parents will be sure the kids didn't have fried brains from WiFi.

Umm.... by t0ny · 2003-10-09 16:30 · Score: 1

I had always been under the impression that a lawsuit had to have *actual damages*. Did these kids come down with acute paranoia (ala the x-files) or some kind of brain tumors?

Seems like a lot of manure is being shoveled toward the courts. But this is nothing new, of course.

--

Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

very stupid by jr87 · 2003-10-09 16:32 · Score: 1

from the article

The Wi-Fi Alliance says Wi-Fi networks are safe. The radio waves in a Wi-Fi network use the same frequency as wireless home phones, and have one-thirtieth the power of cordless phones, said Grimm, the spokesman for the group

so... these parents I'm guessing don't have cellphones or wireless phones either?...give me a break the school is right wireless is the wave of the future and without scientific bases this case is based on pure bull****

yeah! by ShadowRage · 2003-10-09 16:47 · Score: 1

living near power lines will expose you to nuclear radiation from the nuclear power plants!

your neighbor has aids and you'll get them by him shaking your hand!

gotta love the myths that stupid people create out of fear. I have yet to see a 6 year old with an oversized head from these wifi networks.
it's not like it's a brand new type of radio signal, it's close to the same as living anywhere where you can pick up TV transmission and radio transmission. radio waves are all over, man made and natural that have existed for decades and millions of years. if they were harmful, we wouldnt be here.
Gotta love the small town mentality.

Re:yeah! by inajar · 2003-10-10 00:54 · Score: 1

Not to detract from the silliness of this lawsuit, but Oak Park isn't really a small town. It's one of the wealthier suburbs just outside of Chicago.

And while I'm on it, just what is this "small town mentality" that I hear so much about? I only ask because I've met just as many close-minded, ignorant people from large cities as I have from small towns. But I digress...
Re:yeah! by ShadowRage · 2003-10-10 11:24 · Score: 1

hmm, in that case sounds more like rich yuppies who obviously have rid of all common sense for money.. I used to live in a rich city and all the people there were oblivious to just about everything, they get in a protective state of mind where they're in a little bubble of wealth, then they start believeing rumors..
and that's cell phone microwave radiation at close range.. not like the kids have to sit with wifi transmitters attached to their heads.

bitter response, but it has to be made. by loraksus · 2003-10-09 16:49 · Score: 1

1. The Average wireless card radiates 200mW, maybe less.
2. There are 1200W microwave ovens that operate in more or less the same frequency. Please don't tell me that the magic sheilding on your $100 microwave oven takes care of 100% of that power.
3. So seriously, shut the fuck up and go away.
Thanks.

--
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/

Re:bitter response, but it has to be made. by Fantastic+Lad · 2003-10-09 21:42 · Score: 1

I don't hear anybody claiming that microwave ovens are safe, do you?

-FL

Re:Flouride not harmful eh? by mabhatter654 · 2003-10-09 17:13 · Score: 1

Chemically, it wouldn't really matter anyway. Florine is in the same family as Chlorine on the table. It has basicly the same chemical properties, but is a bit more reactive. Any affects from florine would be nearly indistingushible from the effects of the chlorine necessary to keep the bugs out of the water.

Suit raises morons; DSR && || RTFM by im+a+fucking+coward · 2003-10-09 17:20 · Score: 1

As many others have pointed out RF emissions in the deregulated 2.4ghz range are no different then that used in baby monitors, DECT phones, etc. However, the widespread intentional use of RF for communication is a very recent phenomenon in human development.

Oh, for crying out loud, from this perspective, 'very recent phenomenon in human development' we should still be testing leaches for the efficacy of bleeding patients, much less using chemical compounds secreted by molds and fungi to fight bacterial infections. And I suppose all those diabetics should just die while we confirm the long term health implications of daily injections of insulin. And hey, that wheel thing seems to be smitten with wreckless folly!

Realistically a tremendous amount of ambient radiation in the environment could be mitigated by better managed spectrum allocation policies. But nowadays the public interest is a seconday concern to that of entrenched business and politics.

Realistically, you're following a pack of intellectual lemmings to the edge of a a cliff by ignoring the FCC certification for Part 15 devices, and failing to Do Simple Research or Read The Fine Manual.

The numbers, just in case you display intellectual curiosity (NOTE: 1 milliwatt = .001 Watt):
812.11 (WiFi): ~40 milliwatts.
Cellphones Analog: 600 milliwatts. Digital: 200 milliwatts
Mirowave seepage: 1 Watt
Baby Monitor (with video): 1 Watt
The radiation from WiFi equipment is a tenth of a cell phones, and is not operated while stuck in your ear.

Average Possible Exposure (weekly %):
812.11: 0.01
Cellphone: 0.1
Microwave: .01
Baby Monitor: 8-30

The only substantial worry so far is the baby monitor, but only if you make your child sleep with it:

Affected ranges fall off at a rate of 1/4-1/5 * r, or one quarter to one fifth of 'r', which means that the effective range to get any microwave leaking ~ 12 inches. Beyond that, effective radiative frequency falls to zero.

Body Size & MHz Resonance: Bodies act like receivers at certain frequencies. There is additional variability dependent on grounding as well:
Average adult: 40 MHz Grounded: 70 MHz
Average baby: 400 MHz
Babies are significantly out of the 2.3 GHz range of resonance.

Unless a statistically significant # of babies who were monitored come down with cancer or some other bizarre medical problems, we have no scientific basis on which we can even begin a probably hypothesis.

If you want to be a luddite, by all means, please, have at it. But you can buy EMF/R handheld, battery powered digital guage for $100 that will tell you precisely how much 'radiation' you're being bombarded with. If you are genuinely concerned, buy one, keep good hourly readings of daily exposure levels and duration, and post it here so we can all learn what the potential threat level is. Otherwise you're just spouting baseless hypothetical crap. Oh wait, this is /., sorry man! I got carried away...

2.4 GHz, the resonant frequency of water... by ecloud · 2003-10-09 17:42 · Score: 1

It's pretty ironic that so many devices are sharing this dirty little bit of spectrum with all the microwave ovens. Probably the FCC deemed it worthless long ago, so then it got to be one of those rare open bands where experiments could be done, and then spread-spectrum experiments got done, and now we have all these devices. It's amazing they work at all, the interference they have to put up with, from microwave ovens, and each other, and now, tinfoil-hat parents.

backwards idiots by JW+Troll · 2003-10-09 18:31 · Score: 1

eastern canada is so far ahead of these people it's not even funny. that's what that gigantic power outage test drill was for, in case Canadian laws ever absorb your american 'sue-everybody' rule.

--
just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net

They say that by ScrewMaster · 2003-10-09 18:38 · Score: 1

Ignorance is Bliss. I'd say these people must be feeling particularly blissful right now.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Wait til they find out about radiation from ... by surfcow · 2003-10-09 18:40 · Score: 1

... the Sun.

=brian

Re:Wait til they find out about radiation from ... by smaffei · 2003-10-10 05:29 · Score: 1

Better yet, how about microwave ovens? They emit way more than 802.11b. That's why when you have one between your computer and access point, it kills the transmission when in use.

That's right they killing their kids more when making popcorn. Idiots!

--
Sure, Windows PCs dominate the market. But so do cheap toupees.

Re:Mr. Nikola Tesla... by admiralfrijole · 2003-10-09 18:43 · Score: 1

mad props to Nikola...that man was a genious! (i know i cant speel...its 245 AM)

--
e to the pi i plus one equals zero

Is 802.11b transmitting all the time? by dusty123 · 2003-10-09 19:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Although I'm not very concerned about health risks, I would like to know if a 802.11b access point transmits a signal also if no client is connected.

I read somewhere that the AP transmits an idle signal (10khz) all the time.

On the other hand my AP (Cisco) can shut off SSID broadcasting. It is said that AP's without SSID broadcasting cannot be detected by programs like "airsnort" and the like if no client is connected. So this would hint that there is no transmission at all if SSID broadcasting is shut off and the AP is idle.

If this is true and the WLAN is only very infrequently used (as in this school) this would make the claim even more ridiculous.

That is not the fscking point by jotaeleemeese · 2003-10-09 21:03 · Score: 1

Don't make the waters murkier.

The "may be harmful" meme should be stopped.

The necesity or not of WiFi is for each organization to decide and should not be used as an argument while discussing safety issues.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

donate money for the anti-luddite legal fund by nietsch · 2003-10-09 21:18 · Score: 1

Maybe there should be a fund to fight all these luddites and their shark-lawyers. Oh wait you need lawyers to do that and they are evil too.
Maybe use the constitutional right to bear arms and fight the luddites&lawyers with those?

just my two bits short of a nibble

--
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you

2.4 GHz IS NOT the resonant frequency of water... by nietsch · 2003-10-09 21:32 · Score: 1

That is a thoughtless meme doing the rounds.
If it was true, fat would not heat up in the microwave. And you know that is not true, fat can even ignite in the microwave.

--
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you

That argument is wrong. . . by Fantastic+Lad · 2003-10-09 21:39 · Score: 1

But don't feel bad. It's the same one the Air Force was selling to its soldiers who worked the early radar arrays, and its the first line of defense which was adopted and which has been used ever since by big business and the government. The argument being, "If the power is too low to cause damage through heating, then there is no danger."

If only this were true!

There is a mountain of science which has recognized the following. . .

1. Biological nervous systems are electrochemical in nature. This is why EEG scanners work; they are able to pick up on EM activity generated by the brain. In all systems where electromagnetic signals are integral, foriegn signals can have an impact.

2. There are documented mechanisms [geocities.com] through which low power, non-ionizing EM fields can affect the function of the nervous system.

3. Very small currents are all that are needed to causes these effects.

4. High frequency signals which are modulated to replicate lower frequencies, (As seen in Cell phone technology), are sufficient to cause effects.

5. The ocean of EM we live in DOES have an effect. Sleep, reproductive and various other biological cycles have been shown to be deeply affected, and often reliant upon ambient EM from the Earth and sky.

Here's an article [protectingourhealth.org] with some photos of slices of brain tissue taken from rats exposed to cell phone EM. The effects are real.

-FL

what's the frequency kenneth ...? by pbhj · 2003-10-09 21:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not about the quantity it's about the frequency.

2.4GHz microwave radiation causes water molecules to resonate (I can't remember whether it's the bond angle or length at this frequency - this is how microwave ovens work, I digress). We humans are mainly water. Hence microwaves _at_the_right_frequency_ have an effect on our molecules too.

So microwaves at _this_frequency_ are a concern. But low frequency radio waves are not. It's just like the whole sun-screen (suntan lotion) thing. As long as you block the UV rays you're OK. You don't need to block all light frequencies.

Evidence is limited and what evidence there is suggests negligible effects ... but you choose the risk in your own home.

A wifi network is pervasive and always on. Would you sit your child in front of a working microwave oven all day?

Also, assuming the folk are naively using equipement that operates at this frequency and assuming that this radiation is damaging. That doesn't mean that when they know about something that is spitting out this frequency then they can't complain. It just means they need to be educated a little about the other dangers. [Remember assumptions, I'm hypothesising here].

Re:what's the frequency kenneth ...? by alienw · 2003-10-10 02:20 · Score: 1

2.4GHz microwave radiation causes water molecules to resonate (I can't remember whether it's the bond angle or length at this frequency - this is how microwave ovens work, I digress)

The fact that water molecules resonate at this frequency is absolutely irrelevant. All this means is that RF at this frequency will heat water. A microwave oven uses thousands of watts of power to do that -- at close range. A Wifi transmitter uses less than a watt, and is farther away. Clearly, the heating effect from that is absolutely negligible. There are no other special characteristics associated with 2.4GHz.

We humans are mainly water. Hence microwaves _at_the_right_frequency_ have an effect on our molecules too.

Sure it does. It might even heat up the water molecules a millionth of a degree, if you're lucky. But could that cause any negative effects? I think not.

The only molecules in your body which really matter are DNA molecules. Unless 2.4 GHz happens to also damage those, as well, you have nothing to worry about. And it is highly unlikely that a huge polymer molecule like DNA will resonate at the same frequency as water.

A wifi network is pervasive and always on. Would you sit your child in front of a working microwave oven all day?

Nice argument. If you jump into a vat of boiling water, you will die. So don't ever swim in the pool.

A microwave oven generates emissions orders of magnitude above wi-fi, even with all the shielding in place. And there have been ZERO negative health effects associated with that.

Elemantary School? by nietsch · 2003-10-09 21:41 · Score: 1

Sure the kids will be learning writing on their wireless laptops? Or is it reading?

Somebody suggested that a lot of schools have more money then they know what to do with. This is a case in point.

Maybe these parents should be used in a nearby nuclear power plant, their thick heads would make excellent radiaton shielding I think.

--
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you

Wrong. by Fantastic+Lad · 2003-10-09 21:47 · Score: 1

if they were harmful, we wouldnt be here.

Nonsense. They wont kill us, they'll just mess with our cognitive functions and significantly alter our brain chemistry. (Look at the pretty pictures of brain slices.)

-FL

You are so right. by lysium · 2003-10-09 23:06 · Score: 1

It's also a world where movie stars are preeminently qualified to run governments. I think I am officially off democracy now. What America needs now is despotism!

===========

--
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.

Super-Human Powers by boy_afraid · 2003-10-09 23:34 · Score: 1

For all we know, these wi-fi signals could give them super-human powers!

The Bold and the Redundant by Ingolfke · 2003-10-09 23:54 · Score: 1

- Let these kids wear their tinfoil hats.
- I for one welcome our new wi-fi overlords.
- In Soviet Russia Wi-Fi networks sue your parents.

And bold enough to strike out on my own.

Everyone knows that the public school system is under the control of a secret government mind control program, which is secretly under control of a group of European wealth mongers known as the pentaverit, which in turn is secretly under the control of an alien super-species. Obviously Wi-Fi is a mind control tool, devised to poison the minds of our youth and make them slaves to the government-pentaverit-alien super species overlords. So I say, stop going to school and start watching more television and playing more video games.

Grimm??? by adeyadey · 2003-10-10 00:02 · Score: 1

The Wi-Fi Alliance says Wi-Fi networks are safe. The radio waves in a Wi-Fi network use the same frequency as wireless home phones, and have one-thirtieth the power of cordless phones, said Grimm, the spokesman for the group

Grimm? Sounds like a fairy-tale to me.. :-)

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"

Its everywhere, its everywhere! by JeffRC · 2003-10-10 00:28 · Score: 1

I wonder how many of the people signed up for the class action suit have 2.4GHz cordless phones in their houses or wireless mice. I had a a devil of a time sorting out all the different channels in my house when I installed a 2.4GHz cordless phone, wireless keyboard and mouse, and a WiFi Cable/DSL router. Oh my! I must be doomed!

Re:Name, address, phone, and e-mail. by pdhenry · 2003-10-10 00:35 · Score: 1

The parent behind this lawsuit:
...

He's the one wearing the tinfoil hat.

Re:Name, address, phone, and e-mail. by Desco · 2003-10-10 00:57 · Score: 1

Shit, he lives up the street from me!!! Good thing I don't have kids, in that school district or otherwise!

Christ if busybody parents want to sue over something, they should sue the NEA (teachers union) and the article should read something like this:

"Both news.com and Wired are reporting that an Illinois school district is being sued by parents over their use of a teachers union at a local elementary school. Apparently the parents of 5 students are concerned about potential health risks to their children by the lack of education. The parents are seeking class-action status for their suit, which seeks to halt the use of ineffective teachers but does not ask for monetary damages. The complete complaint is also available for your reading pleasure on screwtheneanews.com."

Re: The average person is a moron by fallen1 · 2003-10-10 01:30 · Score: 1

The average person doesn't understand technology and its effects at the same level that /.ers do. They get their information from the mainstream news, which equally is stupid and irresponsible and instills fear in people for ratings. What a wonderful world we live in, eh? A world of ignorance.

Yes, they are. The general public are sheep. This is also one of the underlying facets of the DMCA - to control knowledge so that the general public remains sheep. Until the citizens (not consumers) of the United States get this into their apathetic sheep heads things like the DMCA will continue to plague those of us who do know the truth. Something widespread will have to happen to wake up the sheep from their slumber. With SunnComm and the RIAA doing their things, I think it has begun. Scratch that, I hope it has begun.

Let's all do the world a favor - educate your family and friends to the reality and impress upon them that this is not something that will "not ever happen to us" or "we're not doing this so we won't be affected". That mentality lets the DMCA pass in the first place.

--

Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~

No kidding! by raygundan · 2003-10-10 01:55 · Score: 1

My microwave kills my wifi network dead. Anytime the thing is running, everybody drops off the network. My analog 2.4GHz phone is enough to drop anybody outside of the room the base station is in. Far higher power in the same signal band from something nearly everybody has in their kitchen.

WiFi is so tiny a signal it's not worth thinking about. If you're truly worried by RF emissions, make a list of your priorities! Decide which bands worry you, and THEN figure out which devices are emitting the most power in that range. I guarantee you'll be chucking your microwave, light dimmers, cordless phones, cell phones, baby monitors, TVs and the like before you ever get down to the wifi.

Maybe for the truly paranoid, somebody should start selling Faraday-cage clothing for kids.

Re:No kidding! by pmz · 2003-10-10 02:07 · Score: 1

My microwave kills my wifi network dead.

It does the same thing with my cordless phone. Once I learned that, I tend to stand a bit further away from my microwave while it's on (inverse square is our friend).

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Don't turn around... by pmz · 2003-10-10 01:56 · Score: 1

What about the wires running through all the schools walls that rattle all their kids brains with a 60Hz EM field? Oh no, it at home too!?!?

We should survey the parents behind the lawsuit to see how many of them have cordless telephones and microwaves at home. How about the x-rays from their home computers? Or the radiation from grandpa's clock's paint? Do they drive by any cell towers in town? What about the cosmic background radiation coming from space? Tell them how many neutrinos pass through them each day and watch them freak out!

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Emancipate me PLEASE my dad's an id10t by kamend · 2003-10-10 02:00 · Score: 1

I work in a prison system and I see kids of these types of parents every day. They say stuff like, "my dad wouldnt let me play with the kids next door so I beat them all to death with a brick, hehe funny how that works???"

Re:Name, address, phone, and e-mail. by dar · 2003-10-10 02:24 · Score: 1

Oh. really? And how do you vote when there is a tax increase ballot to raise teacher pay?

--
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.

High-voltage tubes. by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · 2003-10-10 02:33 · Score: 1

I assure you, modern CRTs still use high-voltage tubes. There is really no escaping that while expecting to still maintain a respectable picture quality.

What has changed is that modern CRTs (especially monitors, which use higher tube voltages) have a substantial amount of lead in the glass. The lead absorbs the xray emissions, allowing it to pass government regulations.

--

Hardware, software, and blinking lights!

NEWS UPDATE by Anonymous+Custard · 2003-10-10 02:34 · Score: 1

In related news, the lawsuit has been settled. Apparently, the lawyers agreed that the school could keep the WiFi network, as long as they provide tinfoil hats to each child. When asked for comment, the art teacher assigned to the construction of the hats simply sighed.

--
$8.95/mo web hosting

A Better Mandatory Simpson's Quote by Publius101 · 2003-10-10 02:34 · Score: 1

With only minor substitutions:

Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the [wireless network], and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.

Simpsons 7F01

Of all the idiotic... by KC7GR · 2003-10-10 02:41 · Score: 1

Ya know, I think the parents that originated this suit would also be likely to try and make their kids wear tinfoil hats, and are likely the kind of people who believe everything they see on the SciFi channel's so-called "Tuesday Declassified."

Speaking as an RF techie: The emissions from WiFi nodes are in the low milliwatt range (50-200). They pose less of a risk than cellphones (assuming cellphones pose ANY risk, something I'm still not at all convinced of).

Furthermore, the strength of any RF signal is inversely proportional to the square of the distance you are from the source of said emission. Then again, I don't suppose that hard facts are going to slow down the ignorant and paranoid in the slightest.

--

Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

Blue Feather Technologies

Here's a clue by LittleGuy · 2003-10-10 02:50 · Score: 1

Parental stupidity is harmful to children.

There are times when Aldous Huxley's selective genetics doesn't seem such a bad idea....

--
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.

Re:2.4 GHz IS NOT the resonant frequency of water. by perldude · 2003-10-10 02:54 · Score: 1

True. The lowest frequency of the water MOLECULE (in a gaseous phase) is at about 22 GHz. What happens is that in a liquid phase these resonances broaden out considerablly into a continuum like absorption. The water in food does absorb some of the energy, but not as efficiently as it would if it were a gas and you used 22 GHz. That said, ...., read the back issues of Physics Today they had a very good article on debunking all the EM field dangers and fallicies. Remember this is not the same thing as standing next to a radar transmitter! Also, these parent don't realize that their childern are far more likely to die in an automobile accident than anything else! Why not sue the car manufacturers and every driver! ;-)

You can't get away... by mcmdavis · 2003-10-10 02:57 · Score: 1

Just wait until they find out about satellites!

Sue for irrational fear instead of facing reality by pcause · 2003-10-10 03:03 · Score: 1

This is just ridiculous. We had people suing and worrying about power lines. Lots of studies, no danger. We had the great cell phone scare. No danger. Want to bet what the outcome of any studies about the danger of WiFi shows?

We live in a sea of EM. People have 900MHz phones, 2.4 MHz phones, radio stations, walkie talkies, TV, etc. Unless you led line your house you are going to be bombarded with EM. Get over it. Your kids have a bigger risk to their health from the bad diet you feed them, the lack of exercise they get, riding without a helmet and the like. But it is easier to obsess about WiFi then do good parenting.

People will sue for no reason, with no basis in fact but just on fear and out Courts let them get away with it. It is time for judges to use some judgment, and when people bring suits without real fact, they judges need to start sanctioning the people who sue and their attorneys.

Bet these folks also tried to join the "Burger did it" class action. DISGUSTING!!!!

exactly by TechnoLust · 2003-10-10 03:09 · Score: 1

Concerning these parents, however, I think they need an education on exposure to electromagnetic fields.
I wonder how many of these parents sat in front of a CRT monitor while typing up these complaints. IF you want to have some REAL fun, tell them how much emission you get from a television or microwave.

--
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"

Don't look at this, look at _that_! by the_flatlander · 2003-10-10 03:17 · Score: 1

Radio waves? Oh yeah, bad stuff. Not like those cigarettes some of those parents probably smoke. Nor the cars they all sure-as-shootin drive. (You know,the fuel for an aotuomobile contains, and emits, benzene compounds, both before and after it is burned in the car's engine.) Not to worry, though, the real risk is those radio waves.

There is a cheaper solution than a lawsuit! by JasonBigham · 2003-10-10 05:31 · Score: 1

Everyone knows that a simple and cheap homemade tin-foil hat will keep out the evil rays... as well as the alien mind probes!

They should all die. by Zone-MR · 2003-10-10 09:36 · Score: 1

I think ignorance should be a crime. When electricity was first becomming mainstream, groups of people were organising huge protests about the harmful effects of being in a room with a power socket in it. There will always be small groups of retards on a crusade against technology.

There were some pseudo-scientific experminents conducted by groups of people looking to expoit naive organisations to gain funding. Upon reading their reports, it turns out their scientific basis for concluding that mobile phones are harmful was sticking mice in microwave ovens and noting low survival rates. And of course they decided that since phones also emit waves in the microwave spectrum, they must be no different!.

Unfortunatly the media, looking for sensations, hypes up these ridicioulous claims, claiming that "experts" have found new "evidence" of the danger of microwave "radiation" to people. This immediatly spawned mass hysteria amongst the clueless public. Thanks to this behaviour I now have usless mobile phone coverage in my area - plans for the erection of a new mobile phone mast were abbandoned due to a huge protest about the effects on a nearby school, and revolts organised by "concerned parents" who frankly deserve to be shot.

All *credible* scientific research into the effects of electromagnetic waves on living tissue find the following conclusion.

1) The risks associated with exposure to EM waves rise exponentially with the frequency.
---
Long wave radio signals can be pumped out with the power of many killowats right next to a human brain, and after a lifetime of exposure the risks are negligable. If we increase the frequency to, for example, visible light, exposure to much lower levels can be harmfull. Increasing it still further to ultaviolet, increases the risk of cancer by a large factor. And the same dosage of alpha/beta/gamma rays and you are dead on the spot. Microwave 'radiation' in fact has a frequency approx 10 times lower than visible light. Sitting for a long time with a 60W lightbulb next to your head would put you in a lot more danger... go figure.

And people comparing mobile phones with their ovens because both rely on "microwave radiation" deserve to have their testicles jammed in a microwave oven in the name of science. A very specific frequency in the microwave range causes tissue to heat up because it matches a mode of resonance of the water molecules. Same goes for infrared light (hence similar heating effects). Mobile phones and wireless networks do NOT use this frequency (and even if they did, all you would get is very slight warming of nearby tissue - probably unnoticable at the exposure levels mobile phones use - and certainly not harmful).

2) Harmful effects increase linearly with the power output
---
Mobile phones use 0.5Watts, and peak at 1 watt. TV masts output 2 million watts of power. Wireless lans output 0.1 watts. Your microwave oven leaks many times more. Go figure.

3) Your exposure decays with the inverse cube of the distance
---
What matters is the power you are exposed to, divided by your surface area. If people are worried about a wireless lan access point sitting on a wall/desk 10m away, then it is obscure many of them have come to accept using a mobile phone which generates 5 times more power right next to their head. We are talking about a 5000-fold lower exposure level with wireless lans. If these fanatics had any clue about basic physics, they would be refusing to allow their children to be in the same town as someone using a mobile phone!

END RANT. lol. /me thinks of novel ways to inflict slow and painful death upon all the people who think their lack of knowledge gives them the right to sabotage the development and acceptance of technology.

Re:What a waste of money-the foots on the other sh by doomdog · 2003-10-11 13:13 · Score: 1

Don't get me wrong, I'm no corporate apologist, but I don't think that your idea is workable and/or fair

Not workable? It's being done pretty much everywhere, outside of the US. Here's a short articile on this very subject: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n1e.html

And a short excerpt from the above article (emphasis added):

Under the loser-pays rule, which is in effect in almost every common-law jurisdiction outside the United States, the party that loses in court pays the victor's fees and expenses based on a schedule set by the court. The advantages of the loser-pays rule are manifold. Most obviously, it discourages speculative litigation. A claimant who knows that he is going to be responsible for the defendant's reasonable legal costs is going to hesitate before pursuing a longshot case, even if the potential payoff is large.

I know you're not an apologist, but on this issue, you're wrong nonetheless...

Radiation Adaptation by Hattrick9 · 2003-10-15 02:36 · Score: 1

If all of the radiated signals were so bad, why then, are life expectancies at an all time high? If anything, radiation seems to be a catalyst for our longevity.

Who needs studies to prove or disprove the effects of radiation? The results are self-evident. If the counsel for the state in this case expounded on this example, they might have a chance.

Slashdot Mirror

Parents Sue School Over Use of Wi-Fi Network

484 of 667 comments (clear)