Slashdot Mirror


University Bans wi-fi as Health Concern

BaltikaTroika writes "A Canadian university has banned wi-fi, since the university President sees a possible link between electric and magnetic fields and brain tumors. According to the head of the university, "the jury's out on this one, I'm not going to put in place what is potential chronic exposure for our students." Is anybody outside of this university's administration concerned about this?"

693 comments

  1. Should I Be by NerdENerd · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a wifi router under my couch, hope my nuts are OK!

    1. Re:Should I Be by jrockway · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's how Darwin keeps the human race around.

      --
      My other car is first.
    2. Re:Should I Be by galen · · Score: 3, Funny

      You keep your nuts under the couch? How odd.

    3. Re:Should I Be by Mathiasdm · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Since you're posting on slashdot, you won't have much use for them anyway!

      --
      Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
    4. Re:Should I Be by WebCrapper · · Score: 1, Funny

      Funny - I have one 3 feet from my head on my desk and one under my couch as well. I think I'm at risk of becoming a redneck... I personally have 2 of mine turned on right now, as hidden as I can. Unfortunately, I'm surrounded by idiots: (You'd figure they would change the channel like I have...)

      Scan Lists
      SSID MAC Channel Rssi noise beacon cap dtim rates
      linksys 00:13:10:9F:81:1D 6 -83 -96 100 1025 0 12(g)
      Milky Way 00:14:BF:C4:4F:34 6 -86 -96 100 1041 0 12(g)
      default 00:13:46:86:73:1E 6 -87 -96 100 1057 0 12(g)
      home_444 00:14:BF:E4:14:1D 6 -93 -96 100 1025 0 12(g)
      bka 00:0C:41:DE:9F:F8 6 -88 -96 100 1025 0 12(g)

      That's obviously not counting both of mine and the few others I know are hidden around here as well. Ah... Stairwell life...

    5. Re:Should I Be by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Hey! They're really hard to fish out when they fall under the cushions, OK?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:Should I Be by rampant+mac · · Score: 1
      "I have a wifi router under my couch, hope my nuts are OK!"

      You could have 19,413 wifi's under your couch and it still wouldn't increase you chances of impreggnating a woman. Face it. We're nerds.

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    7. Re:Should I Be by musonica · · Score: 1

      Good god man! What were you thinking? Tin-foil underpants are the first thing you should put on in the morning!

    8. Re:Should I Be by darth_linux · · Score: 4, Funny

      he's prob married.

      --
      Power to the Penguin!
    9. Re:Should I Be by caudron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, technically he keeps them in his wife's purse, but she keeps her purse under the couch.

      --
      -Tom
    10. Re:Should I Be by zpeterz63 · · Score: 0

      The article's about brain tumors. You're worried about your nuts.

      I get it. This is admission that you think with your balls and not your brains!

    11. Re:Should I Be by Jozer99 · · Score: 4, Funny

      In other news, a Canadian University has banned music, idleness, and electricity. "All embellishments to life are the work of the devil. Good living comes through hard work in the fields, and beatings for impure thoughs. Plus, a little yellow fever never hurt anyone too bad." said a school recruitment official.

    12. Re:Should I Be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      linksys 00:13:10:9F:81:1D 6 -83 -96 100 1025 0 12(g)

      Who're you calling an idiot?!!!

    13. Re:Should I Be by delysid-x · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Trinity Western University. No drinking, drugs or premarital sex! They make you sign a contract.

    14. Re:Should I Be by b0r0din · · Score: 4, Funny

      And here I thought the Trinity was drinking, drugs, and premarital sex.

    15. Re:Should I Be by karnal · · Score: 1

      .....

      How would you ever stop anyone from doing those three things? Hell, prohibition was in effect for the entire country and I'm sure there were people still drinking!!!

      Besides, if you can't have sex, drugs, and drinking, what kind of college life are you really going to have? :)

      --
      Karnal
    16. Re:Should I Be by hardaker · · Score: 1

      I suddenly have the strange desire to watch Kevin Bacon dance... weird...

      --
      The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
    17. Re:Should I Be by hardaker · · Score: 1
      I just wonder what the kids that mutate because of this will be able to do. The ones who adapt to survive will be the interesting ones to watch. Those silly LED keychains for finding a hot-spot will be obsolete.

      Instead, just ask Jed!

      "err... over there" [points with finger]

      --
      The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
    18. Re:Should I Be by somersault · · Score: 1

      oh yes, just like all of us can pick up FM radio with our mind..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    19. Re:Should I Be by homerules · · Score: 0

      Because there are many people who sign contracts and abide by them.

      Trinity Western is a Christian college and most of those that attend believe in those rules.

      Those that are forced to attend by their parents my not abide by the rules and signed the contract under duress.

    20. Re:Should I Be by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      Wanna go pick up some chicks at BJU?

      --
      Bottles.
    21. Re:Should I Be by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Its not quite so much a problem. You CHOOSE to go to Trinity (or other colleges like that), it isn't forced upon to you. If sex, drugs, and alchohol (probably also evolution) holds appeal to you, then obviously the school isn't the right choice. In fact, being a college student, I can see some of the appeal. I go to a school where drinking is a major problem. It would be quite peaceful to not have to lock my door all weekend so drunk people don't stagger in and pass out on the floor. On the other hand, I couldn't deal with the whole "no partying at all" thing.

    22. Re:Should I Be by planarian · · Score: 0

      ...or he's a squirrel.

    23. Re:Should I Be by Garabito · · Score: 1
      Besides, if you can't have sex, drugs, and drinking, what kind of college life are you really going to have? :)

      A nerd's college life?

    24. Re:Should I Be by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      "Ow, pointy... eew, slimy... ahh! moving!... Aha!"

      "Aww, twenty dollars. I wanted a peanut."

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    25. Re:Should I Be by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Bitching about /. moderation follows, feel free to moderate *this* off-topic, because this is ;-)

      "You read /. and your nick is NerdENerd.
      Why do you care if your nuts are ok?

      At least I apparently don't, as I'm not concerned even though I'm typing this with a hot laptop on my lap and both WiFi and Bluetooth in use..."

      How the hell is that *flamebait*? No matter how I twist it, I can't figure out how you can interpret that as a flamebait. Bad humour certainly, redundant maybe, maybe even trolling. But a flamebait?
      .
      .
      .
      Ah... Glad I could get that out of my system. Thanks for your time, sorry for any inconvenience.

  2. Hell yes I'm worried by Benwick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But it's not like all those other electro-magnetic waves just hit the walls of the campus and stop dead in their, uh, tracks...

    1. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should ask if the campus has a ham shack or a security/police department.

      Those two alone probably put out many many watts of juice daily.

    2. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by RabidMutantStargoat · · Score: 1

      It's the wavelength that matters - and the fact the the university is not the source of all of them.

    3. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by SEWilco · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If he's worried about electromagnetic waves he should ban electrical use on campus, magnets, and wave a compass around all steel desks and filing cabinets.. then have them degaussed (someplace else, of course, to keep the evil degaussing waves away).

      And, of course, inspect all staff for magic magnetic bracelets and fire those wearing them. Except those working in the school's Department of Magick.

    4. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      They better ban microwave ovens then....

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    5. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      If he's worried about electromagnetic waves he should [...]

      Turn all the lights off and draw the curtains.
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by Dark_Lord_Prime · · Score: 2, Funny

      "If he's worried about electromagnetic waves he should[...]"

      ...have the campus moved off-planet, since Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field.

    7. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by jrockway · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      > "Mozilla is not an HTML user agent" comment for bug 915.

      "... it is a CSS user agent that happens
      to have knwoledge [sic] of some HTML semantics. Thus when the two specifications
      conflict, as they do in this case, CSS has priority in deciding for which
      specification the design should be optimised."

      Way to take that out of context, though. Good work.

      --
      My other car is first.
    8. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Those are shielded but also designed to cook things.. I hope WiFi is not meant for warming up pizza.... hmm, I see possibilities ^_^

    9. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by saridder · · Score: 1

      Should ban cordless phones too.

      --
      --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
    10. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      100% shielding is impossible.....
      The amount of leakage allowed is more than you get from a wifi network and they use the same wavelengths so the dangers would be the same.
      The fact that it is designed for warming doesn't matter, there is only one kind of electro-magnetic field. There are no seperate 'cooking' and 'communication' field types.

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    11. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by ooby · · Score: 1, Funny

      ElectoMagnetic Equipment Restrictive Administrators Literally Do Not Understand The Science

    12. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      Two words buddy...

      Faraday Cage

      I think they need to build one around the whole campus. They they'd all be safe.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    13. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by ljfrench · · Score: 1
      If he's worried about electromagnetic waves he should ban electrical use on campus, magnets, and wave a compass around all steel desks and filing cabinets.. then have them degaussed (someplace else, of course, to keep the evil degaussing waves away).

      And, of course, inspect all staff for magic magnetic bracelets and fire those wearing them.


      Except that permanent magnets' field is DC. The strength of the field is constant at a given point. We all live in a 500 milligauss DC electromagnetic field coming from the Earth.

      It's the AC electromagnetic radiation the administrator is worried about (irrational as it may be). Wireless access points put out less than 300 mW while cell phones operate up to and including 300 mW at the same frequencies. If he's truly concerned, he should ban cell phones, too.

      Trouble is, no one has ever been able to prove that fields at these low powers actually have a negative effect on the human body. A 500 mW 2.4 GHz at 10 feet will only penetrate the first three layers of skin. You don't see people getting skin cancer from cell phones, do you?

      While I'm on the subject, 60 Hz electromagnetic interference is also a hazard. I tested this back in college. I dropped a waterproof electromagnet into a fish tank filled with algae. I took samples every day for two months while I generated a (measured) 2 gauss (yes, two gauss) 60 Hz electromagnetic field. It caused the algae to grow much more dense and dark than the control samples.
    14. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by araemo · · Score: 1

      Two words buddy...

      Faraday Cage

      I think they need to build one around the whole campus. They they'd all be safe.


      And, as an added bonus, no more cell phones going off during that big test.

    15. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      So you're saying his nuts came out of millions of years of extremely high pressure and temperature?

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    16. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think hes saying he has emerald nuts

    17. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe just a regular Cage....

    18. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've looked a bit, but did anybody talk about the emissions from cell phones? 2.4 and 5.8 gigahertz cordless landline phones? Police radios? Fire and Rescue radios? CB radios? Ever drive by a radio station broadcasting at 50,000 watts? (compare to the 3 watts or less? of a cell phone.

      I believe talking on a cordless or cell phone puts the transmitter typically less than an inch from your brain and my WiFi does not have the range (hence power output) of my cordless phone, so it and my computers emit less power and are farther from my head.

      Why do we let executives make decisions??

    19. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by jimmyswimmy · · Score: 1
      I dropped a waterproof electromagnet into a fish tank filled with algae. I took samples every day for two months while I generated a (measured) 2 gauss (yes, two gauss) 60 Hz electromagnetic field. It caused the algae to grow much more dense and dark than the control samples.

      Did you consider the effects of heating? Certainly you put a bit of current into that big magnet. My [limited] experience with growing algae showed me that heat and light make a big difference in its growth.

      As far as the constant magnetic fields go, people are moving through it, so the field strength with respect to those around the permanent magnets you mentioned would not be constant... but this whole article is pretty stupid, so I'll just stop there.

      --

      Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
    20. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      No practical Faraday cage will be 100% shielding....The lack of fresh air would cause more brain damage than the field they are trying to keep out.

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    21. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by djmag21 · · Score: 1

      I feel if there is something that might pose a serious risk and you can live without it thatn do so. Mary and I have a wireless router but it is disables and 2 15ft cat5s are running under our couch and we just plug in and surf.

    22. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by qfranke · · Score: 1

      If he turns out to be right, all those people making rude comments about him will have a lot of electromagnetic egg on their face. Too often we rush ahead and then wonder why wonder drugs cause cancer, Priuses stall in intersections and peoples lives are in danger. I don't know why ubiquitous internet is so important. Not that long ago people had to look things up at the library in a card catalogue. Now people are making fun of someone who wants top wait. I thought that was always the smart thing to do with computers. Who buys 1.0 software?

    23. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      While I'm on the subject, 60 Hz electromagnetic interference is also a hazard. I tested this back in college. I dropped a waterproof electromagnet into a fish tank filled with algae. I took samples every day for two months while I generated a (measured) 2 gauss (yes, two gauss) 60 Hz electromagnetic field. It caused the algae to grow much more dense and dark than the control samples.

      How does that prove it's a hazard? The algae seemed to like it...

    24. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Thats interesting, I once was reading about those magnetic "water conditioners" inhibiting algea growth. There were several website selling them for algea control to garden ponders, then mysteriaously none. I suspect the EPA got on them about selling an unproven pestiside, they may work even if unproven or they might be snake-oil. It does seem reasonable that moving coloidal suspentions through a magnetic fied could cause the ionic layer or the diffusion layer to collapse and the particles to precipitate, but I'm not sure if it actualy does or not.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    25. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't making a duct that made two right-angle turns (in pretty much any direction) be sufficient so long as each segment of duct was itself at least as long as the duct is wide?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by ooby · · Score: 1

      A collegue of mine once measured the EM field generated by various components of an electric car and found that the strongest field comes from the four discs that are rotating in a magnetic field. The mechanical term for one of these discs is "wheel."

    27. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by Strider-BG · · Score: 1

      Actually, wireless AP's are restricted to 100mW for indoor use. Cell phones are rated at 600mW. Cell phones are MUCH worse than APs. According to the government, the safe distance from an AP is 21cm.

    28. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faraday Cage is Nicholas Cage's smarter cousin.

    29. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by Prune · · Score: 1

      And, of course, inspect all staff for magic magnetic bracelets and fire those wearing them.

      Anyone ignorant enough to buy a magnetic bracelet should be fired.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    30. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by birge · · Score: 1
      oh, come on. he's worried about high frequency EM waves. there's plenty of reasons to shoot down the guy without resorting to straw men.

      i'm not saying the guy is right, but equating RF radiation to a static magnetic field is highly unfair. the frequency makes all the difference, as you well know since i imagine you don't object when the dentist puts lead over your nards during an x-ray.

    31. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by commander_gallium · · Score: 1

      Did the electromagnet heat the water maybe?

    32. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by mink · · Score: 1

      "Priuses stall in intersections and peoples lives are in danger. "

      The only stalling issues the Prius had was with the 2004 model where some bad software/firmware was causing the ICE to cut off, often while cruising on the highway. You still had battery power and could get off the road if that happened.

      As for "stalling at intersections" the hybrid system shuts off the ICE when there is no need for it's power and starts it back up when demand outstrips what the battery system can supply. At no time is anyones life in more danger then if they were in any other vehicle stopped at an intersection.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    33. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Actualy they were permanent magents arranged radialy from the pipe with the same pole facing in like an *. Connected together in a metal frame, seems like it could be a finger buster to install or fabricate. Anything moving through the pipe that is conductive would generate electrical eddy currents which would produce the effect if any at the cost of increasing pumping resistance slightly.

      The effect if there is one may cause the algea to percipitate, but it might participate live algea. Ultrasonic and ultraviolet irradiation will kill the algea, but settling of the dead algea cells can take a while. I'm thinking about experimenting with the technics
      one control with no treatment, one with magentic only, and one with ultrasonic/magnet; this summer just to see what happens.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    34. Re:Hell yes I'm worried by qfranke · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that you missed my point. What I was trying to say is that it never hurts to wait because when you rush into something you tend to make mistakes. I don't know why it has become such a bad thing to wait and see.

  3. Noisiest spectrum evar. by LackThereof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WTF?

    Better ban cordless phones, too, and everything else that uses 2.4 Ghz.

    --
    Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    1. Re:Noisiest spectrum evar. by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      No more microwaves to make ramen noodles. Poor students... now they are going to starve to death.

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    2. Re:Noisiest spectrum evar. by Picard102 · · Score: 0

      Especially considering the school is covered in a cloud of marijuana. Oh the munchies!!

    3. Re:Noisiest spectrum evar. by JaMMy_JaM · · Score: 1

      This sounds to me like someone didn't like the head ache of managing wireless security... - Life is too short to be living like this. Get rid of technology and labor is all you need to worry about. JJ

    4. Re:Noisiest spectrum evar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like microwaves ovens?

    5. Re:Noisiest spectrum evar. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's a MUCH more serious threat. We know that as the frequency of this electro-magentism goes up so does the threat. Now, 2.4 GHz is pretty high frequency. However, we're constantly bathed in radiation that has SUCH a high frequency we don't even use the same units to measure it! At MUCH higher energies than mere wifi! Why, you probably have an emitter right above your head, right now!

      It's common practice for parents to put a source of this dangerous energy in their children's bedrooms so that they can continue to be bathed in it even while they sleep, when the main sources (both natural and artificial) are normally blocked or turned off.

      Unlike radio waves, we've even evolved senses to detect and warn us about this dangerous energy, yet the majority of the population continues to insist on being subjected to high levels of it for at least two thirds of each day!

    6. Re:Noisiest spectrum evar. by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      oh, PLEASE mod parent funny. It's hilarious in the same way as the threat of DHMO.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
  4. Wifi Terrorists by LinSuxShyt · · Score: 0

    So now terrorists have another medium to attack america...save america kill wifi :p

    1. Re:Wifi Terrorists by artificialj · · Score: 0

      I think I just heard that the United Arab Emirates was trying to buy Linksys...

  5. What about cell phones? by Chalex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have they also banned cell phones? Because students tend to hold those next to their heads instead of on their lap. Since the power drops off as 1/r^3 (roughly), the distance between your brain and the antenna is a big deal.

    1. Re:What about cell phones? by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See, now we have to pan wireless keyboards and mice... oh, and cordless phones, too - those operate on the same bandwidth as wireless networks, so obviously they're a HUGE problem. Seriously, this is just being afraid of new technology. I guarantee you this guy never thought about all the wireless stuff being used CONSTANTLY by people on campus.

    2. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In three dimensional space, the power delivered drops as 1/r^2. The more you know ...

    3. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      More precisely, radiation between an isotropic point-source emitter and receiver falls off as 1/r^2.

    4. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're absolutely right.

      And aside from this proximity issue, cell phones often get above 1 Watt of output. Wifi devices tend to be between 20 and 100 miliwatts.

      Anecdotally, I get a terrible headache that lasts for hours if I talk even 30 seconds on a cell phone. I'm probably not typical, but I'm certain cell phones aren't as harmless as most folks (and regulatory agencies) think.

    5. Re:What about cell phones? by Quirk · · Score: 3, Funny
      ... I get a terrible headache that lasts for hours if I talk even 30 seconds on a cell phone.

      And would this be when your mom calls to ask you what you plan to do with your life?

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
    6. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/r^2, yo.

    7. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except it's not a point source and in the near field, power increases with distance to a maxima, and in the transition field, power is inversly proportional to distance. Only in the far field does it revert to the standard inverse of distance squared.

    8. Re:What about cell phones? by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I believe not too long ago, Slashdot had an article concerning the cooking of an egg situated between two cell phones.

      That's a hoax, written six years ago, and Slashdot editors were suckered by it, as they have been many times before.

      Ivermee, a 60-year old archiver in a law firm in South Hampton, has written almost all of the pieces on the Wymsey site, including the egg article, which he wrote back in 2000. In the piece, he outlines eight ridiculous steps for hard boiling an egg using the transmissions of two cellphones pointed at each other with the egg in between.

      "I really underestimated how many people would take it seriously," he tells Gelf over email. "No other page on the site has grabbed people's attention and ire button as much as this one. What seems to be happening is that it 'travels' from blog to blog, forum to forum. It was big in Australia last year and seems to be big in the US right now."

    9. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right; that was my point: you can't easily model a cell phone/WiFi card and a brain as point sources, and near/far field effects dominate when they're in close proximity to each other.

    10. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have time to give the derivation now, but when it's a wire antenna, it will be less than 1/r^2. If the antenna were a wire, it would be just 1/r. People should use Google before modding people informative.

      Someone who isn't busy with EE homework should Google for it.

      Here's something close: [MIT] http://space.mit.edu/RADIO/research/config.html "It is interesting to understand how the sensitivity to the power spectrum changes with different radial distributions of antennas. Here are four distributions which have uniform density of antennas on the ground (antennas per square meter), an antenna density that goes as 1/r, an antenna density that goes as 1/r^2, and an antenna density that goes as 1/r^3. In the central regions of the array the antennas are not allowed to overlap, so they don't exactly follow the power law distributions in the center. The array diameter is 1.5 km as is planned for the MWA."

    11. Re:What about cell phones? by nmos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anecdotally, I get a terrible headache that lasts for hours if I talk even 30 seconds on a cell phone. I'm probably not typical, but I'm certain cell phones aren't as harmless as most folks (and regulatory agencies) think.

      I wonder if it could be something about the audio compression that's bothering you rather than the RF. Some people have similar reactions to things like monitor flicker etc.

    12. Re:What about cell phones? by chriswaclawik · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quick lesson: EM field from a point source: 1/r^2 strength EM field from a line/wire (theoretically infinite): 1/r strenth EM field from a plate (theoretically infinite): constant strength The derivations involve many repulsions and attractions of charges as you integrate along an entire line or plane. This is stuff you should know after learning multivariable calculus.

      --
      A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
    13. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 1

      I would call that a low probability hypothesis, but it's interesting to think about. I'll be switching to a hands-free headset soon, and we'll see how that works out.

    14. Re:What about cell phones? by non-poster · · Score: 3, Informative
      cell phones often get above 1 Watt of output.
      False!

      Maybe old analog phones. Modern digital phones are rated at a maximum output of 200 milliwatts. I've read that the typical output is somewhere between 1 milliwatt and 5 milliwatts. I've studied more about CDMA phones than other technologies, and I think they adjust the output power every 40 milliseconds, based on the signal strength of the receiver (tower).

      What's the typical power output of a cordless phone in the house? I'm guessing it's more than 5 milliwatts.
    15. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd suggest taking a look at CNET's cell phone radiation chart. Updated Feb 22, 2006.

    16. Re:What about cell phones? by Hast · · Score: 1

      Not to sound disrespectful, but have you considered that it just might be "all in your head"?

      That is, have you tried to verify that it is indeed the act of talking on a cell phone that causes your headache. Have you tried setting up an experiment to verify that if you remove the phone *without your knowledge* then the headache goes away?

      As in, if you make a big fake phone with a cord to a box on the cunter. Have a friend (or even better an enemy) place the mobile phone in either the handset or in the box on the counter and see if you can tell the difference.

      Of course there must be no communication between you and the tester. It's probably best if you're not in the room together.

      Basically, you have found correlation between headache and mobile phones. You have so far not shown that there is reason to believe any causation between the two.

      And again, the mind is good at making things real. The placebo effect is very real and has been demonstrated to have a real effect.

    17. Re:What about cell phones? by non-poster · · Score: 1

      Ok, I looked at it. Now what?

      It doesn't say anything about the power output of a phone. It does talk about SAR, which is measured in watts/kg. See a definition.

    18. Re:What about cell phones? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Inverse square is for free space with no absorption, in which case you can derive it from conservation of energy and simple geometry.

      Wi-Fi and cellular signals get absorbed by the ground and by objects in the vicinity. As a result the power dropoff is faster than inverse square. An accurate mathematical model is complicated, but inverse cube is not absurd as an approximation.

    19. Re:What about cell phones? by non-poster · · Score: 1

      This paper describes a little about how CDMA works. On page 33, you'll notice the typical TXPO (transmit power) from a handset is listed as 0 dBm "near middle of cell". 0 dBm, as we all remember, is 1 milliwatt.

    20. Re:What about cell phones? by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      Or you could use gauss's law and work it out much faster without as much painful integration.

    21. Re:What about cell phones? by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a widely discussed problem called electrosensitivity, or ES. Thousands of people suffer from it. However, searching the internet, I can find no articles on it other than conspiracy sites that claim that millions of people are affected, and the government and medical industries keep it secret because they love their cellphones. In fact, while these website site all of these journal papers and conferences on the subject, there references appear to be completely fabricated to make them seem plausable. The only actual scientific articles have asserted that such a syndrome does not exist. Several groups in the UK and the USA have conducted double blind tests in which sufferers are secretly exposed to EMR of frequencies like that they claim cause their symptoms (Monitors, cell phones, etc), and they did not react. On the other hand, when exposed to a radio device they are told is active, but which is nothing more than a box with a light, they react immediatly. These studies are dismissed by the ES campaign groups, who declare they are secretly funded by the cellphone companies. Some even declare that all scientiests are against them because scientists love computers and other electronic gadgets, and all scientists will forever bury the mounds of evidence.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    22. Re:What about cell phones? by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      Not to sound disrespectful, but have you considered that it just might be "all in your head"?


      Just ask the aliens to move your locator-tag to a non-cranial location the next time they abduct you. As long as you tell them that it's interfereing with your wireless devices they'll gladly move it.
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    23. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the reason that they shouldn't offer physics to non-science majors. How could you remember one part of a theorem that has absolutely nothing to do with frequency modulated systems and not pay attention the rest of the class? Gravitational force drops off as ~1/R^3...

    24. Re:What about cell phones? by Jordan+Catalano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem is, at the distances for cell phones, YOU'RE the one doing all the absorption.

    25. Re:What about cell phones? by 91degrees · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      and Slashdot editors were suckered by it

      It was posted under "It's funny, Laugh". Perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

    26. Re:What about cell phones? by Jongpil+Yun · · Score: 1

      I used to have the same problem. Embarrassingly enough, usually headaches from using cell phones come from bad posture or something similar. I started holding the phone a different way, and my headaches dissapeared.

    27. Re:What about cell phones? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      It was posted under "It's funny, Laugh".

      No it wasn't. "Communications".

    28. Re:What about cell phones? by appleprophet · · Score: 1

      Is this repeatable? E.g. if you were sitting in a controlled room for 10 minutes, once where a cell phone (connected) was next to your head, and once where the cell phone was off, would you be able to tell which one was a call and which one was dead? If so, I think you could make quite a story.

    29. Re:What about cell phones? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Anecdotally, I get a terrible headache that lasts for hours if I talk even 30 seconds on a cell phone.

      This doesn't happen to me, but after talking on the phone for a while, I find my ear heats up noticeably. I fully expect this, so I prefer to use a hands free kit.

      I'll be rolling around on my wheelchair in the nursing home after they remove my legs while you lot are all drooling after they remove your frontal lobes.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    30. Re:What about cell phones? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    31. Re:What about cell phones? by Shanep · · Score: 1

      Maybe old analog phones. Modern digital phones are rated at a maximum output of 200 milliwatts. I've read that the typical output is somewhere between 1 milliwatt and 5 milliwatts. I've studied more about CDMA phones than other technologies, and I think they adjust the output power every 40 milliseconds, based on the signal strength of the receiver (tower).

      Actually you are wrong. Some GSM digital phones DO get well above 1W. The specification in fact has the handsets limited to 2 Watts. And I have one which goes that high. Look a the GSM Wiki entry.

      According to specifications for my old digital GSM Nokia 2110 (for just one example of a high power handset) and also according to the Nokia NetMonitor software, the 2110 can emit 2Watts on it's own. For a very long time, 2W and 600mW were the two typical maximum power levels used in GSM900 digital handheld mobile phones.

      I can say that at least some Nokia phones are not capable of transmitting at less than 12mW and seemingly the GSM900 spec requires a minimum transmit power of 20mW to be used. Minimum, meaning the phone should not drop below that even though it is capable by design and by current call conditions.

      I beleive these figures are the peak output power though and not the average. Since GSM has a time shared duty cycle, the average is lower.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    32. Re:What about cell phones? by frostilicus2 · · Score: 1

      This is a result of Gauss' law.

      --
      Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
    33. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Especially when you've got your ex-wife on the phone...

    34. Re:What about cell phones? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      Some GSM digital phones DO get well above 1W. The specification in fact has the handsets limited to 2 Watts. And I have one which goes that high. Look a the GSM Wiki entry.

      GSM frames are divided into 8 time slots, and a during a call, the full-rate (FR) and enhanced-full-rate (EFR) codecs will occupy one time slot per frame, and the half-rate (HR) codec will occupy a half-frame (1 timesloy every 2 frames). The Wikipedia entry is very vague on the subject, but if we assume that 2W is the maximum transmit power while actually transmitting then with (E)FR and HR, you get a maximum average transmit power of 250 mW and 125 mW respectively. This is quite close to what the parent said.

      Furthermore, newer phones/basestations use "discontinuous transmission" (DTX -- where your phone only transmits when you're actually talking) and the "adaptive multi-rate" (AMR) codec, both of which can further reduce your average transmitting power.

      I don't know enough to put an actual number on it, but based on what I've just said, 1-5 mW doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me, especially if you're more of a listener than a talker. :)

    35. Re:What about cell phones? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      the half-rate (HR) codec will occupy a half-frame (1 timesloy every 2 frames)

      Oops; That should read:

      the half-rate (HR) codec will occupy a half-timeslot (1 timeslot every 2 frames)
    36. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psychosomatic causes has got to be a "high probability" hypothesis.

    37. Re:What about cell phones? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      No. Your cell phone produces much lower average than that, mainly because you aren't using it 95% of the time. In fact, to be fair, we should average in all those trashed cell phones that are off all the time.

      A stream of bullets has a pretty low average momentum whern you factor in the air inbetween the bullets, too. I don't know why people are worried about being sprayed with one.

      By including in the 'average' the amount of time the phone isn't transmitting, you're assumeing any problems have anything to do with an 'average' radiation output. However, we pretty much know the radiation is safe...the question is, do EMI fields interfer with chemical reactions in your body? If so, alternating spikes of low and high fields could logically do as much, or more, damage as merely leaving it on high all the time.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    38. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In Sweden this is officially recognised as a possible health concern check out:
      http://www.feb.se/FEB/Links.html

        Also note that Sweden (the home of Ericsson) has one of the highest cell phone per capita of any nation.
      I have worked in a Swedish office where an employee has her room proofed for electromagnetic exposure at significant cost to the employer- and noone is allowed their cellphones on within 20 meters of the office.

      Try the world health organisation:
      http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en /index.html

      Personally I have formed no opinion on the risks involved here - I agree that there seems to be insufficient research - but there is certainly strong evidence indicating that a small percentage of people suffer from this condition.

    39. Re:What about cell phones? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Hmm. My router is on top of a bookcase in my office. My laptop is on the dining table, not surprisingly in the dining room. Explain to me how anything passing between them can be absorbed by the ground, especially when they're in a 7th floor apartment.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    40. Re:What about cell phones? by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Any practical antenna such as a half wave dipole will eventually start to fall off as 1/r^2 in free space in a given direction. Of course, the radiation pattern will not be perfect like on an isotropic radiator.

      Anyone interested in antenna radiation patterns should look at the NEC2 family of open source simulators which can deal with quite sophisticated geometries. There is even a windows-only front end, called 4nec2, that dramatically simplifies the usage.

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    41. Re:What about cell phones? by alienw · · Score: 1

      Average transmit power is not relevant here. If it's interfering with something (like your brain) the peak power is more important.

    42. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be sensitive to poor audio quality on cell phones.

    43. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I know someone who could always feel when the Electro-stim machine was miscalibrated. In fact one of her co-workers could also feel it, and in fact every time they complained about it, they both complained on the same day, and it always was in fact miscalibrated.

      Now, this was years and years ago, when these were huge machines, and they took a lot of power. Some people are a lot more sensitive to these things, but sensitive enough to be bothered by a modern cellphone is doubtful.

    44. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have they also banned cell phones? Because students tend to hold those next to their heads instead of on their lap.

      You mean I've been doing VOIP with my laptop wrong all these years? DAMNIT!

    45. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She doesn't have to call, just yell down the stairs...

    46. Re:What about cell phones? by anarchyboy · · Score: 1

      Not really, i mean you can do it without Gauss' law its just much harder which was my point.

    47. Re:What about cell phones? by WhytTiger · · Score: 1

      How about this... I work on Cell phones. CDMA phones CAN go between about -70 dBm and 30 dBm (the spec limits it to 30 dBm), but most are limited to around 24-25 dBm. GSM (since it's bursted) can go upwards of 35 dBm. The conversion is mW = log(-1) (dbm/10), so the CDMA limit is 1W, but it generally never reaches that high, closer to .25-.3W. GSM can go up to 2+ watts, but it's only on 1/7 of the time.

      --
      My Sig Beat up your Honor Roll Sig
    48. Re:What about cell phones? by ahsile · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Hey dipshit... get your facts straight. Old car phones and "bag" phones used to emit 3 watts. New ones are capped at around 0.6 watts.
      "In terms of wattage, wireless phones maximally emit power in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 watts."
      http://www.letstalk.com/radiation/radiation.htm
    49. Re:What about cell phones? by ahsile · · Score: 2, Funny

      Um, since the SAR level is measured in Watts/Kg... how is it relevant? I highly doubt any of those "Top 10" models have anywhere near 1kg of mass. Which means, they don't output anywhere near the wattage you are lead to believe they do.

    50. Re:What about cell phones? by Metaphorically · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice way to engage in dialog.

      I also questioned the numbers since I remember that right when cell phone popularity started growing dramatically, there was a statement (in the manual of my Motorola flip phone) about the limits on maximum emission levels being raised recently. That was back in the early 90s.

      Anyhow, I think the number this guy quotes correlates to SAR which this list claims goes pretty close to the 1.6 Watts SAR maximum level mentioned in the page you link to.

      btw, that list is the highest SAR levels mentioned from this other page.

      --
      more of the same on Twitter.
    51. Re:What about cell phones? by Metaphorically · · Score: 1

      I hope your kidding. SAR: Specific Absorbed Radiation. Absorbed by tissue like yours.

      --
      more of the same on Twitter.
    52. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it's a psychological, not a physical, problem. Sort of like people who truly believe they're sick, and even exhibit all the symptoms of being sick - but aren't actually sick.

    53. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can't speak to this ES phenomenon, nor your anecdotal argument, but it was documented in 2003 - and hasn't been successfully challenged by any new research, to my knowledge - that cell phone radiation seriously injures the blood brain barrier in rats. This was found to be the case for radiation levels similar to those found in modern cell phones.

      http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,57488,00 .html

    54. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 1

      It's quite repeatable- like clockwork.

      Just curious, what sort of a story do you figure this could make?

    55. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 1

      Um, since the SAR level is measured in Watts/Kg... how is it relevant? I highly doubt any of those "Top 10" models have anywhere near 1kg of mass. Which means, they don't output anywhere near the wattage you are lead to believe they do.

      The SAR level measures the "radiation in watts absorbed by a kilogram of biological tissue under laboratory conditions." - I'm quoting the page you linked in your other reply. I believe your page answers your concern quite elegantly.

    56. Re:What about cell phones? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "I can find no articles on it other than conspiracy sites that claim that millions of people are affected, and the government and medical industries keep it secret because they love their cellphones"

      Or it could be all baloney. Which almost seems the point of your post.
      "The only actual scientific articles have asserted that such a syndrome does not exist. Several groups in the UK and the USA have conducted double blind tests in which sufferers are secretly exposed to EMR of frequencies like that they claim cause their symptoms (Monitors, cell phones, etc), and they did not react. On the other hand, when exposed to a radio device they are told is active, but which is nothing more than a box with a light, they react immediatly. These studies are dismissed by the ES campaign groups, who declare they are secretly funded by the cellphone companies. Some even declare that all scientiests are against them because scientists love computers and other electronic gadgets, and all scientists will forever bury the mounds of evidence."

      Your post is brilliantly funny or one of the scariest things I have ever seen. It is modded Informative so a lot of people don't read all of a post and are very dumb or have a great sense of humor.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    57. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 1

      I think what I, and CNET, are driving at is that SAR is the lingua franca of EM radiation studies. Cell phone radiation, regulations limiting cell phone radiation, experiments on rats, and so forth are most always phrased in terms of SAR.

      Perhaps our disagreement stems from a different interpretation of 'output'.

    58. Re:What about cell phones? by pclminion · · Score: 1
      A real antenna is not a point radiator. Furthermore, on the surface of the earth there are many things for the signal to interact with, which weaken it. So any real radio signal will drop off faster than inverse square, and possibly much faster depending on the interactions with the environment.

      This is stuff you should know after learning, you know... PHYSICS.

    59. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard of that issue, but I would imagine anything at high volume blasting into the ear would cause a headache. I would recommend locating the volume control and adjusting it down.

    60. Re:What about cell phones? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And aside from this proximity issue, cell phones often get above 1 Watt of output. Wifi devices tend to be between 20 and 100 miliwatts.

      Cellphones almost never get above 1 watt. In fact, most of the current generation of phones, including all flip phones and most other phones, are under 500mW. The old gigantic AMPS-network Motorola phones back in the day were only just over 1 watt, and the AMPS bag phones are around 3 watts.

      Also, 2.4GHz is very close to the frequency of water, which is why microwave ovens use it, and why anyone is at all worried about WiFi. Cellphones use 2.2GHz and below, for anything in current use.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re:What about cell phones? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's probably like those people who think they're allergic to everything artificial. They'll buy a used car because they can't smell it offgassing, but of course it's all plastic all around them, it is offgassing (which it will do until it's been entirely depleted by heat and UV damage) and they're driving around through a world full of artificial pollutants, they fill their own fuel tank, et cetera. Their belief that they're allergic to all this stuff is so strong that they cause a reaction. I personally am allergic to both cats and dogs, but that allergy was affecting me before I even knew what an allergy was...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    62. Re:What about cell phones? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A real antenna is not a point radiator. Some areas will have greater and some areas will have lesser power, due to interference effects, et cetera.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    63. Re:What about cell phones? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      just use the cell phone on the side of your head that has the metal plate, rather than the side that doesn't, and have all of the metal tooth fillings changed to composites, and your problem will be solved!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    64. Re:What about cell phones? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I get a headache and nausea if I use headphones, especially in a moving vehicle. I don't think they're giving me brain cancer though. More likely our brains are unhappy with having a sound source that doesn't move properly when we turn our heads. Similar to lots of people who get motion sickness from inconsistent visual cues.

    65. Re:What about cell phones? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The phones definitely get warm, but my ears get warm when I put on a hat too. Warming up your ear won't cause cancer. Heating up your brain tissue could potentially cause harm (I don't think there are any known mechanisms for this causing cancer either) but not a rise of less than a degree.

    66. Re:What about cell phones? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      .2 to .6 watts a half inch from your brain is still a whole lot more than a few tenths of a watt at arms length. Of course either is pretty low compared to the couple hundred watts of high energy radiation pouring into you from those lights we insist on using. Not to mention the wattage of IR that your body is PRODUCING!

    67. Re:What about cell phones? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's watts per kilogram of flesh, ie you. SAR is how much wattage is absorbed, not how much is transmitted.

    68. Re:What about cell phones? by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      Wohoo. I have a Moto v265! I'm number 1!

      I don't have to worry about the rads since I use an earpiece while I keep the phone in my front pocket.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    69. Re:What about cell phones? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      I guess you have radiation proof underwear?

    70. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In fact, while these website site all of these journal papers and confrences on the subject, there referances appear to be completley fabricaited to make them seem plausable.
      WTF. Where did you go to school?
    71. Re:What about cell phones? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Well, it seems very few people claim that radio waves directly cause cancer (because there's some pretty solid science that says they can't). Usually the idea is that heating in the brain causes cancer. Heating DOES depend more on average transmit power than peak, in most reasonable cases.

      Nobody has properly explained how a temperature rise of less than a degree might cause cancer when, say, a blanket, that might raise the temperature of your legs by several degrees, doesn't.

    72. Re:What about cell phones? by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

      Anecdotally, I get a terrible headache that lasts for hours if I talk even 30 seconds on a cell phone.

      You should do a test, if you think it is radiation. Blindfold yourself and have someone hold a turned-on cell phone near your head, and also try it with one shut off and the battery removed. See if you can reliably tell the difference.

    73. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thousands of people also suffer adverse reactions to placibos every year.

    74. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this guy misinformed. I work in the wireless industry and started in the cellular industry back in 1988. In the US, portable phones (the kind everyone carries around today) only go up to 600 millwatts (they back their power down when they can). Transportable (bag phones) and installed car phones are limited to 3 Watts. Further, in the US the Wi-Fi/ISM stuff can go up to 1 Watt output legally.

    75. Re:What about cell phones? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      While I agree that people who believe they can sense cell phones and towers are nutjobs, I am somewhat concerned about things that may be happening that we can't see.

    76. Re:What about cell phones? by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1
      Anecdotally, I get a terrible headache that lasts for hours if I talk even 30 seconds on a cell phone. I'm probably not typical, but I'm certain cell phones aren't as harmless as most folks (and regulatory agencies) think.

      Do you get headaches around vehicles with CB or HAM radios? CBs have a legal maximum output of 4 watts, but given the noise on the 11 meter band, outputs exceeding 100 watts are common, and in excess of 250 watts are frequently found near urban centers. Ham operators can legally go as high as 1500 watts on some bands. AM Mode on CBs, ham radios and car stereos will have no problem picking up a loud humming noise from high voltage power lines for blocks around them, no matter what you set the tuner to.

      I think there's something else to your headaches that isn't electromagnetically related.

      --
      Help us build a better map!
    77. Re:What about cell phones? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      Assuming you've actually successfully completed the experiment the gp described, you've got a front page New York Times article, and probably a paper in Nature if you like. Don't know about speaking engagements, but I suspect that there will be a number of lawyers who would like to have you as a material witness in the new group of class action law suits that would be filed immediately following the publication of your articles.

      Beyond that point, who knows. If you've got a head that can reliably detect cellphone radiation, Letterman will have you on...

      Basically, though, we (most of the replies to your messages) doubt you've actually conducted a double-blind experiment like the one the gp described and that the cause of the headache is something other than the phone (i.e. you).

      Regards,
      Ross

    78. Re:What about cell phones? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Off topic: Dear lord it's scary to see stuff on slashdot that I'm learning in class right now, and actually understand.

      Signed,
      an EM-Fields student

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    79. Re:What about cell phones? by njyoder · · Score: 1

      The researchers admit that their sample size for that study is small. And it's not a matter of whether or not it's been challenged; that's not how science works. Science is skeptical by nature, not gullible. As of 2003, there has not been a single reproduction of that experiment. Reproduction is a basic requirement for results like that to be considered valid in this amazing thing called science.

    80. Re:What about cell phones? by Ankur+Dave · · Score: 1

      The output of a Linksys WRT54G wi-fi router is 28 milliwatts.

    81. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cell Phones & microwave ovens have me more worried than WiFi.
      Think a comparison between your phone & the oven is 'off base'?
      Then read this "Weekend Eating: Mobile Cooking" http://www.wymsey.co.uk/wymchron/cooking.htm & go camping with a friend!

    82. Re:What about cell phones? by NumerusSpy · · Score: 1

      If quantum terrorists are hurting people then it's in the best interest's of everyone to keep it a secret. As far as conspiracy theories go who could deny the existence of black helicopters these days?

      --
      There they are a conga line of suck holes. On the conservative side of Australian politics. - Mark Latham
    83. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Everyone knows there is usually no coverage in a basement...

    84. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 1

      I agree. Perhaps I should have phrased my statement, "I'm not aware of any negative attempts at reproduction, after a cursory search of the literature."

      Googling for 'blood brain barrier rats radiation watts' for instance turns up a few studies which seem to support this finding.

      Of course, rats' BBB and humans' BBB are significantly different.

    85. Re:What about cell phones? by njyoder · · Score: 1

      What studies? I just did the search, and I just get multiple references to the same Swedish study.

    86. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 1

      Two out of the three pre-results from Google Scholar pertained to our discussion (I should have specified); more if one searches GS directly. Here's a link to what I'm talking about-

      http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=blood%20brain% 20barrier%20rats%20radiation%20watts&num=20&hl=en& hs=Vtf&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozil la:en-US:official

      It looks to me as if the "fairly minimal amounts of EM radiation opens rats' BBB to some degree" hypothesis is decently supported by said literature.

    87. Re:What about cell phones? by njyoder · · Score: 1

      You consider 5-10 Watts of power over several hours to be 'minimal amounts'? What kind of crack are you smoking?

      Next time, paste a link to an actual study. I don't want you pasting another search and claim that 'oh you just missed the ones that supported me.'

    88. Re:What about cell phones? by Raindance · · Score: 1

      You consider 5-10 Watts of power over several hours to be 'minimal amounts'? What kind of crack are you smoking?

      First ranked result:
      "The specific energy absorption rate (SAR) varied between 0.016 and 5 W/kg"

      "The results show albumin leakage in 5 of 62 of the controls and in 56 of 184 of the animals exposed to 915 MHz microwaves."

      "The frequency of occurrence of extravasates (26%) was found to be independent of SAR for SAR [greater than] 2.5 W/kg"

      In other words, even a minimal amount of radiation negatively affected the BBB in a significant number of cases, though past 2.5 W/kg rates do increase.

      Second ranked result:
      "The CWdashpulse power varied from 0.001 W to 10 W and the exposure time from 2 min to 960 min."

      "The frequency of pathological rats is significantly increased (p As far as I can tell, you just made the "5-10 Watts" comment up.

      Next time, paste a link to an actual study. I don't want you pasting another search and claim that 'oh you just missed the ones that supported me.'

      There won't be a next time. I don't feed trolls.

    89. Re:What about cell phones? by njyoder · · Score: 1

      Uh, did you read what you just pasted? They just stated the pulses were up to 10 Watts. That's where my 10 watts came from. Again, what kind of crack are you smoking?

    90. Re:What about cell phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GEE I WONDER IF ANYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET IS A SMART AS YOU AND CAN UNDERSTAND SARCASM! PROBABLY NOT, I KNOW I THOUGHT THAT POST WAS ABOUT HOW DANGEROUS THIS SYNDROME IS!

      aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    91. Re:What about cell phones? by Tesral · · Score: 1
      Anecdotally, I get a terrible headache that lasts for hours if I talk even 30 seconds on a cell phone. I'm probably not typical, but I'm certain cell phones aren't as harmless as most folks (and regulatory agencies) think.

      Turn down the volume.

      --
      Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
    92. Re:What about cell phones? by alienw · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is stupid enough to claim that heating causes cancer. A phone would have to put out at least 50 watts to cause noticeable heating. Not to mention, the sun shining on your head causes a lot more heating.

      As far as peak-to-average, it's always very important. Average power through a resistor might be very low, but it will still burn up if peak dissipation is too high. Similarly, sticking your hand in boiling water for 2 seconds isn't a very large amount of heating if averaged over an hour, but it will still burn your hand pretty bad.

    93. Re:What about cell phones? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised what some people will claim. After you finish explaining that RF isn't ionizing radiation the next argument is usually heating your brain tissue or mysterious effects of magnetic fields.

      I work in MRI so I've spent quite a bit of time happily napping in a 3 Tesla field with a 20 KW radio transmitter next to my head heating me up more than enough to feel. No brain cancer.

      You're quite right though, peak power is important too.

  6. More tags by MeanMF · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [+] Tinfoil, helmet

    1. Re:More tags by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1, Interesting
      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  7. DIfference? by Kickboy12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How's wifi different than any other radio signal? Sure, it's a different frequency and bandwidth, but radio waves are passing through us all the time. Are they gonna ban radio stations now cause it might be cancerous?

    Seems a little far-fetched.

    1. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.4GHz is the frequency at which water molecules resonate. This is the frequency microwave ovens use to cook food.
      Wifi is probably harmless, since it uses milliwatts while microwave ovens are around 1 kilowatt, so there is 10^6 difference in order of magnitude.

    2. Re:DIfference? by putaro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your analogy is retarded and refutes itself. Radio frequencies and visible light are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum and are carried by photons. Visible light is a *HIGHER* frequency than microwave radiation. Therefore by your reasoning visible light is more dangerous than microwaves.

    3. Re:DIfference? by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1
      'Are they gonna ban radio stations now cause it might be cancerous?'

      Anecdote-- James Randi used to have a radio program years ago, where the studio was located right next to a powerful transmitter (I believe they try to distance the two these days). When the studio lights were turned off, the fluorescent lights on the ceiling would glow considerably... Yet there have been no related health problems, supposedly.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    4. Re:DIfference? by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Different frequencies of radio waves get absorbed by different things. Microwaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, and gamma rays, for example, are small enough to be absorbed by our bodies, so they're a potential health concern. Radio waves transmitted by radio stations are much larger so they can work their way around things which are in the way, and need long antennae to be absorbed, so aren't a health concern.

      Also the amount of waves you send is important as well as the frequency. WiMAX, for example, operates in the same band as a technology generated by the military to incapacitate enemy troops(!), but it couldn't be harmful because it's not aimed in any direction in large enough amounts to have any noticeable effect.

      But yeah, banning wifi for health concerns is bogus. I'd expect this from a scare tactics journalist but not from the head of a university.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    5. Re:DIfference? by austad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your analogy makes no sense. A lightbulb emits light from the UV to the IR range, and a laser emits a specific frequency which could fall anywhere in there. IR is less dense (wavelength-wise), but it will still burn you. I don't understand where you are coming from here. A laser is powerful at lower wattages than a lightbulb because of its focused directional beam, which you mention, but then go on to argue that higher frequencies are more directional, which they may be, but have you ever seen the radiation map things for a 2.4ghz antenna?

      Anyway, it's in the millwatt range, and people aren't putting their heads or their crotches on the access point and nothing is going to happen. This guy that banned wifi is a complete idiot.

      --
      Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    6. Re:DIfference? by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. I have an Xray machine at home and I like to sleep with it continuously radiating into my head. I'm fine, so that guy must be paranoid.

    7. Re:DIfference? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Are they gonna ban radio stations now cause it might be cancerous?

      Now that you mentioned this, they're going to wrap the university in alumin(i)um foil.

    8. Re:DIfference? by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      Anyway, it's in the millwatt range, and people aren't putting their heads or their crotches on the access point and nothing is going to happen.


      Err... you're not supposed to do that?
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    9. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wifi uses the same frequency radio waves as your microwave oven. Of course, the power difference is huge, but still :)
      Different wavelength radiations produce different effects on different materials.2.4 Ghz produces effects on water molecules (makes them
      vibrate), thus increasing the temperature of any material that contains water.

    10. Re:DIfference? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Your analogy makes no sense. A lightbulb emits light from the UV to the IR range, and a laser emits a specific frequency which could fall anywhere in there.

      The other difference is that an incandescent lamp is typically rated by the amount of electrical energy it consumes, whereas a laser is rated by the amount of light energy it emits.

    11. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It emits what it consumes.

    12. Re:DIfference? by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      Seeing that sunlight has been proven to cause cancer where EM radiation from cell phones/wifi/whatever has not, I'd say that yes, visible light is more dangerous.

      Yes, I know that I'm completely ignoring the fact that sunlight is many orders of magnitude more powerful.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    13. Re:DIfference? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How's wifi different than any other radio signal?

      Because it's a powerful new technology. I'm not kidding here. This is how non-techs actually think about these things.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    14. Re:DIfference? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      ...Please look up the concept of "less than 100% efficiency."

    15. Re:DIfference? by Bobsledboy · · Score: 1

      The UV radiation is what causes cancer, not the visible spectrum.

    16. Re:DIfference? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      You're also ignoring the concept of ultraviolet radiation, to which these cancers are attributed.

    17. Re:DIfference? by zCyl · · Score: 1

      How's wifi different than any other radio signal? Sure, it's a different frequency and bandwidth, but radio waves are passing through us all the time. Are they gonna ban radio stations now cause it might be cancerous?

      Seems a little far-fetched.


      Your logic is identical to saying, "How can bullets hurt us? There are rocks all over the place, and they don't seem to be killing us."

      There are three major properties which can determine the effect it will have on biological systems, and these are wavelength, power, and to a lesser extent, pulse patterns. Comparing wi-fi to radio waves is completely ridiculous, as they are different wavelengths with different cross-sections, and they are also at entirely different power levels.

    18. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may not put their crotches on the access points, but by definition I assume their crotches will be in fairly close proximity to the wireless cards in their laptops.

    19. Re:DIfference? by BenV666 · · Score: 1
      people aren't putting their heads or their crotches on the access point
      Perhaps not on their AP, but have you considered laptops?
    20. Re:DIfference? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      The UV radiation is what causes cancer, not the visible spectrum.

      But visible would have a better chance than low-power microwave. Single photons of visible light can cause permanant changes in molecules whereas microwave cannot. Fortunately visible light is slightly too weak to cause permanant changes in DNA at an appreciable rate.

    21. Re:DIfference? by lahvak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How's wifi different than any other radio signal?

      It costs the college money to implement, they don't have the money, so they are looking for any excuse so they won't look bad for not having it.

      --
      AccountKiller
    22. Re:DIfference? by alienw · · Score: 1

      Uh, wi-fi signals ARE radio waves. As are cellphone signals and so on. They are not the same wavelength as broadcast FM radio, but they are roughly the same wavelength as cellphones and cellphone towers (which are all over the place and have a hell of a lot more power than any wi-fi transmitter).

    23. Re:DIfference? by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative
      To be absolutely clear about this: Cancer has nothing to do with 'frequency', at least, not in absolute terms. What causes cancer is a wavelength of radiation that goes far enough through the dead skin on your body (can't cause cancer in dead skin) and screws up your DNA once it does so.

      If it does not do that, it cannot cause cancer. If it does do that, it might cause cancer.

      The wavelength of radio stations and TV stations go through you. However, they are much much too large to have an effect on a cell...they are in the meter range. They can't cause cancer anymore than getting hit by a car can.

      In fact, anything much larger than the visible spectrum isn't going to be small enough to cause cancer. Although note that, not only are you transmitting on the wavelength you want, you are often transmitting on half that wavelength and double that wavelength, thanks to some reason I don't fully understand.

      Getting back to wifi, microwaves, and other gigahertz wavelength, which are smaller than visible light, go through your cells very poorly, tending to get stopped by water and the cell barrier. And, in effect, transmitting their motion to the water, heating it up, although you'd never notice unless you were standing inside a microwave oven, as most signalling methods in that wavelength are in or below the watt range.

      This is, contrary to what people think, proof that it is not harming us, because our skin can take a hell of a lot of heating before anything bad happens, and heat cannot cause cancer. (By the time you apply enough heat to screw up DNA, you've already killed the cell. Which is good, because otherwise people would get cancer from burns.) Moving water is much better than continuing forward and moving DNA.

      The current 'theory' about how cell phones mess you up has nothing to do with any of this, it's that EM fields somehow mess with chemical reactions in your body, reactions that are unrelated to DNA. That's magnetic fields, not radiation. When things move through a magnetic field, they generate electricity. (Erm, in essence, although that's a bit simple.) The theory is that cell phones generate a strong enough field that your head moving right there can generate enough power to mess up your head.

      Of course, this is completely idiotic, but whatever. It's basically the exact same claim as the one made living near power lines, which also has no evidence for it. The only place our body uses electricity is our nervous system, and if the minute amounts of electricity generated within us could screw that up, we'd have people having seizures every time they walked under a power-line transformer and stuff like that. There's no logical reason that long term exposure to minute internally-generated electrical current would have an effect, but short, extremely powerful bursts like walking through a power plant wouldn't.

      Although I did find it funny when I ran into someone who insisted cell phones were bad for you...and walked around with magnets in their shoe.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    24. Re:DIfference? by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Your analogy is retarded and refutes itself.

      Perhaps we should make this an abreviation: YAIRARI. It is oh-so-popular amongst the /. teeming millions.

    25. Re:DIfference? by tjernobyl · · Score: 1

      Since the city council turned down his request to turn the campus into a private golf course, he's gotta have something to rail on about.

    26. Re:DIfference? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      One of the common warnings on radio transmission equipment is "May cause spontaneous body heating" eg, don't hang out here, or you may cook.

      I remember climbing up a tower to mount an antenna after reading that, looking at all the other antenna's and microwave plates that were mounted there...Now that will mess with your mind.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    27. Re:DIfference? by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

      Therefore by your reasoning visible light is more dangerous than microwaves.

      Sunlight?

    28. Re:DIfference? by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      "It emits what it consumes".

      "Please look up the concept of "less than 100% efficiency"

      It MUST emit what it consumes (at least, using normally acceptable models). It MAY NOT be 100% what is desired, but it sure is emitted. An incandescent light bulb does not convert 100% of it used power into visible light -- go ahead and touch one!

      But it sure does emit what it consumes. Indeed, this is such a basic concept that the original poster didn't want credit.

      Nor do I - no modding this up.

      Ratboy.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    29. Re:DIfference? by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

      The sun emits a heckuva lot more radiation than we see with our eyes, and skin cancer is caused by UV radiation, not visible light.

      --
      A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
    30. Re:DIfference? by Troed · · Score: 1

      On the other hand:

      3G masts 'cause health problems'

      Microwaves open up the Blood Brain Barrier

      Mobile phone radiation alters brain cells

      (I grabbed these quickly - I believe all of them are reputable studies. The first is double blind, the one about the blood barrier was carried out close to where I work [in the cellphone industry btw])

    31. Re:DIfference? by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      technical point, the amount of waves pretty well is the frequency, you're thinking of the amplitude.

    32. Re:DIfference? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Anyway, it's in the millwatt range, and people aren't putting their heads or their crotches on the access point and nothing is going to happen. This guy that banned wifi is a complete idiot.

      He sounds just like our university president from what I recall. Didn't your school newspaper have 2-3 things that your college president was doing that was in this league of stupidity? I wonder if college papers have a contest for the most outlandish things that their administration has forced the students to accept.

    33. Re:DIfference? by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      sure does, and all that wasted heat energy it emits will most definitely burn your sorry arse if you touch it.

    34. Re:DIfference? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "How's wifi different than any other radio signal?" It isn't but enough of anything can be bad for you. You microwave oven also uses the same frequency band as your 802.11b card. One is in milliwatts and one is hundreds of watts. Even light is bad for you if it is strong enough. You know that whole don't stare into the sun thing?
      Remember every thing counts in large amounts.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    35. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they should also ban neutrinos then.

    36. Re:DIfference? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      To quote the comment this was in regards to "a laser is rated by the amount of light energy it emits."

      So either the comment I replied to was pointless (as in it adds jack shit to the discussion) or stupid, I chose the later just in case since the former wouldn't need a reply. To reply to your statement: of course a laser emits all the energy it consumes (assuming none gets turned to matter), however not all of it as light thus the fuckin point (ie: the rating, assuming the comment about it is correct, would be lower).

    37. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the dumbest post I've seen in a long, long time.

    38. Re:DIfference? by greensasquatch · · Score: 1

      leave a piece of coloured paper in sunlight or any visible light (even behind glass so it's shielded) It will eventually fade. Now try leaving your cellphone on the same piece of paper, does it fade now?

      I'd be willing to bet that the visible light will affect the paper many many times faster than the radiation emitted by the cellphone (or Wifi device)

    39. Re:DIfference? by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

      Anyway, it's in the millwatt range, and people aren't putting their heads or their crotches on the access point and nothing is going to happen. This guy that banned wifi is a complete idiot.

      And you know that how? There is not enough epidemiological data available yet to KNOW how safe or unsafe exposure to some of the newer sources of microwave radiation is, such as wifi or cell phone transmitters. You are just one more of the eager users who refuse to even acknowledge that there might be a potential problem. One of the older sources of exposure to microwave radiation are the radar speed measuring devices used by police officers and there has continued to be concern about the rates of testicular cancer and other cancers in the relatively small group of users. Even after 30+ years of using radar guns, however, the best advice that OSHA has today is:

      "The health concerns of officers who have used traffic radar in the past cannot immediately be resolved because of a lack of definitive scientific information on chronic, low-level effects of microwave radiation. It is possible, however, to make concrete recommendations about the use of traffic radar devices that will reduce or prevent future exposure."

      Why would you expect that we know what the effects of newer sources of microwave radiation are if we still don't know what the effects of old sources are? In the absence of studies that can quantify the health effects and provide guidance for new exposure standards, avoiding unnecessary exposure is a good idea. Your posting that people who are attempting to do that are 'idiots' is not helpful.

    40. Re:DIfference? by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1

      How's wifi different than any other radio signal?

      Wifi carries digital data. This means it is comprised of 1's and 0's. So instead of being gentle, flowing waves, the radio signals are sharp and pointy (the 1's more than the 0's anyway)-- so it's obvious that they would cause more cell damage.

      --
      -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    41. Re:DIfference? by beast6228 · · Score: 1

      You stupid fucks...don't fucking mod me down.

      Not one of you know anything about radio waves, and yes my bitches, a wi-fi signal is a radio wave. It's been very well known that higher frequencies are more dense and can penetrate tissue faster.(specifically the eyes) Have you ever listened to the AM broadcast band? Like 800KHz ? those radio stations run about 50,000 watts (killowatts) of rf power, yet the damage caused by these radio waves is very minimal, if any.(the only real damage would be direct contact high voltage shock) However, if you ran 50,000 watts (killowatts) on 2.4 GHz it would cause damage to anyone close to the antenna. This is why you don't see too many high powered devices on these frequencies.

      I tried to explain to everyone the difference in frequencies, that is why I used the lightbulb and laser example. Low frequency radio waves are not as dense as high frequency radio waves. (if it goes through the air, it's a radio wave) As an extra class amateur radio operator, these are issues we need to learn before passing our tests. Some of you idiots need to quit looking in your college text books and start reading some of the FCC regulations and guidelines. I was talking on 2.4GHz transmitters before wi-fi network connections were common by the general public. My 30+ years of amateur radio (the original geeks) has been exciting and educational.

      If you would like to learn more about radio waves, I suggest looking up some of these FCC guidelines and rules.

      1. The whole-body specific absorption rate (SAR) T0B RF safety rules and guidelines.

      2. FCC Part 1 and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65

      SUBELEMENT T0 -- RF SAFETY [3 Exam Questions -- 3 Groups]

      T0A RF safety fundamentals, terms and definitions

      T0A01 @T0A01 (B)
      Why is it a good idea to adhere to the FCC's Rules for using the minimum power needed when you are transmitting with your hand-held radio?
      A. Large fines are always imposed on operators violating this rule
      B. To reduce the level of RF radiation exposure to the operator's head
      C. To reduce calcification of the NiCd battery pack
      D. To eliminate self oscillation in the receiver RF amplifier

      T0A02 @T0A02 (D)
      Over what frequency range are the FCC Regulations most stringent for RF radiation exposure?
      A. Frequencies below 300 kHz
      B. Frequencies between 300 kHz and 3 MHz
      C. Frequencies between 3 MHz and 30 MHz
      D. Frequencies between 30 MHz and 300 MHz

      T0A03 @T0A03 (C)
      What is one biological effect to the eye that can result from RF exposure?
      A. The strong magnetic fields can cause blurred vision
      B. The strong magnetic fields can cause polarization lens
      C. It can cause heating, which can result in the formation of cataracts D. It can cause heating, which can result in astigmatism

      T0A04 @T0A05 (C)
      In the far field, as the distance from the source increases, how does power density vary?
      A. The power density is proportional to the square of the distance
      B. The power density is proportional to the square root of the distance
      C. The power density is proportional to the inverse square of the distance
      D. The power density is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance

      T0A05 @T0A06 (D)
      In the near field, how does the field strength vary with distance from the source?
      A. It always increases with the cube of the distance
      B. It always decreases with the cube of the distance
      C. It varies as a sine wave with distance
      D. It depends on the type of antenna being used

      T0A06 @T0A09 (A)
      Why should you never look into the open end of a microwave feed horn antenna while the transmitter is operating?
      A. You may be exposing your eyes to more than the maximum permissible exposure of RF radiation
      B. You may be exposing your eyes to more than the maximum permissible exposure level of infrared radiation
      C. You may be exposing your eyes to more than the maximum permissible exposure level of ultraviolet radiation
      D. All of

      --
      ~Later~
    42. Re:DIfference? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Depending on the equipment you can keep warm on a cold day by standing near (or in front of) the antennas and dishes. Be careful though, because some of them can actually cook you.

    43. Re:DIfference? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ultraviolet radiation (which is not visible light) is known to cause cancer, as well as any frequencies higher than that (x-ray and gamma). UV of high enough frequency is capable of ionizing atoms, so it CAN cause cancer. Visible light isn't. Radio isn't either, except way, WAY less able.

      So visible light (like that from your lightbulb) should be expected to be more dangerous than radio. It's not dangerous though.

    44. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it is digital data, I highly doubt it is sharp and pointy. That would require a large amount of uneeded bandwidth (go look at a square ware in the fourier spectrum). I suggest reviewing digital communications before making stupid comments

    45. Re:DIfference? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No, frequency is important. Radiation causes cancer by ionizing atoms in your DNA. There is a frequency below which EM radiation is not ionizing. UV and above it is ionizing and can cause cancer. Visible and below is non-ionizing.

    46. Re:DIfference? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Lightbulb? 60+ Watts... fear it!

    47. Re:DIfference? by zCyl · · Score: 1

      They are not the same wavelength as broadcast FM radio, but they are roughly the same wavelength as cellphones and cellphone towers (which are all over the place and have a hell of a lot more power than any wi-fi transmitter).

      "Roughly" the same wavelength is not the same as being the same wavelength. A quad band GSM phone, for example, runs at 850 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, or 1900 MHz. Neither of these four will have the same absorption or interaction in the same parts of the body as 2450 MHz (wi-fi).

      And as for power, it is incorrect to consider the broadcast power. A more reasonable value to calculate is the average power at the location of the person. Typically people sit right next to wireless cards and routers, while usually very few people have lunch right beside a cell phone tower. And even then, it's more biologically relevant to consider the power absorbed at that wavelength in a localized portion of the body, rather than trying to average over the entire body (which, if you'll note, is not a homogeneous substance).

    48. Re:DIfference? by Musc · · Score: 1

      Since you seem to know what you are talking about, you really should
      have known better than to say that "the reason a laser is more dangerous
      than a light bulb is because the laser is a higher frequency".

      With your vast experience and knowledge, you clearly were using that as an
      attempt to appeal to the uneducated readers. You know better and should
      speak precisely if you wish to not be bashed as an apparent idiot.

      --
      Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
    49. Re:DIfference? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      To be absolutely clear about this: Cancer has nothing to do with 'frequency', at least, not in absolute terms. What causes cancer is a wavelength of radiation that goes far enough through the dead skin on your body (can't cause cancer in dead skin) and screws up your DNA once it does so.

      An interesting postulate, but unfortunately, it's not correct. As you know, frequency and wavelength of electromagnetic ratiation are inversely related; Higher frequencies correspond to smaller wavelengths. If you have two equal-power beams of light at two different wavelengths, then power *density* of the beam with the smaller wavelength is higher. So, if you shine these two beams on your skin, the beam with the smaller wavelength will not hit as many of your DNA molecules, but the molecules that *do* get hit will receive more energy than they would if the wavelength was lower.

      Higher frequency means higher power density, which means a higher probability of ionization, which means a higher probability of cancer.

      If it does not do that, it cannot cause cancer. If it does do that, it might cause cancer.

      Nobody knows exactly what *cannot* cause cancer. We know of some of the things that *do* cause cancer, but that's about it.

      Getting back to wifi, microwaves, and other gigahertz wavelength, which are smaller than visible light,

      No, they aren't. Visible light has wavelengths between about 400 and 700 nanometres. 2.4 GHz microwaves are around 125 millimetres, that is, about 180-310 thousand times larger.

      This is, contrary to what people think, proof that it is not harming us, because our skin can take a hell of a lot of heating before anything bad happens, and heat cannot cause cancer. (By the time you apply enough heat to screw up DNA, you've already killed the cell. Which is good, because otherwise people would get cancer from burns.)

      There are several problems with this:

      1. See my comment above about what "cannot cause cancer".
      2. We know, for example, that exposure to certain chemicals can increase the risk of cancer. This means that radiation is not the only mechanism by which people get cancer, and that changes in the chemical environment of your cells can cause cancer. When you change the temperature of a cell, you have a significant impact on the chemical reactions that occur inside it. These two facts make your assertion that "heat cannot cause cancer" unconvincing.
      3. Cancer is not the only thing that can harm people. Even if heating does not cause cancer, as you claim, it does not follow that the heating of the brain (or the testes!) is not harmful for other reasons.

      The current 'theory' about how cell phones mess you up has nothing to do with any of this, it's that EM fields somehow mess with chemical reactions in your body, reactions that are unrelated to DNA. That's magnetic fields, not radiation. When things move through a magnetic field, they generate electricity. (Erm, in essence, although that's a bit simple.) The theory is that cell phones generate a strong enough field that your head moving right there can generate enough power to mess up your head.

      Of course, this is completely idiotic

      I fail to see how it's "of course...idiotic". It sounds perfectly plausible to me, but before I judge, I'll see how you support your statement:

      but whatever.

      A very convincing argument, to say the least.

      It's basically the exact same claim as the one made living near power lines, which also has no evidence for it. The only place our body uses electricity is our nervous system, and if the minute amounts of electri

    50. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because of U.V not visible light you dumbass.

    51. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What is with that site? At first I thought it must be a blog, there are so many grammar errors. But it purports to be a real news source, with an editor and everything. I'm glad I don't have to read it to get my news.

      "Monday night[, the] council was asked...it[']s a move that had the backing of [the] administration. Bill Scollie questioned [the] acting Director...in the end [the] council decided..."

    52. Re:DIfference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were modded down because your analogy sucks, as many have pointed out. What differenciates a laser from an incandescent light bulb is that its monochromatic (a specific frequency), coherent (every photon has a wave front that moves with the others), and directional. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that one is a higher frequency than another.

      Maybe you should pick up a college text book and put down those FCC regulations...

    53. Re:DIfference? by alienw · · Score: 1

      Neither of these four will have the same absorption or interaction in the same parts of the body as 2450 MHz (wi-fi).

      There is nothing special about 2450 MHz, and it's not significantly different from 1900MHz. The properties are almost identical.

      A more reasonable value to calculate is the average power at the location of the person.

      Sure, calculate it. I can tell you right now that cellphones and wireless cards need the same minimum signal strength to receive the signal properly. Which means that being within 10 feet of a router with a 100ft range is roughly the same as being within 1 mile of a tower with a 10 mile range.

      Typically people sit right next to wireless cards and routers, while usually very few people have lunch right beside a cell phone tower.

      Typically, cellphone towers transmit at hundreds of watts while access points only put out maybe 100 milliwatts. It's kind of a big difference, you see? Not to mention, a cellphone can easily put out 2-3 watts, right next to your brain.

      And even then, it's more biologically relevant to consider the power absorbed at that wavelength in a localized portion of the body, rather than trying to average over the entire body (which, if you'll note, is not a homogeneous substance).

      The body is mostly homogenous and mostly consists of water. And I'm not sure what the hell your point is.

    54. Re:DIfference? by zCyl · · Score: 1

      The body is mostly homogenous and mostly consists of water. And I'm not sure what the hell your point is.

      The body is homogeneous the same way a cow is spherical. That sort of approximation may work if you're trying to, say, estimate the density of the body, but it does not work if you are trying to assess the functioning of it within different environments.

      Go to your kitchen, put some oil (representing lipids) in a glass bowl, and microwave it for 30 seconds. Note the temperature. Then contemplate what cell membranes are made of. And finally, contemplate the complex interaction of cell membranes with other compounds while they are trying to function as semipermeable membranes at the same time as they are being rotated and twisted in resonance with microwave radiation.

      What's the end result? We don't fully know, but it clearly can't be modeled as a bucket of water, and it is not sufficient to simply consider heat.

    55. Re:DIfference? by greensasquatch · · Score: 1

      way to late for this (forgot about threat) but not, visible light will do it to ever heard of photosensitive dyes? the reason i said behind glass is that the glass will sheild from UV, i have had papers fade in my car even through the UV blocking layer on the glass quit posting as AC

  8. Other things to ban at University: by EraseEraseMe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Carcinogenic inks in the paper
    Alcohol
    Cigarettes
    Vending Machines
    Money
    Pesticides on the grass
    Asphalt roads
    Air Conditioning
    Natural Gas heating

    --
    "Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
    1. Re:Other things to ban at University: by binarybum · · Score: 3, Funny

      wow, I hope you're not Canadian. I think proposing to ban alcohol is considered treason there.

      --
      ôó
    2. Re:Other things to ban at University: by EraseEraseMe · · Score: 1

      Here in BC, I don't think alcohol is the drug of choice...

      --
      "Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
    3. Re:Other things to ban at University: by Takumi2501 · · Score: 1

      Damn right. :P

      --
      Sent from my computer.
      Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
    4. Re:Other things to ban at University: by n3m6 · · Score: 1

      yes.. but what about body fluids ?

    5. Re:Other things to ban at University: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait wait...don't forget about sunlight where there is a definitive link between it and skin cancer.

      From now on, classes will only be held at night due to the definite risk of skin cancer from sunlight.

    6. Re:Other things to ban at University: by VGPowerlord · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As a "totally unrelated to the article" comment, I like your sig.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    7. Re:Other things to ban at University: by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Tsk Tsk.

      And in addition to the naughty physical and environmental hazards cited, lets ban

      Scientific method,
      Freedom of choice,
      Pareto of risk,
      rational thought,
      Pragmatic thought,
      can do attitude,
      self confidence,
      world class facilities,

      Tell you what, even better than that lets just ask the Taliban (or your local Nazi equivalent) to run things, because we have obviously lost the will to live and need someone to tell us what to do.

      Or even better - put ME in charge!!!, I can make arbitary loony decisions that make me look like a true leader! No sweat! I'm so far ahead of my time I think the cockroaches should be running the planet!!

      Actually I think the call should be to ban College administrations run by Born again, tabloid, wrap them in cotton wool, litigation scared, popularist, ignorant, do-gooder, think of the children, weak, nanny state - MORONS who should be eliminated from the gene pool with extreme prejudice.

      On the other hand I guess they can do whatever they like, just so long as it doesnt become fashionable as so often happens with the extreme tail ends of the statistical distribution of ideas.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    8. Re:Other things to ban at University: by Acer500 · · Score: 1
      Odd that you should mention it...

      From TFA:

      "Gilbert added he believes there are many environmental impacts that are not manifest for 30 to 40 years after exposure. "Second-hand tobacco exposure is a case in point," he said. "We're just finding out now what some of those impacts are. Asbestos is another example.""
      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    9. Re:Other things to ban at University: by Imsdal · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      The White House are hard at work on this. So far, they report complete success on the subjects of scientific method and rational thought. Freedom of choice, can do attitude, self confidence and pragmatic thought have been redefined to better suit the purposes of the government. All world class facilities will be bombed in the next decade.

      This leaves only pareto of risk. There is a bit of a disagreement on this. Cheney and Rumsfield both think it sounds vaguely arabic. Rove thinks it's an invetion of the liberal media. Bush thinks it's a small animal he used to hunt on his farm when he was a kid.

    10. Re:Other things to ban at University: by CagedBear · · Score: 0

      Funny you don't list sex. This must be slashdot.

    11. Re:Other things to ban at University: by aphoenix · · Score: 1

      What about Learning? That's quickly getting out of the race at Universities.

    12. Re:Other things to ban at University: by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ...
      Money ...


      Especially paper money, now that it contains RFID chips.

      But I suppose students with tinfoil wallets should be allowed to carry paper money. They've shown that they're smart enough to handle it safely.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    13. Re:Other things to ban at University: by pickleslinger · · Score: 1

      You forgot one: the sun

    14. Re:Other things to ban at University: by ivrcti · · Score: 1

      I'd add elevators. Taking them out would do ten times as much good for health on campus as banning very wireless point.

    15. Re:Other things to ban at University: by sharpestmarble · · Score: 0

      They already banned smoking, as of July 1, 2004: http://communications.lakeheadu.ca/news/?id=47

      --
      AC's modded -6. I don't see you, I don't mod you, anything you say is lost. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    16. Re:Other things to ban at University: by Bogue · · Score: 1

      Word has it they have built a huge cage around the university. The reason: Fear of bird flu.

  9. Oh, for crap's sake. by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know of ANY wi-fi product that even radiates half a watt. What a pack of blithering luddites.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Oh, for crap's sake. by peterfa · · Score: 1

      1 watt us legal top.

    2. Re:Oh, for crap's sake. by nbritton · · Score: 1

      I do! hell, the wifi setup on my laptop puts out 604mW. I have a 200mW Z-COM, Prism2.5, PCMCIA Card connected to a 5.5dBi Antenna(1), 4.8dBi gain after connecter and cable loss are calculated in. If you were to connect this card to a converted PrimeStar dish with a biquad feeder(2) (27 - 31dBi gain) you would have an EIRP of 159 watts... In other words, don't point it at your gonads!

      (1) http://www.wlanparts.com/c=So0zbsGg2Glh7swrUjbpMQG KP/product/RV24-5RD
      (2) http://www.trevormarshall.com/biquad.htm

      ---
      BSD Podcasts @ http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/

    3. Re:Oh, for crap's sake. by nbritton · · Score: 1

      The FCC EIRP Limits, for unlicened persons, are 1 Watt (30dB) for omnidirectional setups and 4 Watts (36dB) for point to point links. This limit applies only to transmission power. What that means is that if you have a card that has two antenna ports, one for transmit (Tx) and the other for receive (Rx), you can connect a high gain (30+ dBi) dish to the Rx port and a lower powered directional antenna to the Tx port (total Tx dBm + dBi capped at 36dB). With the setup I just described you can legally, without being licensed, make a 100 mile 11Mbps link.

      --
      BSD Podcasts @ http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/

    4. Re:Oh, for crap's sake. by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      This limit applies only to transmission power.

      WTF? How the hell would you apply a broadcast limit to reception in the first place?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  10. What about TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Better watch out, 50 years of ABC broadcasts are gonna leave you sterile!

  11. He says... by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...while talking on his portable phone and listening to the radio.

  12. Americans and Brits aren't so paranoid by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But Canucks really can't take the risk of losing any more brain cells.

    What? This thread is going to be stupid Canadian jokes, stupid American jokes, and some dufus trying to prove how smart he is by showing some fucking thing about ionizing radiation.

    We ought to send those guys some aluminum foil hats.

    1. Re:Americans and Brits aren't so paranoid by LaurenBC · · Score: 1

      Don't forget all the juicy occasions this thread will provide for Canadians to show off our cultural inferiority complex.

      --
      I don't need this, I've got a Master's Degree in folklore and mythology!
    2. Re:Americans and Brits aren't so paranoid by Aidski · · Score: 1
      The university in question is Lakehead University, in Thunder Bay. Which is in Northern Ontario, which isolated, cold and desolate even by Canadian standards. And that's saying something, eh?

      I hear they just got phones last week, so this "Wi-Fi" is surely the work of witchcraft.

  13. ah, yes, my alma mater. by macsox · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I graduated from the University of Tinfoilhats, Ottawa campus, in 2001 with my degree in Paranoia Studies, I thought my hallowed school would never make the mainstream media. And, more importantly, that I wouldn't know if it was, because paying attention to the mainstream media allows the brain worms to eat your thoughts.

    1. Re:ah, yes, my alma mater. by Sloth503 · · Score: 1

      Not many people know that until 1973 the school was located down south in Miami, but decided to move to more northerly latitude out of fear of the radio signals (EMF radiation) emmiting from the sun.

  14. Canadians are bizarre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it's so boring up there the canadians don't have anything else to worry about? So microwaves and TVs are fine in the teachers' lounge, but students using cell phones and wi fi are in big trouble?

  15. Why not post the university in the summary? by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

    Like say "Lakehead, A Canadian University".

    Having gone to university in Ontario, it wouldn't surprise me if this were based on a study from Lakehead's engineering department (if they have one).

    1. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      They do have a reputable engineering school, and I doubt this came from them.

    2. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by nidx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I actually GO to Lakeheadu University (5th year comp-sci) and from what I understand this decision is because of our University President. Our school paper did an article about this issue earlier this year and if I remember correctly his reasons for the ban were "the unknown effects on developing brains" which I belive was related to his field of study. IMO it's all ignorant BS.

      but I do love that this issue has reached slashdot!

    3. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queen's College colours we are wearing once again...

    4. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1, Funny
      Why not post the university in the summary? like say "Lakehead, A Canadian University".

      Yeah, you're right! Lakehead is in Orilla. How the hell can they have a study on electro-magnetic waves when they don't even have electricity there yet.

      Next up... cameras: devil's magic or soul stealers?

    5. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lakehead is in Thunder Bay, not Orilla.

    6. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by Picard102 · · Score: 1

      I actually GO to Lakeheadu University My condolences.

    7. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by berbo · · Score: 1

      Obviously your President has never tasted undeveloped brains. They are MUCH tastier than the overly developed ones.

    8. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by BaltikaTroika · · Score: 1

      I didn't put the name of the university in the summary because it makes no difference (except to the people who study there).

    9. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I have to ask but is tobacco allowed on campus? Automobiles? McDonald's?
      I fear his voice is far more likely to damaged developing brains at your school than any wifi is.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by petershank · · Score: 1
      I actually GO to Lakeheadu University (5th year comp-sci) and from what I understand this decision is because of our University President.
      Thank goodness we have the inside scoop from somebody on the ground. How else would we have known the origin of the decision? Certainly not from the lead sentence of the summary:
      A Canadian university has banned wi-fi, since the university President sees a possible link...
    11. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      Leaving it out makes a difference to everyone in Canada and people outside Canada familiar with some of our universities.

      Including it makes no difference to anyone.

    12. Re:Why not post the university in the summary? by awtbfb · · Score: 1
      Looked up president's bio:
      He is currently a Board Member of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine (Vice-Chair) and the Northwestern Ontario Technology Centre. He also is a member of the Advisory Council to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization... Gilbert's academic interests include wildlife management, environmental studies and natural resources science. He holds a B.Sc (Hons) degree from Acadia University and MSc and PhD degrees in Zoology from the University of Guelph.
  16. Lakehead?? by madhitz · · Score: 1

    Is that even a University? Guess they must be now ;) So....maybe an engineer or physicist at one of the real Universities here should send them some light reading?? I understand trying to protect your students, but man, lets worry about something important, like frosh hazing....HA.

  17. Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD by xtal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've read the article, and this, I hope, is a joke.


    There are many benefits to studying at Lakehead University. Ubiquitous wireless Internet access, however, isn't one of them.


    I'm sure living in a grass hut is nice and all, and yes, everything (might) cause cancer.

    This place deserves what's about to happen. I hope, maybe, that something was taken out of context. Maybe. Otherwise I don't even know where to start.

    100% safe? NOTHING is 100% safe. Nothing is even 100% certain in science, except maybe that you will fail dynamics if you don't do your homework.. heh

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Lets worry about something that very well might be harmless because student mortality is otherwise so low that wifi is the biggest potential cause of death. Drugs, alcohol, tobacco products, unprotected sex, automobile accidents, and plain old stress related suicide and illness don't rate anywhere on the list of things to worry about after all. I'd have to guess that more people have died from injuries caused by freak accidents with soda machines than from wifi so should we see if soda machines have been banned too?

      Moral of the story - technology and modern life are going to kill us all anyway so while you're at college make sure you spend your time having sex and partying. You're going to get a brain tumor anyway so might as well go out partying. (Anyone else hearing Arnold saying "It's not a tumor."?)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    2. Re:Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD by tftp · · Score: 1
      more people have died from injuries caused by freak accidents with soda machines ... should we see if soda machines have been banned too?

      Ban only the machines that have an electrically operated access door at the height about 30" from the ground. All other machines are safe.

    3. Re:Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't do my homework in dynamics, and I got a C in dynamics, thank you very much!

    4. Re:Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe how fucking obsessed over Internet access you morons are. To the point that you don't even -care- if there might be a risk to it, it's just oh so terrible that those students don't have wireless access.

    5. Re:Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD by johnalex · · Score: 1

      There are many benefits to studying at Lakehead University. Ubiquitous wireless Internet access, however, isn't one of them.

      Obviously, neither is their stellar physics department.

      --
      JA
      http://www.johnalex.org/
    6. Re:Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, most people killed by soda machines were rocking them, trying to get a soda out, and the machine fell on them. This is the real reason they put up cameras to watch vending machines on pretty much all campuses in the US. It's not for catching vandals, it's for avoiding liability when some jackhole gets squished by a big metal box labeled "Coca-Cola". Or at Yuba College in Marysville, CA, "Pepsi". Bleecccch. A fate worse than... oh wait, it is death.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. "The jury's out on this" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gee, where have we all been hearing THAT phrase lately?

    Fact: Nobody has ever demonstrated in a repeatable, peer-reviewed, properly-controlled study that low-level RF radiation at nonionizing wavelengths has any biological effect whatsoever. For every study that shows correlated effects, two more show none at all.

    Fact: WiFi adapters, even the gray-market 100 mW jobs you buy on eBay, transmit 1/10 to 1/100 the power of a cell phone.

    Fact: Your microwave oven leaks more 2.4-GHz energy than your WiFi card emits intentionally. For best results, cut a 1" slit in package wrapper and rotate dish after 2 minutes on HIGH.

    Fact: DNA damage from 2.4 GHz radiation at athermal levels would require a form of matter-energy interaction that is currently unknown to physics. There's a guaranteed Nobel Prize for anyone who can document such an interaction, because as far as anyone knows, we pretty have all the fundamental interactions covered at this point. Get cracking!

    (Probable) fact: This joker has some sort of financial interest in a local commercial ISP whose business would be threatened by a campus-wide network. Nobody that stupid runs a university... but conflicts of interest aren't exactly unheard-of in that line of work, are they?

    1. Re:"The jury's out on this" by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      Nobody that stupid runs a university...

      Don't be so sure about that... There seems to be no limit on the positions nutjobs like him can get.

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    2. Re:"The jury's out on this" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      For every study that shows correlated effects, two more show none at all.

      Ever stop to check who pays the bills for those two studies that counter every study showing a problem?

      DNA damage from 2.4 GHz radiation at athermal levels would require a form of matter-energy interaction that is currently unknown to physics.

      Your model is naive. Subthermal levels of radiation can still affect the biological function of polar molecules, which can in turn can cause carcinogenic compounds to end up where they don't belong. Radiation does not have to cook an organism to harm it. It simply has to cause it to malfunction.

    3. Re:"The jury's out on this" by stuckinarut · · Score: 1

      Well someone more stupid runs the US so anythings possible!

    4. Re:"The jury's out on this" by Uryene · · Score: 1

      Quoth the previous AC:
      >(Probable) fact: This joker has some sort of financial interest in a local commercial
      >ISP whose business would be threatened by a campus-wide network.
      >Nobody that stupid runs a >university... but conflicts of interest aren't exactly
      >unheard-of in that line of work, are they?

      I think you're on the right track, just a little off the actual target.

      My guess would be that if there were an ulterior motive to the edict, it would be
      with a thought towards unplugging an inherently uncontrollable (by the University)
      Community WAN that sidesteps the wired campus LAN that may or may not be monitored
      for that most heinous crime of all: filesharing. (Afterall, it's an **AA-proven fact
      that that's the only thing college students want to do with their computers.)

    5. Re:"The jury's out on this" by alienw · · Score: 1

      Subthermal levels of radiation can still affect the biological function of polar molecules, which can in turn can cause carcinogenic compounds to end up where they don't belong.

      Like the OP said: if you can demonstrate this, you would get a Nobel prize. So far, there is no way of interaction which can screw up DNA molecules by anything other than heating. Not to mention, if this was true, the cancer rate should have went up like 1000000% between 1995 and 2005, when cellphones became popular.

    6. Re:"The jury's out on this" by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Subthermal levels of radiation can still affect the biological function of polar molecules, which can in turn can cause carcinogenic compounds to end up where they don't belong.

      See, that's just dumb. 'carcinogenic compounds to end up where they don't belong'. You mean...microwave radiation can put 'carcinogenic compounds' in my body?

      Because, you see, that is where they don't belong. If they're already there, and a few molecules moving around can move them to where they can cause cancer, I was pretty much fucked to start with. Anything that can cause cancer within my cells is...um...bad. And microwaves can't move things in and out of my cells, if that's what you mean by 'where they don't belong'. They could, in theory, hit something exactly right to cause it to ram the cell, thus...killing it. Which is fine, cells die all the time.

      And you have absolutely no evidence that said hypothetical movement isn't moving more 'carcinogenic compounds' away from 'where they don't belong' than towards, pretending your claim makes any sense at all.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    7. Re:"The jury's out on this" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Probable) fact: This joker has some sort of financial interest in a local commercial ISP

      Nah, he's just campaigning for a job at NASA.

    8. Re:"The jury's out on this" by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Ever stop to check who pays the bills for those two studies that counter every study showing a problem?"

      That's an ad hominem attack. If you have a scientific basis for your objection, I would really love to read it.

      "Subthermal levels of radiation can still affect the biological function of polar molecules, which can in turn can cause carcinogenic compounds to end up where they don't belong"

      Where is it that these carcinogenic compounds DO belong, exactly? You're waving your hands.

      "Radiation does not have to cook an organism to harm it. It simply has to cause it to malfunction."

      Now demonstrate that the radiation from wifi repeaters is more harmful than, for instance, exposure to the Sun.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:"The jury's out on this" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nobody that stupid runs a university...

      I beg to differ... I work at a state university and, from what I've seen of our president, yes they can be that stupid.

      In fact, being a totally clueless, vacuous idiot seems to be a requirement of the job.

      I could point out a dozen stupid decisions all harming my university at fundamental levels but I won't and I'm posting anonymously because I'd like to keep my job.

    10. Re:"The jury's out on this" by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1
      Nobody that stupid runs a university
      David L. Boren president of the University of Oklahoma.
      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    11. Re:"The jury's out on this" by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Fact: You sound like a Public Service Announcement!

      Just teasin' :)

    12. Re:"The jury's out on this" by birge · · Score: 1
      foul, i call. the guy made a good point. he was positing a mechanism. he doesn't have to prove it exists, since he was simply addressing the OP's unwarranted certainty that nonionizing radiation couldn't possible do anything bad to you.

      anyway, to directly address your objection: your body is full of carcinogens. especially, for example, after drinking as much as you clearly do before posting. fortunately your body either metabolizes or eliminates them posthaste. so, it's fair to reason that something interferes with your chemical functioning in any way might potentially interfere with your body's ability to get rid of carcinogens.

    13. Re:"The jury's out on this" by birge · · Score: 1

      Agreed. In fact, one could argue that only the dumbest academics have the time or inclination to run a university. That's certainly the case with our last president, Charles Vest, who spent most our endowment on his ego by building ugly modern buildings. Yup, we've got a $400 million computer science building that looks like a parking garage on the inside.

  19. Telcos are relentless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These telcos are absolutely relentless. EASY REBUTTAL: what about cell phones?

  20. Ban the Govt. by zenlessyank · · Score: 0

    Can't we just ban the government for being a bunch of crack babies. I mean, come on. I dont need the Govt. getting me up in the morning to goto work. Or to tell me my shorts need changing. Outlaw religion, Dismember all forms of government, and start taking responsibility for our own actions!!!

  21. You forgot the most toxic element... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1, Funny

    the human race :(

    1. Re:You forgot the most toxic element... by springbox · · Score: 1
      You forgot the most toxic element...

      Darn. I was hoping you were going to say aspertame/splenda.

    2. Re:You forgot the most toxic element... by westonb_2005 · · Score: 1

      Aspartame and splenda/sucralose are two totally different things.

    3. Re:You forgot the most toxic element... by Bazzalisk · · Score: 1

      University would be so much better if we could just get rid of all the undergraduates ...

      --
      James P. Barrett
    4. Re:You forgot the most toxic element... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a toughie. Even the UU hasn't succeeded in that, and they have been trying for ages.

    5. Re:You forgot the most toxic element... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aspartame and splenda/sucralose are two totally different things.

      And yet I'd rather stab myself in the eye than consume either one.

    6. Re:You forgot the most toxic element... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yep. I think you should do Mother Earth a favor and kill yourself.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  22. NFTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I know what you're thinking", President Gilbert continued, "...that I've been smoking too much back bacon. However, my staff assures me that the problem is significant. In addition to wireless, we are looking into limitations on several other airborne hazards, including chickens, zeppelins, and certain American television broadcasts, particularly those involving discussions of their economic policies."

  23. Ban Girls by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ban Girls! They're too distracting. Like this one, she's

  24. While you're at it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not put a huge tarp over the entire campus to prevent UV rays from causing skin cancer? Better yet, why not remove all power from the campus so as to prevent any electromagnetic signals from comming out.

  25. Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by mcc · · Score: 5, Funny

    that the earth is one giant magnetic field

    1. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by springbox · · Score: 1

      Or the 60Hz magnetic fields created by our electrical wiring and infastructure

    2. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by miro+f · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      well that's ok, because the study was about Electromagnetic fields, not magnetic fields, which are two different things. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely no danger to humans from a magnetic field.

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    3. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by XchristX · · Score: 3, Informative

      [quote]
      "well that's ok, because the study was about Electromagnetic fields, not magnetic
      fields, which are two different things. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely nodanger to humans from a magnetic field."
      [/quote]


      Wrong. All Electric and Magnetic Fields are the same thing. They are components of the same EM field Tensor.

      F_mu_nu=del_mu(A^nu)-del_nu(A^mu)

      Where A is the 4-vector Potential (ie the scalar potential & the regular magnetic vector potential).


      All quantities here are 4-vectors/tensors with a Minkowskian metric:

      g_mu_nu=diag(1,-1,-1,-1)



      F has 6 independent components, 3 being the electric field components, 3 being the magnetic field components.

      The above expression, together with Maxwell's Equations:

      del.F=J
      del~.F=0




      are manifestly Lorentz Covariant equations, meaning they are invariant under a Lorentz Transformation. This means that, since the lorentz transformation is unitary, & can be written as:

      F`=L_dagger*F*L

      this will leave Maxwell's equations unchanged. Thus, if you have a pure magnetic field (like that of the earth) with the 3 E's in F being 0, it is always possible to construct an L st F` has nonzero E's. L is a Lorentz Transformation, so the physical significance is that you can always transform relativistically to a frame of reference where a magnetic field picks up an electric field and even radiation EM fields (such as Lienard-Wiechert potentials), making it an "electromagnetic" field.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    4. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by miro+f · · Score: 1

      yeah, I could spout a bunch of made up drivel here too to support what I said.

      look, if you can't write something that makes sense or link to a site that does, I'm not interested.

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    5. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by Tim+C · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's made up drivel. I appreciate that not everyone has a degree-level education in physics, but that's what google and wikipedia are for...

    6. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by XchristX · · Score: 1

      I apologize for actually studying physics and knowing what I say. If you don't believe me, you are welcome to join the republicans in denial.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    7. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by iainl · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, you are indeed welcome to spout a bunch of made-up drivel to support what you say. However, unlike the grandparent, we'll all have a whale of a time ripping your utter incompetence to understand basic physics to shreds.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    8. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by umofomia · · Score: 1

      Jeez... just because you're studying physics doesn't mean you can still spout off and expect everyone to understand it. Essentially, what have you accomplished by just posting all the rigour without the context? Absolutely nothing; the original poster didn't learn anything and all you did was show off that you knew some math. For the sake of miro_f and most of the other people in the /. community that don't have a degree in physics, all that was said is that a pure electric field in one frame of reference may look like an electromagnetic field in another frame of reference (for instance if an observer passing by at a significant speed [at least 0.2c] looks at an electric field in your frame of reference, it will look as if that electric field also has a magnetic component). All this means is that electric and magnetic fields are one and the same and depends on the frame of reference of the observer. The EM field tensor and Minkowski space mentioned are mathematical constructions used to simplify calculations to arrive at this fact.

    9. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by XchristX · · Score: 1

      Go Ahead, I'm waiting. Ad-Hominem attacks are the last refuge of the ignorant.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    10. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by XchristX · · Score: 1

      If you read my eariler post I DID supply references to place the algebra in context.

      I'm a physicist not a physics teacher.

      I can only report the truth. I do not have the ability to explain it better than Einstein, Bergmann and Wheeler themselves (Covariant 4-vector formalism is their work mainly).

      Furthermore, The references are mostly wikipedia, a popular reference on slashdot, and if wikipedians can understand it well enough to write decent articles about it, so can the sad person who responded to the truth with personal insults.

      This person is clearly ignorant about many things, and too arrogant to admit it and try to learn something interesting and relevant to the discussion.

      (American?Nah!That's just a stereotype).

      I thought the whole point of slashdot forum was the free exchange of ideas (no I'm not new here). This is impossible if we are restricted to the theocratic medium of the English language (or any language devised by humans that is too imprecise and vague to clearly convey information about the fundamental physical processes of the universe).


      If I am to submit to a dogma of words and humanlanguage and restrict my explanations to crude and imprecise nonmathematics instead of the proper and categorically correct statements (with appropriate references) then that exchange cannot take place.


      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    11. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      A critical part of the full understanding of a concept is the ability to express it simply.

      As soon as you use jargon, you lose your audience unless they also understand the specialized vocabulary of your field. With such a simple question they are blatantly not physicists, so you're just (perhaps intentionally) talking over their heads, making yourself sound smart. /shrug

      Not a big deal, most professors do it, but it's a bad habit, and one I hope academia will someday break. My fiancee is at UCSF, so I have to constantly tell her to use plain English. Skin works just as well as Epidermis, honey. She works with the public, so she has a more critical need to break that habit than most academes.

      Just recalling my high school physics, if I'd have written it (and you were responding to a troll, IMO), I'd just have said that all electrical waves are electromagnetic in nature. Maybe talked about the history of ether, and how the electrical and magnetic components provide the medium for each other.

      Perhaps the worst field is Philosophy, though. Philosophers are especially bad at it. Or especially good, depending on your perspective, of taking something that can be stated clearly and simply, and loading it up with propositions and jargon until only they know what they're arguing about. And sometimes not even then. Kant took an idea that could be stated in a sentence, expanded it out to hundreds of pages, and ended with something not even his other contemporaries could understand. Ditto Wittgenstein (whose thesis Bertrand Russell couldn't understand), ditto Hegel, etc.

      Not a criticism of you, but a criticism of your defense of your post.

    12. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by flyinwhitey · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Dude, get over yourself.

      If you can't explain the concept simply, you don't understand it well enough.

      And seriously, "theocratic medium"?

      God you're a pompous asshole.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    13. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1800 called. They want their pre-Maxwell "as far as awareness" (which wasn't really all that far) back.

    14. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by typidemon · · Score: 1

      A critical part of the full understanding of a concept is the ability to express it simply.

      In general most modern applications are not expressed clearly or simply to normal every day people and programmers or advanced/expert users (i.e. much of the Slashdot crowd) simply make fun of them. Why should we expect any better when we don't understand something? Pot, meet kettle.

      My fiancee is at UCSF, so I have to constantly tell her to use plain English. Skin works just as well as Epidermis, honey. She works with the public, so she has a more critical need to break that habit than most academes.

      My Jargon vocabulary was highly limited until I entered the business world. At University we used the specific, word that concisely and precisely describes what we are talking about. The Epidermis -> skin point you use is actually a good example as skin generally covers multiple layers as aspects, while epidermis is precise.

      In my studies, if I said Ethnographic study or Ethnomethodological, people know exactly what I mean, or if they don't they can look up the word and learn exactly what I mean. A simple explanation can only be as precise if it is a verbose description.

      Just recalling my high school physics, if I'd have written it (and you were responding to a troll, IMO), I'd just have said that all electrical waves are electromagnetic in nature. Maybe talked about the history of ether, and how the electrical and magnetic components provide the medium for each other.

      Is that the simplest explanation? Could I take that to an average 5 year old and explain electrical and magnetic energy fields are related and have them understand? I'd guess not. Which of course is the problem, simplicity is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure his answer is a pretty simplistic one for someone in his position. I bet post-grad physicists call people losers when they don't understand basic physics.

    15. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by Woy · · Score: 1

      But that's natural magnetism. Everybody knows that natural stuff does no harm.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    16. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Someone once told me that if you can't explain something to a five-year-old, you don't understand it. I'm not sure that I'd go to such an extreme as that, but then again, making the same statement about being able to explain things to a slashdotter would be even more ridiculous...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by Akoma+The+Immortal · · Score: 1

      Crap formating!!

      When the /. gurus will implements LaTEX parsing into avalable posting format?

      It could help a lot, guys like us, whom sucks at math/physic etc...

      LATEX! LATEX!! Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

      --
      assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
    18. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by miro+f · · Score: 1

      thankyou for giving me a slightly more understandable version of events.

      however, I don't think we're passing through Earth's magnetic field at faster than 0.2c, so surely this doesn't make a difference?

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    19. Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him by XchristX · · Score: 1

      Erm, actually it does (irrespective of what fraction of c your velocity is). Because Electric & Magnetic fields always scale as c no matter what your frame of reference is, you always have to do a Lorentz transform no matter how slow your speed is. Here is a good example to illustrate my point:

      Suppose you see a constant magnetic field. You see a charged particle moving
      perp. to that field with velocity v, so the lorentz force shuld be q(v X B). Now, if you were in the frame of reference of that particle, a Galilean transformation would give you a v of 0, & a magnetic field B so net force of q(0 X B)=0.


      WTF??? How can the force be 0 in one inertial frame & nonzero in another?


      This can't be right, so clearly the Galilean Transformation is wrong for ANY v even though it's "supposed" to work at v<<c (kept unity here). Now, if you do a Lorentz Transformation on F (like I said earlier), you get v=0, B is something new, BUT you also get an E= v X B. So now, the force is q(0 X B)+qE=0+q(v X B)=q(v X B) and it all adds up. See?

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
  26. Brought to you by... by coolgeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    The very same university that banned masturbation because of concerns over loss of sight.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
    1. Re:Brought to you by... by feagle814 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't remember seeing that.

    2. Re:Brought to you by... by Toba82 · · Score: 1

      You laugh, but my university really did.

      OK, not really really. It was a prank by a secret society.

      --
      I pretend to know more than I really do by mooching off google and wikipedia.
    3. Re:Brought to you by... by coolgeek · · Score: 1

      $50 per spank. Now _that's_ a racket.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    4. Re:Brought to you by... by cerberusss · · Score: 2, Funny
      The very same university that banned masturbation because of concerns over loss of sight.

      Everybody keeps saying that, but *bumps into table* do they bring proof *spills coffee* of this myth? *smashes toe into doorstep* Nope, not a bit! Now where are my glasses?

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    5. Re:Brought to you by... by dj_super_dude · · Score: 0

      Who said that? Someone turn on a light or something.....

    6. Re:Brought to you by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing I didn't go to WPI.

    7. Re:Brought to you by... by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      Can't I just do it until I need glasses?

      (actually, I just had Lasik done. It's the surgical version of shaving your palms)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    8. Re:Brought to you by... by 955301 · · Score: 1


      Whether you see it or not, just remember, the outcome is in your hands.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  27. Too big? by skyman8081 · · Score: 1

    A quick back of the envelope calc gives a wavelength of 12.491 cm. Thats too big to have any kind of effect on the brain.

    --
    Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
    1. Re:Too big? by xtal · · Score: 1


      Thats too big to have any kind of effect on the brain.


      I think some brains are capable of malfunctioning all on their own. :-)

      --
      ..don't panic
    2. Re:Too big? by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 1

      its close to a resonant frequency of water, higher power microwaves at those frequencies cause heating of water (see your microwave oven for a demo, thats 2.4ghz too), your body is around 70% water. but wifi is at far to low power level to have any effect at all. try cooking food on your wap, it doesnt work ;)

    3. Re:Too big? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, 2.4 ghz is not close to the resonant frequency of water. That's an urban myth. :) The changing electric field of microwaves @ 2.4 ghz are enough to cause the water molecules to start rotating (due to water dipole), causing lots of friction, causing heat. The lower amount of water (e.g. density-wise) in a substance, the harder it is to heat, hence the air in a microwave doesn't get all that hot because the density of the water vapor isn't enough to cause a lot of friction. This is different from the actual resonance frequency. Unfortunately I cannot recall what the correct frequency is...

    4. Re:Too big? by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 1

      i said a resonant frequency of water, its actually a fraction of the resonant frequency, but it works in a similar way.

    5. Re:Too big? by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 1

      hrm, you may be right, its an extremely common myth on the internet (if you are right) tho & doesnt sound like something totally made up. a quick google saarch i just did gave half the links supporting the myth & half dismissing it, I couldnt find a really definitive answer. One site that says its a myth sounded convincing, then it also says microwaves arent radiation, lol.

      the version of the 'myth' i read was that the resonant frequency of water is much higher than 2.4ghz, but it does devide by 2.4, so 2.4ghz has a similar, albeit weaker, heating effect on water

      none of it really matters for wifi tho, thats not likely to cook you just because the power levels are so low.

    6. Re:Too big? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      It's not like you wouldn't notice you were getting cooked if it suddenly decided to do so, anyway. We are not frogs, and we will will, indeed, go 'Damn, why am I getting so hot standing here? It's like 120 degrees in here!'.

      Of course, microwave ovens were invented by guys standing too close to a microwave radar system and cooking things in their pockets, and they didn't notice anything or even get hot, so maybe not. It's plausibly we can only sense heat on the outside of our body, which is also why we can get cooked by UV while swimming and not notice.

      OTOH, those guys didn't suffer any ill effects, although it probably killed a lot of cells in their legs, at least. Microwaves aren't some magical evil ray, at full force, they just heat you up until they kill you.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  28. What is he, crazy? by l3prador · · Score: 3, Funny

    What is he, crazy?

    Hasn't he ever heard of magnetic therapy?

    1. Re:What is he, crazy? by Heembo · · Score: 1

      I this boy's been spending way to many hours just a little to close to the WAP!

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
  29. Better ban cell phones by caseih · · Score: 1

    If they are going to ban wi-fi for health concerns they need to ban cell phones. I think an average student who has a phone glued to his or her ear (as is the case on most campuses in America) gets exposed to quite a bit more microwaves than wi-fi. Most good-sized campuses probably even have cell phone towers on-campus or right next to campus to handle the load.

    1. Re:Better ban cell phones by coren2000 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if Thunder Bay (location of Lakehead U.) had a tiny cell phone population, and therefore hasn't banned cellphones because their use simply isn't visible. It's not a big city, and is a bit out of the way.

  30. Wi-Fi Evolution by musonica · · Score: 1

    Hmmm I used to be concerned by the amout of artificial waves being created by wireless technologies, especially with the commercial drive to get these technologies to market ASAP with little regard or research into longterm human impact. I dislike using my mobile phone because it makes my head feel funny above the lisening ear and switch of wi-fi whenever I can. But then I realised that perhaps all these effects are are a good thing and is helping humanity evolve by randomly mutating our genetic code?

    1. Re:Wi-Fi Evolution by Mister+White · · Score: 1

      ...Maybe we can use this same theory to rid the world of it's woes about nukes. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, if we nuke the entire planet, we'll evolve in to "super-humans," our crops might grow larger, better fruits that are also randomly evolved, and maybe, if we're lucky, we might even get a cat-dog mix with no anus, like that cartoon!! I'm In!

      --
      "Crime fighters fight crime. Fire fighters fight fire. What do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin
    2. Re:Wi-Fi Evolution by dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv · · Score: 1

      but what would we do about godzilla?

    3. Re:Wi-Fi Evolution by Mister+White · · Score: 1

      That's the thing...we won't have to do anything about Godzilla...what kind of predator chases flourescent prey? heh...

      --
      "Crime fighters fight crime. Fire fighters fight fire. What do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin
    4. Re:Wi-Fi Evolution by 6*7 · · Score: 1

      I don't live near Tokyo, so no worries here.

    5. Re:Wi-Fi Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What do freedom fighters fight?"

      Freedom fighters fight for freedom. Unless they're hypocrite Repubs like Bush. Then they fight against people who fighting for freedom (a.k.a. terrorists).

    6. Re:Wi-Fi Evolution by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Would that be the "Intelligent Design" kind of evolution, or the "Shit Just Happens" kind??

  31. Wardriving the area by drewzhrodague · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone wardriven that area? I betcha there would be far more signals from access-points and wireless cards than they could possibly keep all turned off. Policing that environment would not be a fun job: "Yes, I know it's cool and useful and makes, but we can't have that here."

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  32. Not an incredibly bad idea by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    There's the possibility that wifi could be problematic, so he's playing safe.

    Remember the people who got laughed at in the 50's and 60's when they suggested that tobacco could be carcinogenic... or all of the clock painters who 'sharpened' their radium paint brushes by licking them.

    And it's not like you really lose that much -- It means that you have to physically wire your access points I argued a long time against my roommate putting a wireless network (but I ultimately lost). I still keep most of my machines wired, just on principle. (that, and having all these freaking network cards!).

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the possibility that wifi could be problematic, so he's playing safe.

      There's also the possibility that there could be tigers around here. Good thing I have my special tiger-repelling rock.

    2. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Eivind · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's a possibility that anything could be dangerous. There are a lot of studies on the effects of electromagnetic radiation. Not *one* ha shwon any harmful effects at the levels we're here talking of. (indeed not one has shown harmfule effects at a level 100 times higher than the one we're here talking of.

      If we are to ban everything that is "possibly" dangerous, then we need to ban everything. Literally.

    3. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Radiowaves have covered most of the civilised world for 50-60 years now, easy. If we were going to see some bad side effects they would have appeared by now.

    4. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you want for it?

    5. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      If we were going to see some bad side effects they would have appeared by now.

      What makes you think we haven't? This guy apparently sat way too close to the TV as a kid and managed to become President against all odds but now we're reading about the long-term effects on Slashdot.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    6. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by nmos · · Score: 1

      There's the possibility that wifi could be problematic, so he's playing safe.

      Yeah, and there's absolutly no danger in stringing cat5 all over the place.

    7. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by FTL · · Score: 1
      > If we are to ban everything that is "possibly" dangerous, then we need to ban everything. Literally.

      But vacuum is "definitely" dangerous. Besides, it just plain sucks. Literally.

      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    8. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by cgenman · · Score: 2, Funny

      If we are to ban everything that is "possibly" dangerous, then we need to ban everything. Literally.

      Are you making a suggestion?

      Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
      Homer: Thank you, dear.
      Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
      Homer: Oh, how does it work?
      Lisa: It doesn't work.
      Homer: Uh-huh.
      Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
      Homer: Uh-huh.
      Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
      Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
      [Lisa looks frustrated, then shruggs and takes his money]

    9. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by PsychicX · · Score: 1

      or all of the clock painters who 'sharpened' their radium paint brushes by licking them.

      Wait, are we not supposed to do that anymore?

    10. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by pimpin+apollo · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, it is an incredibly bad idea.

      I'm going to have to disagree that there's even a plausible argument from even the most paranoid. That the risk of, even if as grand as he would suggest, a 1w radio signal would somehow outweigh the benefits of promoting a modern and rational university IT policy. We're not talking about MW-gauge powerlines overhead a school. We're talking about low power emmissions at high wavelengths. Very different than breathing in smoke, or licking glowing paint (did they really not know radium was radioactive? was it called _radium_ back then?).

      If the school doesn't want to pay for it, or are paranoid about security, then say so. But the idea that it's somehow a risk is absurd.

      As a side note, if you're going through life so concerned with stuff like this, you need serious help.

    11. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Theatetus · · Score: 1
      If we were going to see some bad side effects they would have appeared by now.

      CAVEAT: I don't believe these guys. But, I disagree with your argument. What makes you so sure we aren't seeing bad effects? Skyrocketing cancer and obesity rates, low fertility, autoimmune disorders unknown 50 years ago... there's absolutely no evidence linking any of these to EM but there are plenty of symptoms out there looking for a cause and just blithely saying "oh we would have seen bad stuff by now" ignores that. Hell, some people blame these problems on the fact that we've been pasteurizing milk for 80 years now.

      I'm not saying it's radio waves, or pasteurized milk, or unpasteurized milk, or red meat, or soy, or canola, or asbestos, or DDT, or anything. I'm just saying there are some serious health problems today that seem to have environmental causes, and we shouldn't rule out anything in our research on this.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    12. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by smaddox · · Score: 1

      What makes you so sure we aren't seeing bad effects? Skyrocketing cancer and obesity rates, low fertility, autoimmune disorders unknown 50 years ago...

      Yes, but we did have plenty of other diseases and severe illnesses that have been irradicated. So, perhaps they have just been replaced by these new diseases. It's a sort of natural population control.
      Irradicate smallpox => more people alive => higher number of living people with cancer gene => more people with cancer gene breading => even higher number of living people with cancer gene, etc. etc. etc.

    13. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      There's a possibility that anything could be dangerous.

      How about banning more than a couple of watts of infrared? It is more energetic than microwaves so it must be more harmful.

    14. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Dark_Lord_Prime · · Score: 1

      "If we are to ban everything that is "possibly" dangerous, then we need to ban everything. Literally."

      Nah. We only need to ban humans.

    15. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by iainl · · Score: 1

      Stuff infrared, if we can play the "more energetic == more harmful" game, then I want to know why his shitty excuse for a teaching establishment still has lightbulbs.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    16. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by jcam2 · · Score: 1

      > If we are to ban everything that is "possibly" dangerous, then we need to ban everything. Literally.

      Its called the "precautionary priciple" - anything that cannot be proven safe is a candidate for banning. The scary part is that this philosophy is not just isolated to one crazy university administration - it is becoming official goverment policy is most western countries.

    17. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Its called the "precautionary priciple" - anything that cannot be proven safe is a candidate for banning.

      Nah. You're rigth, in principle, but you're overstating it to the point where it's wrong.

      First: Nothing can be "proven safe", not even in principle, much less in practice. Nobody seriously suggests banning everything. (and as others have pointed out - even that wouldn't help, because vacuum is *definitely* dangerous)

      Precautions are sometimes warranted. It's a cost/benefit thing. What are the expected benefits of something, and what are the expected costs ? There are things we don't do -- because it could turn out to be very dangerous, and the benefits are small. That's not nessecarily wrong.

      You just need to keep a sane balance. I think, for example, that it's quite sane to test new medicines on animals before we give them to humans -- even though they're not known to be dangerous and indeed tend to be engineered to have as few harmful effects as possible.

      On the other hand, if the new medicament is the *only* (possible) cure for something with a 99% lethality, it makes no sense whatsoever to deny the medicine to those that have the disease and want to test it. (the potential downside is pretty much zero)

    18. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think we haven't? This guy apparently sat way too close to the TV as a kid and managed to become President against all odds but now we're reading about the long-term effects on Slashdot.

      Are you talking about this guy?

    19. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Bazzalisk · · Score: 1

      Weeeeell, animal testing is fine up to a point. The problem is that in quite a lot of cases testing things on animals won't tell you anything about how it'll affect humans.

      --
      James P. Barrett
    20. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I know. Have you seen those things?

      THEY GLOW IN THE DARK!

      And he's worried about idiotic wifi, while he's spewing enough radiation out of every ceiling at burn them if they touched the source.

      And that frequency radiation has almost been known to blind people with not much more power than light bulbs produce.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    21. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Not *one* ha shwon any harmful effects at the levels we're here talking of.

      Apparently, there are studies that indicate the possibility of harm from wireless, but the studies (so far) are inconclusive.

      His point was that the studies that he saw were inconclusive. Inconclusive is different than no effect. This means that it's possible that there's no effect and that there was a systemic problem with the studies. It's also possible that there is an effect and the studies so far just haven't pinpointed it yet.

      • while the jury is out, he's decided to err on the side of safety.
      • if there is an effect, it's more likely to affect youth than full-grown adults, becaust the tissues in teenagers are still growing which makes them more susceptible.
      • wifi is a convenience and not going ubiquitous doesn't (generally) affect the ability of the students to learn.
      • I'm presuming here that they will be making up for this by making public access points easy to find/connect to.
      • actually: (further to the previous point), he's not banning all wifi -- just ubiquituitious wireless (see this slightly less inflamatory post) -- In other words, he's not willing to saturate the campus with wireless radiation just to follow the current fad.

        He's responsible for thousands of students, and seems to figure that the risk of a couple dozen needless deaths isn't wort the convenience of ubiquitious wireless.

      • The precautionary approach is admittedly strong, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable, given the level of his responsibility.
      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    22. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Radiowaves have covered most of the civilised world for 50-60 years now, ....

      We're using different frequencies than we did 50 years ago. Right now wireless is running around the 2-5Gz range... That's not too far from wireless frequencies that were used to fry an egg with 2 cell phones. Those frequencies don't have anywhere near the body of experience that lower frequencies do.

      Also: we do have rising cancer rates, autoimune problems and fertility issues. Some of this is due to longer lifetimes, but some may be due to radiou interference. Problem is that it's hard to pinpoint the probelem specifically because the exposure is so ubiquitious. It's hard to isolate exposure which makes it hard to study the effects.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    23. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by typical · · Score: 1

      It could be that he's just doing an extremely rational analysis based on limited information.

      Personally, I think that he just doesn't want to spend university money on putting wireless Ethernet everywhere, and wants an excuse that sounds good.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    24. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by chazubell · · Score: 1

      I can just see it now, the campus police, politely, this is Canada, confiscating all the 2.4 MHz cordless phones, and other such items since they use the same frequency as the WiFi network. I think the school president should worry about bigger issues, like the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted from the oil sands in Alberta, that is a bigger threat than a WiFi mere network.

    25. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Eivind · · Score: 1

      It'll tell you *something*. It won't tell you *everything*. Sadly, the only way to really know how a medicine (or anything else) works on humans is to test it on in a proper double-blind study using a large sample. The problem is that we don't want to risk that unless we're first reasonable sure that there aren't large problems.

    26. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Apparently, there are studies that indicate the possibility of harm from wireless, but the studies (so far) are inconclusive.

      "Apparently" ? What is that supposed to mean: Does such studies exist, or do they not ? And how can a study "indicate" a "possibility" of harm ? That is a nonsensical statement.

      Listen: *everything* (literally) is "possibly" harmful. Really. You don't need any study to show that. Most studies are made to test some hypothesis. Let's say you have a hypothesis that children with wifi-homes get leukemia more often than other children. You can test this with a study. There's only three possible results:

      • The ones with wifi really get leukemia more often, often enough that it's unlikely that this is caused by mere randomness. You've found a correlation. (notice that you've *NOT* proved causation)(also assuming you didn't mess up the study)
      • There are no statistically significant differences between the two groups.
      • The ones with wifi get leukemia less often, outside of the realm that can be explained by pure chanse. You've found a negative correlation. (but again, no causation is proved !)

      I suggest that there exists *no* studies that show a statistically significant correlation between EM on wifi-levels and any negative health-effects. This is no proof that they're harmless: it's only lack of indication that they're harmful.

      If you think otherwise, please provide pointers to those studies that say otherwise.

    27. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      The ones with wifi really get leukemia more often, often enough that it's unlikely that this is caused by mere randomness. You've found a correlation. (notice that you've *NOT* proved causation)

      You sound like a smoking apologist... -- If there's no correlation, then you've implicitly proven that wifi doesn't hurt people ... but if there is a correlation, then claim you haven't proven that it does.

      If statistical correlation doesn't show that wifi causes cancer, then what does?

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    28. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Correlation does not prove causation. It's very well-known for anyone whos ever touched statistics with a ten-foot pole. Let me give you a few examples to show how wrong decisions you make if you assume otherwise.

      Some time back there was a study done in England, showing that people living near garbage-incinerators got lung-cancer 1.5 times as often as normal people. At first it was assumed this was proof the smoke from the garbage-incinerators where causing this. A more carefuly look however, reveled that: a) people living close to the incinerator where mostly poorer than average. b) poor people smoke more often than richer people. c) infact non-smokers near the incinerator had no higher risk than non-smokers elsewhere.

      See the problem ?

      Or another example: A statistical analysis (this one from Norway) showed that people who drink much coffee earn less money, get (on the average) less education, and have a host of other problems. Further study however showed that that's simply because the coffee-consumption in the poorest part of Norway (the north-part) is significantly higher than elsewhere.

      Or a constructed example:

      Assume you where to sample 1000 computers at random to test the hypothesis: attaching an lcd-screen rather than a crt to a computer improves performance. You do this by testing the performance of each of the computers, and noting which are attached to lcds. You will find that computers that have lcds are on the average atleast twice as fast as computers that do not. Now we all know that is not because the LCD helps -- it is because lcds are common on *new* computers and uncommon on *old* computers, and new computers are usually faster than old. Attaching a lcd to your old computer won't help at all. That's because speed and lcd/crt are *correlated* but the speed is not *caused* by the lcd.

      Is the point starting to drift trough to you ?

      To feel sure of *causation* we need to do our damnedest to exclude all other factors to the best of our ability. Even then we can never be 100% sure -- but that's not required in any case: if we find it quite likely that something is harmful, and have evidence to support this, that's quite sufficient to be careful with whatever it was until further analysis can be made.

      Smoking is a good example: The increased risk of lung-cancer (and lots of other problems) for smokers by itself doesn't prove anything. However: the difference remains no matter what we try to exclude. The difference remains even if the sample has equal age, equal jobs, equal education, equal sex, equally many kids, whatever. Infact the difference remains even if we take two samples of near-identical lab-mice, treat them (as close as we can manage) to exactly the same, *except* the *one* difference: half the mice inhale tobacco-smoke, the other half doesn't.

    29. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Right -- so why, then are you freaking out when I talk studies indicating 'the possibility' that wifi causes problems?
      And how can a study "indicate" a "possibility" of harm ? That is a nonsensical statement.
      At this point, he thinks that the jury is out on this question .. he doesn't think that it's proven conclusively -- if he did, he'd have banned all wifi on campus. Instead, he's just choosing to not 'saturate' the campus with wifi hotspots so that the people in his care dont have up to 24/7 exposure (for those who are in residence). Clearly a more conservative approach than many would have chosen, but far from flag-waving loonie.

      If/when future studies show that there is conclusively no (or negligable) risk from wifi, then I expect that he'll be happy to install ubiquitous hotspots.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    30. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Because saying that you're dropping something because there is "a possibility" that it *migth* be harmful is no explanation at all. If that argument held water you'd have to ban everything. Literally.

      There are no indications whatsoever that, for example, having a wifi-hotspot 5m from your bed is more harmful than having a DECT-phone 1m away, a ligthbulb 1m away, currenct-carrying wires everywhere, drinking water, wearing cotton, cutting your toenails or looking at the Cosby show.

      You, additionally, annoy me by failing to have a rudimentary grasp of the very basics of science. If you did, you'd know, for example that studies will *never* be able to conclusively show that wifi is harmless. They cannot. Not even in principle. *NO* study has conclusively shown that drinking half a liter of pure water a day is not harmful. You can *never* prove a negative.

      But you're rigth, this is Slashdot, it's completely futile to expect anything else.

    31. Re:Not an incredibly bad idea by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      If your premise is true, then you can never conclusively prove anything -- which is what you tried to push with your other rant.

      Just as you can concusively show that there is a clear link you can conclusively show that there is no appreciable link.

      While it is true that you cannot absolutelu prove something that is probability driven, well-designed experiments and/or studies can provide pretty clear indicators as to what is (or isn't) going on.

      Poorly designed (or described) studies, as you've noted, can describe nothing -- or be misleading. Thus it is that you need to read a study pretty carefully so that you can understand what is really being tested. That's also why you want multiple studies -- so that systemic (or just unlucky) errors can be weeded out.

      On the other hand, if we were to accept your premise that nothing can ever be proven (or disproven), we'd be letting children smoke, ignore the value of seatbelts, have asbestos pyjamas for kids and continue selling leaded paint for households.

      Given that this guy is the president of a university, I'm going to presume that he's got at least enough brains to recognize when a study is clearly bogusm, and that he can recognize the difference between something that shows nothing is probably going on and one that shows that there's value in continuing to study, but doesn't conclusively prove in either direction.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  33. That explains a lot of things. by RoffleTheWaffle · · Score: 1

    Maybe now we'll be reading fewer articles like this: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/19/171121 0

    We all know this is really about cheating, distractions, porn, and piracy though. It has nothing to do with brain tumors, most likely. If it does... why are these people running a university, again?

  34. They're lucky. by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Good thing they're in Canada, otherwise they'd have to worry about radiation from the Sun, too.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  35. What a joke... by Mister+White · · Score: 1

    So essentially, they're saying that the extremely miniscule amount of radiation(.25 watts in burst mode--less than a cell phone, microwave...or virtually every other consumer electronic product) is high enough to warrant depriving students of internet, unless they'd like to be teathered to a wall? How sweet.

    --
    "Crime fighters fight crime. Fire fighters fight fire. What do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin
  36. most stupid ban by beast6228 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the most stupid ban I've seen in a long time.

    Yes, the high frequencies that wireless networks use can be dangerous to cells,since higher frequencies and radio waves are more dense. but basically the whole spectrum can cause damage as well. As we speak now, there are radio waves passing through our bodies. These come from television, amateur radio, broadcast radio, public service radio, cell phones and other wireless services.

    Wireless networks are generally low power and you would have to be sitting directly near your antenna before you would be affected. A cell phone will probably fry your brain faster, since it's right next to your head.

    An amateur radio operator told you that!

    --
    ~Later~
  37. He does have an argument here by nwbvt · · Score: 1

    After all, 100% of all cancer patients live within the Earth's magnetic field. Thus magnetic fields must cause cancer.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    1. Re:He does have an argument here by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like the difference between living on a train, and getting hit by a train. Only somewhat less so.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:He does have an argument here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation.

      --Zweep Bunarrrgh - Betelgeuse 5 Society for the Prevention of Tentacle Tumors

  38. genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah.... we wouldn't want anyone getting brain damage from all that electro-magnificent-radiation. Now let's go down a few kegs of lager, eh hoser?

  39. This just in! by franktinsley · · Score: 0

    People die!

  40. You gotta give him at least SOME credit by stare_at_the_sun · · Score: 1
    So he's a little off-base and slightly backward. We are a bunch of "early adopters". This guy seems to be a "late-adopter". Ok. So what. He is looking into the research and earnestly trying to make the right choice. I respect that.

    So we can all disagree with him, and that's fine. But insulting the man for erring on the cautious side and being sure of the research... In my book, that's a cheap shot.

    --
    "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" -Jesus (John 14:6)
    1. Re:You gotta give him at least SOME credit by nursegirl · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I was feeling the same was as you, until I read the last line in the article:
      "Even the World Health Organization in its international review says it doesn't have a great deal of concern but it admits the information is not 100 per cent."
      What? If he's waiting for 100% certainty about any potential carcinogen, then he doesn't understand health research. I, personally, feel some reassurance when the WHO does an international review on something and say that there is not much concern.

      The sad thing is that he's a zoologist, so I would have expected better understanding from him.

    2. Re:You gotta give him at least SOME credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You gotta give him at least SOME credit"

      He's being bombarded with radio waves whether he likes it or not. This won't stop people from using a microwave, cellphone, or broadcasting other signals. He needs to be educated not credited.

  41. neutrinos by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 1

    I hope no one tells him neutrinos, he'll either want to ban the sun or put up a light-year thick lead barrier over his nuts.

    1. Re:neutrinos by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 1

      ^insert an 'about' up there.

    2. Re:neutrinos by Kredal · · Score: 1

      If you had been listening, you'd know that Nintendos pass through anything!
      - Jack O'Neill

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  42. Paranoid, or justifiably worried? by dickko · · Score: 1

    Donning my tin-foil cap here perhaps...

    Our bodies have evolved to accomodate the natural magnetic field surrounding the Earth. Could someone please tell me, just how much more are we exposed to now with the ever-increasing adoption of wireless technologies. More importantly, how much of this increase is actually needed? I mean, how many people at the University in question would have actually used the services? Would it really be that great? How many people here on /. leave their routers (when their computers are turned off) on when they leave their homes? Does all this "wasted" capacity add up to a point where it may be actually be dangerous?

    Somebody please enlighten me here, I could easily go a bit bonkers over this one...

    Off to my Faraday cage now, if you'll excuse me...

    1. Re:Paranoid, or justifiably worried? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earth's magnetic field is static (for the most part). EM radiated from consumer wireless equipment is significantly weaker than what a standard tube TV radiates (not to mention X-rays and that nasty nanometer-wave radiation.) And yes, we did evolve to cope with the earth's magnetic field: without it, early life forms would have been baked by solar winds.

  43. The sad thing is... by redfenix · · Score: 1

    The school will probably see an increase in average GPA as students can no longer download pr0n wirelessly!

    --
    "It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
  44. "jury's out"? Who said there's equal evidence? by SuperBanana · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "the jury's out on this one, I'm not going to put in place what is potential chronic exposure for our students"

    No, the jury isn't "out on this one". That would imply there is evidence that WiFi causes any sort of health consequences- and further, that it is equal to evidence it does not. That's simply not the case.

    People have been looking for this supposed cancer/mind-ray/whatever link to cell phones and other wireless devices. They still haven't found it. That doesn't say "the jury is out"- it says "research conducted thusfar has found no evidence."

    It's like doing a study on whether there are little green moon men. Twenty research projects are conducted, scouring the moon with telescopes and satellites, and researchers say, "well, we haven't seen any green moon men." Then some nutjob comes along and says that "the jury is out on whether there are little green men on the moon!", simply because the researchers (like proper scientists) guardedly said "we didn't see any moon men", not "there are no moon men."

  45. Possible link? by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Funny
    the university President sees a possible link between electric and magnetic fields

    No shit, Maxwell!

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:Possible link? by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      I Gauss you can't expect every university president to understand electromagnetism.

    2. Re:Possible link? by donscarletti · · Score: 2

      Yet if he had realised this 200 years ago he would have been considered the greatest genius who ever lived.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    3. Re:Possible link? by Woy · · Score: 1

      His problem is not his ignorance of electromagnetism. His problem is that he doesn't know that he doesn't know. And that's inexcusable in a proper human, let alone an university president.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    4. Re:Possible link? by pryoplasm · · Score: 1

      90 degrees of separation between the e and h fields of an antenna means im safe from at least one, right?

      --
      Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
  46. Perhaps this could be a reason..... by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    piracy over wifi.... living at a college or college town affords you QUITE a few of wireless routers. If you aren't paying for one and get service through it, you could do all sorts of very nasty activty... Maybe the university sees it as more of a "lets protect our less computer savvy students so we don't get looked at badly."

  47. Speaking of brain tumors... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I hate getting stuck in a computer programming class where the instructor ignores the computer and overhead projector to write each and every line of code on the whiteboard. I get so bored that I start sprouting tumors. Is the administration going to do anything? Actually, nearly the entire computer department was cancelled this semester. Instead of tumors, I'm no closer to graduating. Ugh!

  48. QUICK! BLOCK THE SUN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only does the sun cause skin cancer, but it also emits dangerous radio waves on numerous different "tumor causing" wavelengths.

    Oh yeah, tear down all buildings made out of highly radioactive...brick.

  49. Laptop in the sunset by anonymous+leprechaun · · Score: 1

    I really like the fact that their website, http://www.lakeheadu.ca/ seems to be promoting the use of technology in the great outdoors, really. Everyone i know uses their laptop outside at sunset. The lack of internet makes it all the more enjoyable. http://www.lakeheadu.ca/images/hp/ts3.jpg

    1. Re:Laptop in the sunset by Benwick · · Score: 1

      Oh my god-- that's not a laptop!

  50. Putz by Ars+Dilbert · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  51. Spring is here by oiper · · Score: 1

    WTH? It's April 1st already!?!

    --
    What do I have to do to get a sig around here?! www.bearscanfly.org
  52. NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... at which water molecules resonate. Microwave ovens use 2.4 GHz because that's where the FCC said they could go. It has absolutely nothing to do with water-molecule resonance or any other bogosity.

    Jeez, I wish people who have no earthly clue what they're talking about would refrain from posting.

    1. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jeez, I wish people who have no earthly clue what they're talking about would refrain from posting.

      Can we still moderate?

    2. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by TrickyWidget · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then what IS the frequency, Kenneth?

    3. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try wikipedia:
      Microwave Oven

      A microwave oven works by passing microwave radiation, usually at a frequency of 2450 MHz (a wavelength of 12.24 cm), through the food. Water, fat, and sugar molecules in the food absorb energy from the microwave beam in a process called dielectric heating. Most molecules are electric dipoles, meaning that they have a positive charge at one end and a negative charge at the other, and therefore vibrate as they try to align themselves with the alternating electric field induced by the microwave beam. This molecular movement creates heat. Microwave heating is most efficient on liquid water, and much less so on fats, sugars, and frozen water. Microwave heating is sometimes incorrectly explained as resonance of water molecules, which only occurs at much higher frequencies, in the tens of gigahertz.

    4. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by Dolda2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Regardlessly of whether water molecules resonate at 2.4 GHz or not, I still think that the GP's point is valid: EM waves at 2.4 GHz affects water enough to warm it. Of course, as the GP also did point out, the difference in transmission strength between a WiFi antenna and a microwave oven makes it a non-issue anyway, even ignoring the fact that just because it warms your body, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's cancerous.

    5. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .even ignoring the fact that just because it warms your body, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's cancerous.

      Does that mean I can turn my frickin' space heater back on? It's gettin' frickin' cold in here.

      KFG

    6. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by zCyl · · Score: 1

      Of course, as the GP also did point out, the difference in transmission strength between a WiFi antenna and a microwave oven makes it a non-issue anyway, even ignoring the fact that just because it warms your body, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's cancerous.

      You're also ignoring the fact that something doesn't have to warm your body to be cancerous. In fact, there's absolutely no reason to think that warming would be the primary mechanism for inducing cancer. The body is composed of countless polar molecules which can be affected non-thermally by radiation, and in particular, there is much that is unknown about the effects of radiation in those wavelengths on the selective passivity of membranes.

    7. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by Mahou · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      but what about the peaceful iraqi rioters?!?!?! (from an old slashdot article)

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    8. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water is warmed by EM radiation from about 0Hz to infinity. There is nothing particularly special about 2.4GHz and water.

    9. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by anethema · · Score: 1

      If you look at the graph of energy absorbtion by water as a plot of frequency...

      It pretty much goes up in a in hump-like linear shape from 0 to tens and 100's of ghz, but there is a slight spike at the 2.4ghz area. If i find the graph i will post it, but I originally saw it in a RF textbook from school.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    10. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by brainnolo · · Score: 1

      Someone must be out of sense of humor..

    11. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Visible light rays warm your body a LOT better than radio waves do. Maybe Lakehead University should ban lightbulbs. And windows, of course. IR is pretty good at warming too. Unfortunately our bodies themselves emit it... ban students?

    12. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Just upgrade your PC to a Pentium 4 and you won't need that space heater.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    13. Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY by 80+85+83+83+89+33 · · Score: 1
      Someone must be out of sense of humor..

      well, i would have modded you "funny", but i have ran out of "funny" mod points.

      lol.

      --
      i disable sigs
  53. Does this guy go outside? by malfunct · · Score: 1

    If this dude heads outdoors once in a while he probably exposes himself to more known harmful radiation from the sun than he would ever get from some low power wireless routers. Also I wonder how many devices have RF emmisions in this band that aren't coherant but would still cause similar damage that this dude hasn't thought about. When I say that I'm meaning devices that aren't designed as RF transmitters but release RF emmisions anyway (lots of devices do).

    --

    "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

  54. I don't doubt it by JustinHoMi · · Score: 1

    I'm not surprised that there are health problems. I used to setup a lot of wifi networks for my job, and I could "feel" the presence of wifi when I was close to a router. One time while plugging in an airport I got a sudden headache. I turned the router off and immediately the headache was gone. It's kinda scary.

    1. Re:I don't doubt it by zjbs14 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but could you telepathically get the WEP keys? If you could, you'd be a great wardriving partner.

      --
      No sig, sorry.
    2. Re:I don't doubt it by artificialj · · Score: 0

      I too get headaches when setting up networks. Don't think it's the RF, though.

  55. I went to lakehead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Comp Sci department and engineering departments are great. It also has one of the best forestry departments in North America. Fred Gilbert is the worst part of the entire campus. This isn't surprising.

  56. "Is anyone concerned about this?" by C-Diddy · · Score: 1

    No.

    --
    "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
  57. Pirates are the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like for global warming, a direct increase in the rates for cancer *must* be as a result of the strong downward trend in the existance of pirates.

    The world needs more pirates.
    Arrrrrrrrrrrr!

  58. Easy solution by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

    ...the university President sees a possible link between electric and magnetic fields and brain tumors.

    Easy solution: tinfoil hats. Keeps those nasty EM waves out and presto, no brain tumors.

  59. I'm more concerned by needacoolnickname · · Score: 1

    that wireless classrooms, plus students with wireless laptops, plus cell phones calling home = our wireless keyboards for the consoles aren't working and professors are getting mad that their lectures can't be presented.

    Is it cheap wireless routers? I wouldn't be surprised.

    Is it too much interference? I have no idea. I don't understand radio waves.

    All I know is I have angry professors calling us regularly and it always happens when I walk in a room and see a bunch of laptops open with students who complain about how much they are paying for the class chatting with their friend with our wireless connections throughout the school.

  60. Cordless phones too by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Better get rid of those 2.4 ghz cordless phones, cell phones, microwaves, LCDs, and every other source of stray EMF while we are at it. Oh, wait, I forgot police radar guns. And smoke detectors, they have radioactive material in them. And those nasty florecent lights that contain mercury.

    I know, let's return to the good old days of yore, circa 1830. Then we will be safe!

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  61. Dihydrogen Monoxide by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
    I tell you, this guy is right on the money. The next step in making the environment safe for these young skulls full of mush is to ban the noxious chemical dihydrogen monoxide.

    Dihydrogen monoxide must be eradicated. It is circulated in our environment by greedy corporations. It can be found in the drinking water supply; it can even be found in the air that we breath. It has even been detected in the bones of pediatric cancer patients. In short, we must ban this noxious chemical and I look to this fine gentleman with the guts to protect his students from wi-fi radiation to take the lead on this important issue.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    1. Re:Dihydrogen Monoxide by Malc · · Score: 1

      Support the campaign.

  62. Buildings and Grounds by Ray+Radlein · · Score: 1

    I cannot wait to see the construction blueprints for the enormous Faraday Cage they will doubtlessly build to enclose the entire campus.

    We laugh now, but when the Waveries arrive to eat all our EM radiation, Luddhead University alone will survive.

  63. While they're at it... by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

    ...are they going to ban microwave ovens too?

  64. Who was laughing about tobacco smoke in the by Ogemaniac · · Score: 1

    60's. Citation please. In the 50's, the companies were not laughing in the least, though they were questioning the data (some of which had some quite big holes in it).

    Hell, people were complaining about the health effects of cigarette smoke in the 1700's, if not before.

    1. Re:Who was laughing about tobacco smoke in the by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 1

      Another good example: At one time was routine to x-ray pregnant women--this was before ultrasound--to get a look at the developing fetus. Now it looks ridiculous that anyone thought that was safe.

  65. power difference by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Most wireless cards are about 35 milliwatts. Cell phones usually on a somewhat nearby frequency and, I believe, somewhere between 200-600 milliwatts (someone please correct me if that's wrong) and right next to your head. (As others have pointed out that radio follows the inverse square law, not inverse cube.) Also, the duty cycle is probably less for most wireless applications; if you're just surfing the net, the connection is idle most of the time, and is therefore the wireless card is not transmitting. Therefore, this is indeed silly to worry about if one is going to ignore cell phones.

    For the curious, the actual fcc guidelines on permissible RF exposure are here. They seem to be saying that at 2.4 Ghz it's OK to subject a random bystander to 1 milliwatt per square centimeter averaged over 30 minutes, or to subject yourself to 5mW/cm^2 averaged over 6 minutes.

    1. Re:power difference by DZign · · Score: 1

      Sure, but there's also a difference in use.
      Students won't be talking on their cellphones for hours (if they do I really want to know what kind of school it is).
      But wifi is always on and always transmitting, so everyone who enters will be exposed all the time..

      So the difference is some students at 200-600 milliwatts for a few minutes, or all of them at 35 mw for hours..

    2. Re:power difference by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      That's one theory, but from my experiences even way back in 1995 at a Melbourne university, students did indeed often talk on their cellphones for ... well, those days, most phones could only manage 60-90 minutes of talk time.

  66. Did you study there? by woolio · · Score: 1

    Dude, I think your off by at least a factor of 10.

    12cm ~ 250mhz.

    This wavelength is more like ~1cm.

    It might be time to get a new envelope....

    1. Re:Did you study there? by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a used a batch of slow light when calculating that....

      wavelength = speed / frequency

      approx: wavelength [meters] = 300 / frequeny [MHz]

      300 MHz -> 1m
      3 GHz -> 10cm
      2.4 GHz -> 12.5cm

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    2. Re:Did you study there? by skyman8081 · · Score: 0

      Must be light from The Discworld.

      --
      Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
  67. The difference (spectrally) is... by satcomdaddy1 · · Score: 1

    That the resonant frequency of water is around 2450MHz.
    While I do not wear my tinfoil hat whilst talking on the cell, or using my wireless 'net at the house, the thought does pop into my head from time to time (mayhap thru a fried synapse?) that there could be a better frequency to run even this 'low power' stuff.

    1. Re:The difference (spectrally) is... by SlashPlayer · · Score: 1

      I'm a communications engineer, and can confirm the safety of using wifi technologies, so long as the RF output from the equipment does not exceed approximately 100 milliWatts. The best protection that can be had from any ionizing radiation is distance. The minimum distance one should be to any type of radiation is 2.5 meters. Mobile phones are more of a risk. Although modern design is minimizing this risk now. Trust me, you won't be able to cook an egg with a couple of wifi dongles. :)

    2. Re:The difference (spectrally) is... by satcomdaddy1 · · Score: 1

      Not to go too far off on a tangent, but I'm assuming that the 100mW would be at the "contact" point, basically measured at the head (for the purpose of this discussion)? Would 100mW at a distance of 0"-basically antenna to head, pose a greater risk from induction rather than radiation?
      Isn't 100mW(20dBm) the max allowed eirp?

    3. Re:The difference (spectrally) is... by SlashPlayer · · Score: 1

      Yes you are correct. Of course I am just talking in general terms based on the legal permited outputs.
      However, it's radiation not induction that does the most damage.
      As I eluded to before, radiation hazards can be prevented by increasing distance from and reducing time of exposure to the source. Just commonsence really. :)

  68. I wonder if I have talked to this guy? by tarawa · · Score: 1

    I used to do US/Canadian support for a major European cellphone manufacturer. We had these people call in from time to time wanting to know the EM strength because of this very reason. Most were pretty sain, and were just curious, but sometimes we get some real nuts.

    One guy, for example, had the idea that all cellphones manufactured after 9/11 2001 monitored your brainwave for subversive thoughts, which it would then transmit that to, and I quote, "... the CIA, NSA, NASA, and The Destroyers". LOL

    He wanted us to make a model that had zero em emissions. I tried to explain that the cell phone couldn't work without emitting something but he wouldn't have any of it. On top of that, he then accused me of being a member of one or all of the above said organizations and hung up in a actual panic!!

    I couldn't believe how lucky I was to have talked to him because I was laughing my ass off after the call (and trying not during the call) but was let down that the call had not been recorded (as calls were only randomly recorded).

    1. Re:I wonder if I have talked to this guy? by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Y'all should have said "Yes, sir. Absolutely. You'll receive your EM-less cell phone in a couple days." Then, remove the guts from an old cell phone, throw it in a box and send it on over. He'd probably use it to have even more interesting conversations than when he had a real one.

    2. Re:I wonder if I have talked to this guy? by Recovery1 · · Score: 1

      You had the president for this university call you up?

    3. Re:I wonder if I have talked to this guy? by tarawa · · Score: 1

      Na, I was joking around about actually talking to this president. I was just commenting, with a true story, on how bizarre some of these EM claims can become. ;)

  69. And don't forget students... by Shanesan · · Score: 0

    "Tuck under those covers at 8 PM and kiss your mommy goodnight!"

    Should I be ducking under TV and Radio waves too?

    Does photography really take a part of my soul? /me puts on a tinfoil hat.

  70. WFT??? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

    And it wouldn't surprise me if this guy who has a matress cover thing to sleep on with those little magnets because of the "health benefits" of magnetic fields.

  71. Oh PLEASE, not again! by lbbros · · Score: 1

    Again this crap about low-intensity electromagnetic fields and tumors. It shows really a lack of understanding about what it is. Since when the first studies started, there have been around loads of studies and publications on this matter, *without* finding a cause-effect relationship (not a correlation, which is a much weaker link and means little when talking about tumors). A real-world example: near Rome, there was a protets over a local radio's antennae that caused much magnetic disturbances. Peeople complained that it also caused leukemia and other tumors. The local government issued a study examining the cases of leukemia in the area. There was no statistical increase. The perceived "increase" was just due to better diagnostic procedures. It saddens me that even a university head can believe this crap.

    --
    A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
  72. Magnetic fields are not bloody carcinogenic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone is familiar with the process of aluminium reduction, they'll know how I come to this conclusion. Smelting aluminium involves a liquid bath (@ around 950 degrees C), alumina and a SHITLOAD of electricity. When you run a VERY large amount of electricity through a relatively small space (think enough to run a large city into an area 600m x 300m) you get a considerably strong magnetic field. On the bus bar (effectively a large, long block of steel serving as a power cable to reduction cells), you can stick an awful lot of metal objects. Spades, 40 kg steel rods and wheelbarrows are rather common.

    When the line is running, everything sticks to this bus bar. In the offices of the line, usually around 20-30 metres away, you can stick spoons to the water heaters quite comfortably. If you take your credit card into a reduction line, it gets destroyed. Likewise with most cellphones, any analogue watches, cameras, and anything with small moving metal parts. This is because the reduction process needs so much electricity to make alumina separate into aluminium metal and bond with carbon anodes to produce carbon dioxide. The lowest current most modern smelters run at is around 114,000 amps. Some of the newest technologies run at 340,000 amps.

    For all of this, in the history of the smelter where I work, NOBODY working in reduction lines has ever contracted cancer in around 35 years. Many, many people have worked there for 20 to 30 years. They're constantly near the bus bar and over the anodes, where all that current is creating an incredibly strong magnetic field.

    If this doesn't cause brain tumours, I doubt a wi-fi signal will.

  73. The solution is so simple! by 5plicer · · Score: 1
    --
    The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
  74. Non-ionizing = no tumor by cciRRus · · Score: 1
    the university President sees a possible link between electric and magnetic fields and brain tumors
    The radiation from Wi-Fi is 2.4GHz and is considered non-ionizing such that it will not cause any cellular mutuation, thus, there is no possibility of contracting brain tumor when exposed to Wi-Fi rays. That being said, there will be cause for alarms when we use gamma rays for our wireless transmissions.
    --
    w00t
  75. As a student at said university by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I am officially entitled to tell you that Dr. Fred Gilbert is a pseudoscientific paranoid moron.

  76. Wot me worry as well? by SlashPlayer · · Score: 1

    I'm a communications engineer, and can confirm the safety of using wifi technologies, so long as the RF output from the equipment does not exceed approximately 100 milliWatts. The best protection that can be had from any ionizing radiation is distance. The minimum distance one should be to any type of radiation is 2.5 meters. Mobile phones are more of a risk. Although modern design is minimizing this risk now. Trust me, you won't be able to cook an egg with a couple of wifi dongles... :)

  77. Logical fear. by Big+Nothing · · Score: 1

    Naturally, the head of the university is afraid of brain tumors. What else would he be afraid of?

    Ba dam dum!

    Thank you, I'll be here all week! Have a safe drive home folks.

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  78. One of my clients... by yroJJory · · Score: 1

    A client of mine called me up the day after I installed her WiFi AP/router. She complained that she can "hear" it at night and that it drives her crazy. She asked if it was okay for her to unplug it at night and I told her yes.

    Of course, the next day she called and complained that one of her machines couldn't get on the internet.

    --
    Jory
  79. You've convinced me! by setien · · Score: 1

    Where do I sign the partition?

    --
    Give me liberty or give me kill -s 9
  80. Sure make fun... by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    ... because the fact of the matter is that this stuff /is/ open to debate.

    Yes, there are magnetic fields around us all day. But, why would be willingly put more around us, when the could be harmful?

    There is a simple solution to this. Just don't. Lay down the wire and just don't use wireless.

    I've made a conscience decision to not have any wireless in my home and no cell phone because of the above.

    I'm being bombarded all the time by stuff that I can't control. Well, I can control my home, so that is what I'm gonna do.

    I'm really starting to think that people will just make fun of what they don't want to consider, because it might be true.

    When I was studying physics, I started an argument with the department when I was in third year. They were exposing us to radiation in the labs without having a good educational reason for it. There only argument was that they were within safty limits. Well, everyone knows that there is no safty limit. Not to mention the fact that the department wasn't using the safty protocols required of them.

    I switched to math.

    But, all the time when I was fighting the other students made fun of me. Now why would that be...

  81. Electro-Magnetic radiaion is all around us. by m6ack · · Score: 2, Informative

    This sounds like a troll, but i'll bite -- because many people don't really understand what our environment really looks like in the RF domain and what the real concerns are. We have cell phones that typically radiate power at ~836MHz Cell, ~1900MHz PCS, or 2.xGHz for GSM that can radiate close to the ear at 28dBm (or roughly 1 Watt). We have microwave towers that even though they are directional can leak energy. We have microwave ovens that leak energy at roughly 2.4GHz -- enough to easily jam 802.11b. You don't know it, but there is a lot of communication going on over power lines today as well. Wifi does not comparitively add enough energy into the environment to be a very significant contributor. 2.2x-ish MHz is a significant frequency because it is a resonant frequency of water. That's the reason that a microwave oven works -- electromagnetic energy supplied at this frequency causes the water molecules to get all excited and generate heat that cooks (steams) the surrounding food. Microwave ovens are shielded -- but imperfectly & some energy does escape. Our bodies can be affected by this energy, because we are mostly made of water. Even so, by and large, with the intensities that are in our environment (outside the oven), the heat that is generated doesn't really even warm the first layer of skin. In cell phones, where the source is closer to the head and there is greater power, I have heard that the radiation can penetrate farther into the head and warm some of the brain close to the ear. So, if you are really thinking of banning something due solely to electromagnetic radiation, look also at banning these: 1) GSM Band Cell phones. 2) PCS Band Cell Phones. 3) CELL Band cell phones. 4) Microwave ovens. 5) Nearby Cell Towers 6) Nearby Microwave communications antennas. 7) High voltage Power lines. And let's not forget banning on-campus AM radio stations and secuity Walkie-talkies in the process... they likely put out more power to a limited portion of the student body than 802.11. One further note -- if you are really paranoid about 802.11b and will not be asuaged -- later versions of 802.11 spec output power at 5.2GHz. This band is not one that is even closely related to a resonance frequency of water & may help to calm your paranoia with the standard wi-fi frequencies.

    1. Re:Electro-Magnetic radiaion is all around us. by vidarlo · · Score: 1
      2.2x-ish MHz is a significant frequency because it is a resonant frequency of water

      That is absolute bullshit. It works because 2.4GHz is reasonably well stopped by water, and thus energy absorbed by water. It has nothing with resonant frequency to do. Try heating oil or fat in a microwave oven.

      Besides, a few paragraphs would do nice in your comment; it is unreadable as one huge textblock.

      Obviosly you've heard some myths, read something, but you don't have a definite knowledge of the area. Please, link your sources?

  82. I'm not worried... by mok000 · · Score: 1

    I have an Airport station right next to my desk, within 1 m distance. It's so great, I can surf the net even without a computer.

  83. What about all the Xband from the microwave lab?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a 4th year EE student at LU.
    I often wonder if anyone has pointed out to the administration the parabolic dish in the microwave lab that is aimed out the door into the hallway that's emitting happy X-band microwaves out (OMG more GHZ!!!)
    I've invited the president of the school to sit in on our Microwave Communications course, saftey is a major topic covered early on, including the CRTC's exposure limits for workers.

    Then again, the email server has been low on disk space for 6 months, untill in January it ran out of storage and nobody could log in for days. 70mb x 6000 students = 42gigs? There's plenty of money for plasma screens in the hallways to inform us in text of upcomming events.

  84. is there a scientist in the house? by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    someone please explain whether the above is meaningful or whether he just made that crap up. I can't tell the difference and my brain is starting to hurt after looking at it and I'm worried it's because of the earth's magnetic field. help!

    1. Re:is there a scientist in the house? by XchristX · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    2. Re:is there a scientist in the house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm a..." fucking dickhead

      Yes, we agree

    3. Re:is there a scientist in the house? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm a grad student in theoretical physics.

      ITYM "Sorry to dissapoint you, but last week I slipped and broke my funny bone, and now I have no sense of humor."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:is there a scientist in the house? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm a grad student in theoretical physics."

      Uh huh. You still can't spell.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:is there a scientist in the house? by XchristX · · Score: 1

      Be glad I used up my mod points, troll.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    6. Re:is there a scientist in the house? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't be able to moderate a discussion you're participating in, genius.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:is there a scientist in the house? by XchristX · · Score: 1

      I have other logins Hausdorff.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    8. Re:is there a scientist in the house? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Ooooh, aren't you a big scary man? Other logins? Whatever shall I do? I'm a-quakin' over here. Hang on...I need to go make sure my doors are locked. I feel just so darn intimidated.

      Can I please have a hug?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  85. Accuracy counts by rueger · · Score: 1

    BaltikaTroika writes "A Canadian university has banned wi-fi, since the university President sees a possible link between electric and magnetic fields and brain tumors.

    I know, it's slashdot, but they aren't banning WIFI, just limiting its use. If they are genuinely concerned about possible (or imagined) health risks, this would seem a reasonable compromise.

  86. Uhmm...... by gmby · · Score: 1

    NO.

    Let's lay this to rest people...

    Microwaves (wifi) are dangerous! No dought about it. We've know this since the 50s'. The question is at what level is it going to hurt you? Anyone know any study to look for higher levels of cancer around the old microwave towers of AT&T?

    I would worry about a 2W cell phone right next the the head way before I worry about a 200mW WiFi that is 10 feet or more away.

    I will keep my wireless and my cell phone. I'll just not stick them up my ...

    --
    I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
  87. Discounted Wi-fi by Gilraen · · Score: 1

    So, great. Let's make this work for us. Free Wi-fi means surf the net at your tumor's risk. No really, wtf.

  88. Slashdot and objective... by Krokant · · Score: 1

    It was to be expected that nobody would post an unbiased answer here on Slashdot, allow me to push the balance a bit in the other direction :). First of all, many people cite "all the scientific evidence" that there is no harm in using cellphones and/or wireless networking. I would like to see that evidence because all that I have seen (at the radiation levels of cell phones and wireless) are scientific reports that are inconclusive. This means that the researchers didn't see anything special, but it also means that they didn't prove that it is not harmful. Furthermore, it is a scientific fact that the usage of cellphones and wireless networks heat human tissue (cellphones as bad as almost a degree Celsius in the area around the ear). It is unknown whether this small temperature change is harmful or not, but it does something to your body. For children (under the age of 8 or 10 I guess), exposure should be as limited as possible: their skull is not as thick is the case for adults, and this makes them more vulnerable to tissue damage due to heating. Most people don't hold access points against their ears, and (as said by some), radiation decreases as 1/r^2 (not 1/r^3 as cited by some, it is the increasing surface of spherical radiation that lowers the energy density). That makes it unlikely that wireless internet does as much harm as cellphones, if any. An important remark is that in some countries (e.g. Belgium, where I live), the maximum transmission power of radio-equipment without a radio license is legally limited to 100mW. This limitation is of course not due to health concerns, but there is a huge difference between putting a 10 Watt transmitter and a 100mW transmitter (the difference is a factor 10 at a given point in the room). Again, it is not clear whether this matters or not. Personally, I feel that people should be a bit careful with the hype surrounding wireless access (it's easy to get carried away, and wired access is simply better). I was surprised to know a guy who could tell if a cellphone was in the same room as he was, he could "feel" the influence. This guy was not a psychic, medium or some crackpot but an engineering student in his last year like there are many here. The "you never know" attitude is not a bad one. It is amusing to see that a bunch of school kids mock the WHO for their prudent advice - their experts know what they are talking about, not sure if the former do :).

    1. Re:Slashdot and objective... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Evidence of God is inconclusive.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  89. It's true ... by alanbs · · Score: 1

    Technology only complicates things and brings trouble. We should instead be content with sitting in a circle picking ticks from one another. Maybe if we are feeling particularly adventurous, we can even carve a notch in a log. But be careful. Sticks can be sharp.

  90. Milk is Bad by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    I knew there was something evil about milk!
    We should ban it immediately!
    It occurs to me that virtually 100% of heroin addicts and hardened criminals started out on milk...

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    1. Re:Milk is Bad by Theatetus · · Score: 1

      For the record, the claim is that pasteurized milk is bad, not milk in general.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
  91. Better be careful! by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

    I heard that there's this giant bright thing that shows up during the day and blasts out all kinds of electromagnetic radiation - at such intense levels that even short-term exposure can cause serious burns and even significantly increase your risk of skin cancer!

    But, I'm sure the 100mW put out by 802.11b chipsets is much more dangerous than that. And certainly much more dangerous than the ~600mW-1.6W put out by the portable digital radio transcievers that 1/3 of all the people on the planet now own/wear.

  92. Asbestos by Cardbox · · Score: 1

    Once upon a time asbestos was a safe, inert material with all sorts of uses. And it was used everywhere. Everyone agreed it was safe.

    Then one form of it was found to cause disease. Among the feeding frenzy that resulted: massive claims against manufacturers of asbestos products from the years when *no-one could even have suspected it was harmful*. Which is insane.

    WiFi is used everywhere. Everyone agrees it is safe. But that still doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the future, will find a pernicious effect. Or claim to find one. Sure, it'll be tiny - perhaps it may even be caused by the increased laptop use enabled by WiFi rather than by the radiation itself - but there will be a new feeding frenzy among the lawyers and some manufacturers will be tempted to settle rather than argue the case in front of "is the plaintiff cute enough to win a lottery?" juries. A university that has knowingly flooded the environment of young people with 2.4GHz radiation will be a juicy target. Big enough to have money, too small to be able to defend itself. [The WiFi equipment manufacturer could easily be out of business, as well, leaving the university as the best target].

    Quite possibly, the insurers (who in the early-asbestos case were clearly not liable but stupidly chose to settle because they thought it would cost less) will refuse to pay up. So it is far, far safer to ban WiFi than face possible bankruptcy in 30 years' time.

    Cellphones are slightly different in that the obvious target is, and will continue to be, the phone companies and the phone manufacturers. Cellphone usage is voluntary, and although in theory you could sue your school for not banning their use, that is unlikely to be a successful course of action.

  93. If I was interviewing him, to cover all bases by beeblebrox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd ask him about his/the school's financial interests in payphones, calling card marketing to the students, student ISP et cetera.

    I'm not sure what the situation is in that school, but I remember one school in the US (SJSU) where the phone system on campus, including dorms, was owned by the school. Your telephone bill came not from AT&T or MCI, but by SJSU. In another case, in a university in London many years ago, the regular BT payphones in halls (dorms) were replaced by some other company's boxes, presumably under some contract where the school got some (legal) kickback for the exclusive contract.

    Such a setup would make for some suspicious conflicts of interest now that WiFi phones are available, including ones that use Skype.

    I'm not saying there's anything other than innocent Luddism going on here, but it's worth a look under the carpet just in case.

  94. Re:WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    The wikipedia says "in the tens of gigahertz". According to it, water particules vibrate due to the microwaves, but do not resonate at this frequency.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  95. Huzzah for well informed debate! by samael · · Score: 1

    Fantastic.

    Dozens of posts all taking the piss, and nobody actually referencing anything useful, like studies showing what levels of EM radiation do cause problems, compared to what levels are in WiFi (for instance).

  96. next he'll ban... by moochfish · · Score: 1, Funny

    student: Did you know the brain emits an electric field?
    Fred Gilbert: WHAT? WE NEED TO START BANNING BRAINS

    1. Re:next he'll ban... by Kredal · · Score: 1

      Too late, he's already surgically removed his own brain, which has lead to this ruling.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  97. Link between wifi and health by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    I though the article was going to point out that continuous internet access might mean unrestricted campus access to porn, and therefore damage to the eyesight of the students, who would no doubt be whacking off in class instead of taking notes.

    Nope, truth is stranger than fiction and we've got someone banning wifi with an effective range of maybe 50m (depending on line of sight) when every student has a mobile phone that broadcasts a much more powerful signal and that they keep on their person at all times.

    Actually the biggest wifi/cancer risk is probably from students sitting on their unwired asses all day drinking coke and ordering pizza online when they get hungry, instead of hauling their asses over to the library.

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  98. Lawsuit Prevention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cmon guys, they know about all the various radio devices. This is purely a lawsuit prevention mechanism. I havent heard of anybody sue for cancer due to wireless access points, but they have sued over cellphones and hot coffee.

  99. another possibility... by koekepeer · · Score: 1

    ...is that this decision was not motivated by health considerations, but more a political decision, covered up by a smokescreen named "wifi is bad for your brains".

    given the amount of reactions to the absurdity of the claim that wifi can have detrimental effects on the (developing) human brain, the smokescreen would seem to be be quite effective. ;-)

    1. Re:another possibility... by koekepeer · · Score: 1

      a sitesearch on the universities' website did not reveal any reference to this decision. is this a hoax?

  100. He has nothing to worry about by seabreezemm · · Score: 0

    His tinfoil hat will protect him =)

    --
    Karma: a simple way of silencing those with unpopular views regardless how correct or just that view might be.
  101. Ramen (was Re:Noisiest spectrum evar.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is this thing called a water boiler. You put water in it, press a button, wait a few minutes, water comes to a boil and the boiler turns itself off. Put the boiled water in your favourite noodle-cup, where you have already placed the dry noodles and whatnot. Cover. Wait three minutes. Uncover. Stir. Done. No microwave required, and the water boiler is so small you can even have one on your cubicle desk.

    Then again, the taste additives are full of monosodiumglutamate, so you shouldn't be eating those anyway.

  102. He's a Bafoon, but he's got half a point by coofercat · · Score: 3, Informative

    This guy's obviously a bafoon, but he's got half a point (misdirected, but still...). I think we all know the link between mobile phones and cancer (despite what the telcos say). There's also a suspected link between mains electricity (and it's associated fields) and cancer:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2002/10/06/nemf06.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/10/06/i xhome.html

    So the point being, the frequency is irrelevant, it's all to do with the magnetic and electric fields. When one or both of these are far in excess of ambient, they cause problems.

    The new-age movement goes further to infer that all electrical devices give off 'bad vibes' in the form of positive ions (which make you feel tired, depressed etc). Clearly, transmitting devices are designed to propagate a signal, so it follows that they create more of these ions. Again, there's some science behind this, although arguable.

    It looks like this guy is a bit misguided, but looking out for such things. For it to be any use at all, he'd have to ban phones, high current cables, and most of the engineering department, oh, not to mention around about every computer on campus.

    1. Re:He's a Bafoon, but he's got half a point by rimmon · · Score: 1
      No, we don't "all know the link between mobile phones and cancer (despite what the telcos say). There's also a suspected link between mains electricity (and it's associated fields) and cancer", even if you say so.
      And to qoute from the article you linked:
      Exactly how cancer could be caused by such exposure remains a mystery, however. The strength of the magnetic fields falls away rapidly from overhead power lines - just a few dozen yards from a pylon registers well below the natural magnetic field level of the Earth. Studies of living cells and animals exposed to such weak fields have hitherto failed to reveal any changes normally linked to cancer.

      That sounds really convincing...
    2. Re:He's a Bafoon, but he's got half a point by jwiegley · · Score: 1
      First off, no, we all do not know about the link between cell phones and cancer. Because there is no such link at all, not because we're ignorant of it. This "link" is what this whole post is debating. Most people here actually believe the opposite of what you claim we all know. Many studies have been done, none provide decent proof of such a link. And although this does not constitute solid proof that such a link cannot exist there is a basis for at least trusting that such a link does not exist or that any ill effects resulting from such an effect are less relevant than other risks, such as getting run over by a bus, or are not outweighed by the benefits provided.

      Second, Your point about electricity mains is also false. Studies also show that such environments are less asthetically pleasing and therefore more economically affordable. This results in such environments being populated by less affluent people. Less affluent people are more apt to eat less healthy, have less time for personal health routines and to work in more hazardous occupations. All of this results in a group of people that are more likely to have a spectrum of higher risk health problems, including cancer. The "causation" linked to electricity transmission is a mistake, or at the very least again unproven.

      Third, positive ions make you feel tired, depressed, etc. Oh please! give me a break. No proof, no causation, no nothing to support this claim and quite frankly is sounds like crystal energy therapy crap to anybody with at least a shred of functioning brain. "Clearly"?? I think not. It does not follow that transmitting devices create ions. Ions are not the carrier of radio frequency transmissions. You need to take a remedial physics class before posting again. (Yes, ions can be formed by radio frequency radiation stripping the electrons from atoms, it's called "ionizing" radiation, but these frequencies are in the ultra-violet and above wavelengths, think Petahertz range, above visible light.)

      I'll stick with the current majority of scientists in the physics, chemistry and biological fields who cannot even conceive of a pathology by which non-ionizing radiation can affect cellular tissue. I'll stick with buying and using these devices that improve my life and my world. You can stick with your ghosts and gremlins.

      --
      I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
  103. Safety measures from wi-fi signals by Half+a+dent · · Score: 1

    I'm safe because I'm wearing my tin foil hat!

  104. Electromagnetic radiation dangerous in many ways by sita · · Score: 1

    For instance, electromagnetic radiation has been known to put funny ideas in peoples' heads.

  105. Let's face it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter what you do... life will kill you.

  106. He may have a point.. this from Wikipedia.. by evolve2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People in my office have raised concerns over Wifi and health and I was unable to find anything useful which explained the issues and where the 'generally safe watermark' is if there is such a thing, I would still like to see this issue advanced by someone clear on specifics of emmision levels and related health/scientific research.

    Wikipedia's page Wireless electronic devices and health stated the following:

    "According to a study currently being carried out by the World Health Organization.
    "Electromagnetic fields of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, and the levels will continue to increase as technology advances. As part of its charter to protect public health and in response to public concern, the World Health Organization (WHO) established the International EMF Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects of EMF in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHz."
    Wireless LAN
    Although it is generally agreed that EMF levels for wireless LAN devices are much lower than mobile phones, there seems to exist less public understanding of the safety or otherwise of wireless LAN devices than there is for mobile phones. Many wireless LAN manufactures seem to indicate that they are operating towards specific predefined standards which are totally safe. Wireless LANs work by setting up microwave communication in the ranges of 2.4 to 5.8 GHz, depending on the technique that is used (WiFi, WiMax, OFDM, etc). The system is comprised by a base station (called access point, or AP) which establishes point-to-multipoint communication with a number of subscriber units or SUs, to which client computers are connected. Both devices are bidirectional and have antennas that emit at a certain RF power. By definition, the SU stands very near to the computer operator, and the communication link is constant, i.e., not only when there is a call, such as in a mobile phone. In small work and home environments, the AP is also usually very near to human beings, sometimes a few centimeters away. Therefore, the situation, in terms of safety standards, such as ICNIRP, may be surpassed and a higher danger to health may be posed, in relation to other mobile wireless techniques."
    Anyone else want to quote some sources which may shed further light..
    1. Re:He may have a point.. this from Wikipedia.. by khallow · · Score: 1

      This ignores that there are a large group of people that use cellular phones a lot. If a group with higher exposure isn't experiencing measurable problems, then it's not going to be an issue for people with lower exposure.

    2. Re:He may have a point.. this from Wikipedia.. by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      your argument requires the assumption that any ill effects would happen after only several years of high exposure.
      Like smoking it might take 30 years of high exposure to see ill effects on a wide scale.

    3. Re:He may have a point.. this from Wikipedia.. by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      I'll give 'em a hand:

      At the frequency 0 Ghz, there is no or little effect due to electromagnetic sources.

      In other news, if you're going 0 miles per hour in your car, there is little or no chance you will crash into a brick wall.

      ~W

      --
      sig?
    4. Re:He may have a point.. this from Wikipedia.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd, cause if you've got 0 Will Dunns there is a still a 100% chance you Will fuck a Will Dunn goat. Or two.

    5. Re:He may have a point.. this from Wikipedia.. by khallow · · Score: 1
      I understand what you are saying, but smoking is a bad example. You can see medical effects from the nicotine in cigarette smoke within seconds of puffing on the cigarette. And as I understand it, there are other health consequences of smoking that manifest rather quickly (eg higher blood pressure, shortness of breath, and high concentrations of particulate matter in the lungs). Finally, the health consequences of smoking are enormous. Along with weight and marriage (for men) it's the most significant factor in determining someone's expected lifespan in the developed world.

      In comparison, medical harm from cellular phones is a hypothetical problem. It hasn't been consistently observed. I suppose that some sort of damage from EM emissions could cause huge long term problems with few or no short term problems, but it's dubious. Also remember that cell phones have been around for a while and there are small groups who have heavily used cell phones for up to twenty years. If the health problems don't manifest now, then it probably won't matter (at least until our lifespan substantially improves) .

  107. Obvious solution by cuteintern · · Score: 2, Funny
    Clearly,

    All he needs to do is issue or orer students to wear tonfoil hats.

    So simple.

  108. i shouldnt believe this may happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have feeling that guy who raced this issue know nothing about 100mW limit for wifi, tv transmission, microwave and especialy cell phones with at least 2W of power. In according with his analyse i m dead man. why he dont care rather about BTS. maybe it is good idea to prohibit them in area. who cares about increasing power with squared distance :)

  109. DHMO Poisoning? by TheScienceKid · · Score: 1

    What about the risks of DHMO poisoning? Check out http://www.dhmo.org/ ;)

    1. Re:DHMO Poisoning? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Ooo, we could so convince this guy to ban DHMO. That would be awesome.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:DHMO Poisoning? by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      I've experience far greater risk from Hydrogen Hydroxide. So watch out, kids!

  110. Impregnating a woman by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Don't despair!
    I am a nerd as everybody else around here (*), and I still could impregnate a woman -- thrice no less!!!
    Don't lose your hope.

    (*) I'm a 35yo trekkie, comic-books and prog rock-loving, systems analyst. I watch one of SGA-SG1-Lost-CSI-Smallville every single day. And this is my break after staying on the computer at work for ten hours or so. I am married (9 years now) and my wife is so not nerdy (she's a career lawyer - District Attorney [yes, not ADA, but DA]). And I'm teaching my 6yo oldest boy to love Star Wars :-)

    --
    "Sith happens" -- Jedi Master Yoda

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Impregnating a woman by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      My wife's a unix sys-admin who wears glasses/long straight hair/no make up, likes Dr. Who and is active in the SCA. She also used to be a belly dancer at Busch Gardens, if Florida. Geektress belly dancer-SCORE! And we have one kid. Nerds may not get any but geeks do.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  111. Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "... president Fred Gilbert won't allow it until he's satisfied EMF (electric and magnetic fields) exposure doesn't pose a health risk, particularly to young people."

    The article makes it obvious he was trying to be a big hero at a town hall meeting. In actuality, he knows nothing about electromagnetism, but is not afraid to pretend that he does. We see a lot of that in recent years, as people pretend to know more about computers than they do.

    Anyone worried about radio waves causing cancer can try to make that theory work. There is a huge barrier, however, in the form of a very very small number: Planck's Constant. Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg/S. It's that 10**-34 that makes it difficult for low-energy electromagetism like wireless transmissions to interact with chemical reactions. Thirty-four zeros is a LOT of zeros after the decimal point.

    Off topic: I've linked to the Encyclopedia Britannica above because the article about Planck's constant is very short. The article in Wikipedia is long. I've frequently seen the Encyclopedia Britannica be misleading because of the severe limitation placed on size of the articles due to paper costs. Wikipedia does not have that problem.

    --
    Cheney: Killing small animals and Iraqis for fun and profit.

    1. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by lahvak · · Score: 1

      The article makes it obvious he was trying to be a big hero at a town hall meeting.

      I didn't read the article, but my guess is people (board of trustees, students, parents, press or somebody) were bothering him and asking why the college doesn't have wifi. They don't have the money for it, so he invented that reason.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by BurntNickel · · Score: 1

      Anyone worried about radio waves causing cancer can try to make that theory work. There is a huge barrier, however, in the form of a very very small number: Planck's Constant. Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg/S. It's that 10**-34 that makes it difficult for low-energy electromagetism like wireless transmissions to interact with chemical reactions. Thirty-four zeros is a LOT of zeros after the decimal point.

      Unfortunately that completely ignores the issue of thermal effects. As an extreme case try the same calculation for a microwave oven. Chemical bonds in food are affected, but due to heating rather than ionization.

      I still use WiFi however as the power levels are a lot lower than an oven.

      --
      And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
    3. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 2, Informative

      When dealing with radiation, most physicists like to use electron-volts (eV) instead of Joules (or m^2 kg /s^2). One eV is 1.602x10^-19 J, so Planck's Constant (h) becomes 4.14x10^-15 eV S. I ran some rough estimates using visible light (500 nm) and microwaves (about 3 cm). Visible light has an energy of 2.5 eV, or right at the low end of chemical reactions. Microwaves have an energy of 4x10^-5 eV which have no chance in hell of initiating chemical reactions. Other people have pointed out, though, that it is still sufficient for exciting molecules vibrationally, rotationally and in a couple other ways. It's still far too little to possibly cause health problems.

    4. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by Entropius · · Score: 1

      And I care about the deposit of no less than a milliwatt of heat into my brain why?

    5. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10^(-34) = 33 zeros after the decimal point, not 34!

    6. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by BurntNickel · · Score: 1

      And I care about the deposit of no less than a milliwatt of heat into my brain why?

      A miliwatt of heating is probably not a big deal, but that was not the point of my post. I was pointing out that there are effects to consider other that direct ionization when determining if there is a biological effect from EM radiation at any frequency.

      --
      And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
    7. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by djtack · · Score: 1

      Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg/S. It's that 10**-34 that makes it difficult for low-energy electromagetism like wireless transmissions to interact with chemical reactions

      Not sure I understand the relevancy of Plank's constant (although I'll admit I barely passed my EM Theory class). Are you saying that because an individual photon has a very small amount of energy that photons cannot interact with chemical reactions? What about gamma radiation, which has long been understood to be bad for living things (bad when exposed indiscriminantly, yes there are medical uses for it as well)?
      There is evidence that microwaves can cleave DNA, from which you might infer in could be mutagenic, hence carcinogenic: non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation. Search pubmed for microwaves and you'll find lots of interesting results.

      That said, I use wifi daily.

    8. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by sarkeizen · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm going to guess what the original poster is saying. That because the photon has a low energy it is far, far, far more difficult to interact with chemical systems. Gamma rays are different because they are HIGH energy photons. Gamma rays are not being produced here to any significant degree.

      Your study from pubmed demonstrates this point well. They were finding genetic damage at 1.2-2W/kg when exposed at >4h. So for the average american woman say (140lbs) this would be between 76-120W of exposure or somewhere between 3-5W for a newborn.

      Wifi runs from 40mW to...well I've seen things in the 120mW range. Consider that the worst case (120mW) is 25x smaller than the energy to have similar effect on a small newborn.

    9. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheney: Killing small animals, Iraqis, and shooting americans for fun & profit

    10. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Ok.

      A 900W Microwave oven with ideal efficiency produces 900W of EM in the microwave range (~2.45 GHz... interesting to note, by the way). One minute of 900W EM == 0.015kWh or 54000 Joules of energy.

      Meanwhile, a short-range data transmission device (say, a wifi router or cell phone) puts out 300mW of energy, 3000 times less than a microwave oven. That means, to equal the power put out by one minute of a microwave, you have to use your cell phone, continuously, for about two days.

      Meanwhile, the heat's dissipating into your blood stream and off your skin faster than the cell phone can dump it in.

      What about the risk of tumor? There is none. 300mW concentrated on a single point may be able to do some damage to DNA structure, but by the time the signal exits your phone, it's already been diffused to about a 1cm sphere, so the power at any given milimeter-sized point would be more like 900uW (300/(4*pi*5mm^2)) (microwatts). You can imagine exactly how much energy reaches each of your neurons, and further, how much damage it can do. You're more likely to be hurt by cosmic rays.

      And yes, your phone gets hot. That's what happens when you use a chemical process to generate electricity (read: battery)

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    11. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by honkycat · · Score: 1

      There is some rational basis for concren, even at low power levels. The heating occurs within the volume of the brain rather than at the skin surface and diffusing inwards. If that milliwatt were focussed into a small region, it could cause substantial localized heating.

      That said, it'd take some very strange circumstances to actually find a focussed beam, since the antennas are generally roughly isotropic.

    12. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Gamma isn't in the same bandwidth range. It's a much higher frequency, so the photons have a much higher energy.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    13. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by chrisatoremus · · Score: 1

      Cheney: Killing small animals and Iraqis for fun and profit. ...and hunting buddies?

      --

      _______

      DIY Linux virus removal:

      1) [root@localhost ~]# rm -rf /

    14. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by daniel422 · · Score: 1

      Please expalin how this heat is bypassing the skins surface and occuring "within the volume of the brain"? This seems counter-intuitive -- electromagnetic waves DO penetrate from the outside in. Check your chicken the next time you put it in a microwave. Does the middle get hot first?

      Also, as you state, wifi antennas (and cell phone antennas) are NOT focused. They are omnidirectional and typically have an a profile at least as big as a wavelength (c=2.4GHz x wavelength -> 3e8/2.4e9 = wavelength = 0.125m), or 1.25cm, if not several multiples of that.

      This guy is doing the students at his school a disservice. Heck, my entire city has free wi-fi now in the downtown area. I think it's an excellent public service.

    15. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Visible light has an energy of 2.5 eV, or right at the low end of chemical reactions.

      If it wasn't capable of initiating chemical reactions, you wouldn't be able to see!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    16. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by birge · · Score: 1
      planck's constant is small? i didn't know that. some people think it's one. i'm not sure what were meant to expect from a constant that relates frequency to energy.

      anyway, i agree with you in the sense that the frequency of WiFi implies a very small photon energy relative to typical chemical bonding energies. but that assumes the only things that hurt you are chemical bonds being broken. RF radiation can certainly generate very small currents in your body which could theoretically disrupt your nervous system. i think that's what people are worried about, especially with cell phones which are right next to your nugget and therefor put your brain in the near-field of the antenna.

    17. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by honkycat · · Score: 1

      The microwaves are absorbed by water molecules and little else. Each water molecule has a cross section for absorption -- basically, there is some probability that a given quantum will be absorbed by each molecule it passes. The cross section is relatively small, which means that the depth to which a typical microwave will penetrate before being absorbed is relatively large. The absorption of microwaves into your food (or your brain) is relatively inefficient. As a result, the energy radiates through the volume fairly evenly and is absorbed throughout the volume.

      This is in contrast to higher frequency radiation, such as infrared, which is absorbed much more efficiently. As a result, the energy carried by the radiation is almost completely dumped at the surface.

      This is part of why microwaves are able to cook more quickly than a traditional oven. You don't have to wait for heat to diffuse from the surface to the inside of the food. As you point out, the process is not completely uniform -- as you penetrate deeper into an absorptive medium, the amount of energy reaching that depth does decrease. The rate at which the energy decreases is characterized by optical depth.

      The optical depth of pure water is a couple centimeters at 2.45 GHz and will increase a bit since foods / brains are not pure water. If the optical depth is 5 cm, about 60% of the radiant microwave energy will be deposited in the first 5 cm, 60% of the remaining in the next 5 cm, etc.

      If you have access to the IoP Physics Education journal archives, there is a nice article about the physics of microwave ovens. If not, I can at least back up my claim of a 2 cm optical depth for pure water (first paragraph of section 2).

      Anyway, I completely agree that this guy is a moran. My point was only that you can't just say, e.g., that since I'm hit by much higher power visible/IR radiation when I step outside, there is obviously no danger. High intensity microwave radiation is not something that occurs naturally on Earth and it has characteristics that are different from "natural" Earthly electromagnetic radiation. That said, when you do the more complex analysis, you find there is no rational basis for concern.

    18. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by daniel422 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the thoughtful, informative explanation. It's good to see sometimes there are valid reasons why I read /. and that not everyone is a hopeless troll.

    19. Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S by honkycat · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

  112. Notice of FATWA by coastwalker · · Score: 1

    and now, having read all the politely annoyed posts about this guy - has got me so angry, that I have decided to issue a Fatwa against him and call for all 21st century citizens capable of using cutlery to study their conscience deeply before deciding to charge up their cell phones and descend on this abomination from the middle ages and in a demonstration of righteous power bury the guy in cell phones dialed into the speaking clock so that he may be fried out of existence by the awsome cleansing power of microwave annihilation. And if that doesnt work, the mockery should do the trick.

    He may well have a point about the potential risk in 30 to 40 years but it is a fact that of all the avoidable hazards the vast majority of of students are going to die in road traffic accidents.

    "Meanwhile, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death among young people (followed by suicide)."

    http://tinyurl.com/p9mcs

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  113. i wonder when he will ban microwave owens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    in my campus the whole wireless network goes down betwen 12.00 and 13.00 becus the heavy usage of the microwave owens. it's funny how people get scared of everything new and dont bother with old stuff that radiate more

  114. Video games, not electromagnetism, fry your brain? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Troll

    The problem with playing video games all the time is that, unlike 2.4 GHz radio waves, games fry your brain and you don't spend enough time learning about science. Maybe that's why Slashdot editors are fooled so often by hoaxes. Perhaps one-fourth of Slashdot articles are about being a games spectator (not about games technology). It's not necessary for anyone to be a geek or a nerd, if he or she is willing to stop playing games long enough to learn about social interaction.

    --
    Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

  115. Re:Noisiest. Spectrum. Ever. by Old+Grey+Beard · · Score: 0

    Why not issue tinfoil hats to everyone, eh? Up there in Thunder Bay it's cold enough to require headgear, during the school year anyway ...

    --
    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it."
    - H. L. Mencken
  116. So how do they cook the ramen? by Chris+Snook · · Score: 1

    High power wi-fi card: 50 mW at 2.4 GHz
    Low power dorm microwave: 700 W at 2.4 GHz

    My parents have two identical 2.4 GHz wireless phones. One has the base station next to the wi-fi router, the other has the base station next to the microwave. When the router is going full-blast at 54 Mbps transferring files between a laptop and a desktop, you hear nothing. When someone is making hot chocolate, sometimes you have to cycle through a few channels on the phone to be able to continue your conversation.

    --
    There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
  117. Read between the lines ... by amelith · · Score: 2, Funny

    They probably see WiFi as a hassle and somehow subversive or threatening. If they want to ban it then spurious health grounds are as good an excuse as any.

    I can just see their board of trustees or whatever sitting in a room filled with clouds of cigar smoke, large glasses of whisky in hand, the remains of a seven course meal scattered around the table. "We must ban this WiFi thing, whatever that is. It's a danger to people's health. And could someone please carry me to the car?"

    Ame

  118. Wow...got an inferiority complex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were a fraction as intelligent as you think you are, you would have been able to put your idea across at an appropriate level, instead off reeling of irrelvant details that the OP had no chance of understanding. What you are explaining isn't complicated, so why all the gibberish? Got something to prove?

  119. Hmmn by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

    i was wondering where all these tumors where coming from.

  120. Let's do the math by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What really worris me is a university president that is ignorant of basic physics and math. Let's do a back-of-the-web-page calculation:

    Assume: Sunlight is electromagnetic radiation too.

    Full sunshine hits you with about 1000 watts per square meter.

    Assume: Your body has one square meter of frontal surface area (John Belushi, not Kate Moss).

    So on a sunny day you're getting hit with 1000 watts of electromagnetic radiation, heating you up considerably. Much as if you were in a restaurant-strength microwave oven.

    Assume: I'm too lazy to look up the exact power, so let's assume a Wi-Fi antenna puts out one whole watt (greatly exaggerated).
    Also assume you're standing three feet from the antenna.

    A rough guess: your body is going to intercept about 1/40th of the emitted radiation.

    So we have on the one hand, sunlight at 1000 watts, and wi-fi at 1/40th of a watt, a difference in intensity of 25,000 times.

    And while exposure to sunlight for like 10 years will eventually cause wrinkles and skin cancer, very few students or staff stay in school for the proportionally requisite 250,000 years, three feet from a hot-spot antenna.

    More likely you'll die of terminal boredom.

  121. idiots by akhomerun · · Score: 1

    How stupid can you get??

    Ban harmless RF signals while the campus still gets radio signals, the earth's electromagnecic field (?), cordless phones, the list goes on.

    And then allow students to use microwaves, place microwaves up to their heads in the form of cell phones, let them use TVs, etc.

    I would transfer out of this college immediatly. Obviously the people there are STUPID and shouldn't be teaching anything. Ever.

    Next thing they are going to ban IR signals in the form of banning remote controls and palm pilots. Cue confusing IR with UV.

  122. It's not wifi that's the problem... by martinultima · · Score: 1

    And I can say this with almost 100% certainty because right now we've got no less than two wireless routers, one on each side of our house, and there's no problem as far as I can see.

    What strikes me as dangerous is cell phones – brain cancer in a box, I always call 'em. Don't know why you'd want a contract on the things, just ask your doctor to inject more stuff into your brain next time you see him and it has the same effect. And even if the brain cancer doesn't work, srly txt msgng n pix n ntm my fvrt rngtns wll ttyl bye

    Let's see, brain cancer and features aimed at idiots... so what was the nice thing about cell phones again?

    I'll give you one other tip: It's not the fact that you can call someone any time, anywhere; our home phones already ring way too much, cell phones are about ten times as bad because they follow you around. And the way people talk on the things right when you have a headache? Hiss.

    I hate cell phones.

    --
    Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
  123. Also a concern in Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I am not sure what chances a serious reply has so late in the discussion but anyway...

    In Japan the cellphone is very common and nearly in constant use, especially on trains. Since train cars are like Faraday cages with a few openings (windows that is) the electromagnetic field is rather intense, coming from about 100 units and reflections from the walls, floor and ceilings.

    The Faraday cage situation means little radiation gets out to the cell towers so the cell phones inside the train cars have to increase emitted power, making for even more radiation intensity.

    Finally, add to this the crampedness of trains there (we are talking about Japan where they emply people to push/shoehorn in people in during rush hours, seriously) a lot will be absorbed in tissue, so add more emitted power to compensate.

    All in all this means cell phones on trains are probably running on max power.

    And this has seriously concerned Japanese authorities.

    BTW the effect is NOT ionization, the wavelength is too short for that. Rather tissue heating is the concern along with a more uncertain possibility og interference in inter-cell communications in human tissue.

  124. Henry Rollins was right by The+Infidel · · Score: 0

    He said the exact same thing in Johnny Mnemonic. Finally, those academics are listening to reliable information from credible sources.

  125. I have an idea... by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    Let's all contruct foil hats and send them to his university to distribute.

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  126. What RF does do by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    RF is non-ionizing radiation. As such, it won't so much cause cellular mutation, but it will cook tissue.

    So for those who have their cell phones glued to their ear, they might start hearing a sizzling sound and smell something akin to bacon. This is the first indication that you should hang up and continue with life.

    I've heard the stories about people getting fried by RADAR if they're too close. Its even the legend of the birth of the microwave oven.

    But my first experience with Mr. Robert F. Burns is when I was helping a friend tune up a vertical dipole antenna. I told him to key up at 5W and dumbass thinks I said 50W. So when I turned slightly one of the counterpoise wires caught me on the earlobe. Ouch! Cooking tissue indeed.

  127. Cheap Ass by MaxPowerDJ · · Score: 1

    This guy is just a cheap ass that does not want to invest on wi-fi technology. I have seen many people like him that create a false sense of danger around technology because they dont want to invest good money on it.

    --
    --MaxPowerDJ
  128. Medieval Thinking. by Kranfer · · Score: 1

    Does this college president also support the use of blood letting and using leeches to cure his students of random diseases too? People really need to read the findings of studies done with these topics so things like this do not occur.

    --
    -- Josh
    "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
  129. Better ban Microwave Ovens too by Yartrebo · · Score: 1, Troll

    Considering that microwave ovens use the same frequency yet deal with far greater powers, he aught to be banning them too.

    Truly, this guy is totally clueless. Then again, if Bush could get to such a high position, what's stopping this guy.

  130. Requirements for a University President by wwf · · Score: 1

    I guess that there are no educational requirements needed to become a university president.

  131. Not sure he's got it right... by ursabear · · Score: 1

    First of all, I'm very glad that, at least some of the time, powers that be are looking out for the health of their "constituents." However...
    This person is largely misguided. I can understand concerns over unproven risk/benefits of living directly under a huge power transit tower (or right next to a transforming station) - because (opinion to follow, not fact) I don't think definitive knowledge has yet been gained as to the effects of magnetism/electrical fields on humans. But... signals from WiFi transmission are less strong than things like solar radiation and other ubiquitous natural bombardments.

    Mr. Unversity official: Thank you for caring, but please talk to some people who have reasonable knowledge on the subject - and allow WiFi to be transmitted.

  132. To be consistent ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't he also ask that all computers be shut off, cell phones (EMF exposure from phones is likely to be FAR worse, because it is closer to your body), and, heck, while you're at it, just shut down power at the university and go back to 19th-century and earlier techniques like quill pens and parchment. It didn't stop earlier institutions from being places of higher learning, and it's the only way to be safe until the "jury" is in.

    It could set a great distinction for Lakehead University: Come to Lakehead and experience traditional university values, in true "old-world" medieval style! Be sure to bring your cloaks to class! No photocopiers or ballpoint pens are available -- take your notes on your innovative, reusable, university-supplied slate notebooks with all-natural chalk.

    No, wait, that doesn't make sense. According to president Fred Gilbert in the spring/summer 2005 Campus news, "Despite these challenges, Fred Gilbert has leveraged the strengths of the University faculty and researchers, staff, and alumni to embark on a vision of academic excellence and technology-assisted learning." Well, all that except for vision about some types of technology-assisted learning. I guess they'll be spending alot more money than necessary on cabling and its installation at Lakehead, and I'm sure people will be nice about sharing the wired network ports that are available. It's a pity the money couldn't be better spent elsewhere, but that's the price of progress and safety.

    Personally, I think the guy could save alot of money, and keep people happy and safe, if the university offered free tin foil hoods that could optionally be worn to class. Maybe next convocation they can invest in tin foil mortar boards, especially for the Comp Sci graduates?

  133. I cannot beleive the mobile phone radiation thing. by EddyPearson · · Score: 0, Troll

    Forget this "you'll get a brain tumour and die" from using you're mobile too much.
    For years i have kept my mobile in my pockets, inches away from my nads!
    Day after day, i get text messages, calls, wap whatever.
    Point is, if i beleive the hype, then i'm going to have to consider a number of rather terrifying possibilities..

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  134. Knowledge is Power... by superrcat · · Score: 1

    Power is related to electricity, electricity is related to magnetism, electromagnetism is related to radio waves, radio waves are related to cancer, therefore knowledge must cause cancer!

  135. Re:Video games, not electromagnetism, fry your bra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's to you, trolling-with-your-+1-bonus guy.

  136. He better not use an electric shaver either by CrazyMik · · Score: 1

    If people fear electromagnetic (EM) radiation that much, wait until they read about EM fields. Maybe Gillette needs to start this paranoia to attack electric shavers. A good resource on the truth about EM fields, check out http://www.mcw.edu/gcrc/cop/static-fields-cancer-F AQ/toc.html

    1. Re:He better not use an electric shaver either by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Why, I rather suspect that my Mack 3 Turbo razor and Sonicare tooth brush both put out more EM than a wireless card does.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  137. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep wifi, but institute a new school dress code that includes the mandatory wearing of lead shields. I'm sure they can get some from their students studying to be x-ray techs.

  138. Well it is at Lakehead by beyonddeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you have ever done any research on universities in canada you would know that lakehead isnt exactly the best school to attend, either academically or otherwise. So this is no real surprise as they are just trying to appeal to some strange subset of youth that think cell phones are dangerous to use so as to boost admissions.

    The way I figure at least these people will get a little education, better than not attending a university at all, so let Lakehead have its coffee.

    cheers

    1. Re:Well it is at Lakehead by nametaken · · Score: 1

      The way I figure at least these people will get a little education, better than not attending a university at all, so let Lakehead have its coffee.

      Wait, but doesn't coffee cause cancer?!

  139. Woah... Newark, Free City by displague · · Score: 1

    They warned us about the black shakes...

    --
    Marques Johansson
  140. Yes, others are worried. by dschuetz · · Score: 1

    Is anybody outside of this university's administration concerned about this?

    Yes. Scientifically illiterate risk-averse crackpots with their heads in the sand.

  141. Going elsewhere for my engineering degree.... by merlezllama · · Score: 1

    I guess I'll have to rethink my plans to pursue a Software Engineering degree through Lakehead U. I hate being tied to a desk with a cord. Of course I will probably be to ill to attend university because of the exposure to radio waves from the wi-fi in my house, my office and oh yeah my cordless and cellular phones.

  142. popcorn and big bang by viking2000 · · Score: 1

    A wifi access point radiates up to 15dBm or 15mW when it is on. With a dutycyle of 10% that gives 1.5mW

    So if your distance to the AP is 11 meters, exposure is 10^-4 mW/m^2.

    Other electromagnetic radiation sources:

    0) Big Bang: A good part of the big bang background radiation is in the 2.4GHz or about 10^-4 mW/m^2 from 2GHz to 3GHz. Same exposure as access point. The background radiation over the full spectrum is an order of magnitude higher.

    1) Sun: 0.1mW (Same as staying 1m away from the above AP) (The sun radiates little at this wavelength. Total radiation hitting your body is a few _kW_ or 2 million times more)

    2) Typical leakage from uWave oven: 2W/m^2! This is 20,000 times more.

    So, just popping popcorn typically might give you 240J exposure. If you want the same exposure from your wifi card at 90% dutycyle try this:

    Stick the antenna into a bodily orifice and upload 34 DVDs. Yes, it may take 10 hours. Downloading does not give your card a high dutycyle, so it might take a week to get the same exposure as popping popcorn.

    Have fun.

  143. Speaking of tinfoil helmets.. by Digz · · Score: 1

    ..there's an article in Popular Science this month (not on their website yet - at least that I could find) that details a study done on the effectiveness of tinfoil helmets. Surprisingly enough, a tinfoil helmet actually amplifies signals at 1.2 and 2.6 GHz (government satellites and GPS systems are found in that range).

    --
    SYS 64738
  144. Joule seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the dimension of Planck's constant - not meters-squared-kilogram per second

    1. Re:Joule seconds by kidcharles · · Score: 3, Informative

      Joule-seconds...That's the dimension of Planck's constant - not meters-squared-kilogram per second

      They are equivalent:

      Joule -> kg m^2 / s^2

      Plank's constant = h
      Frequency of EM radiation = f -> 1/s

      photon energy (Joules) = h * f

      Since the unit of f is Hz or 1/s, Plank's constant can be represented with the units J*s or equivalently kg m^2 / s.

      QED

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    2. Re:Joule seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just ask google calculator... it does unit conversions.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=planck's+constant+i n+joule+seconds
      Google calculator's answer: Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 joule seconds

      http://www.google.com/search?q=planck's+constant
      Google calculator's answer: Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s

      See? Just use google calculator.

  145. aww.. by Digz · · Score: 1

    ...I thought it was dihydrogen monoxide. Nasty stuff, that DHMO.

    --
    SYS 64738
  146. Ah my former school / employer by leafsfanatic · · Score: 1

    Having done my degree there and returning for work after grad I know all about the "policies" of this place. There are so many rogue access points it's hillarious. Picture a 47 million dollar advanced technology building (with hi-def tv studio and VR room) with no wireless access. When I asked why we could have cell phones, microwave ovens, etc I got the royal brush off. I know they're trying to get a lot of press to boost enrollment, but I don't think this policy is something to be proud of.

  147. And I thought *MY* university president was nuts by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    Why do I have a funny feeling that this guy gets a lot of eye-rolls at board meetings? "Okay, what batshit crazy idea do you have for us THIS week, Bob?"

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  148. High tech & high healthy by king_leargn · · Score: 1

    to be or not to be, that's a question...

  149. He may be correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some birds and fish use magnetic navigation to migrate. They are very sensitive to fields and therefore do not use cell phones or wi-fi. That and the rooming charges and poor coverage of course. Second, you will only see birds sitting perpendicular to wires and never inline. Pure electromagnetics at work, right hand rule and such. So the lesson in all this is, wear your foil hats everyday and act like a bird.

  150. i am living proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that wi-fi, mountain dew & wacky tobacco do not cause sterility in men. I have had a lion's share of all three & I am WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY too fertile. Damn, I look @ women & they get pregnant :P

  151. Total B.S. by SubstormGuy · · Score: 1

    The whole "electric power line - cancer" link is total garbage and has been used by lawyers to force companies to spend money on useless countermeasures or settle "damage cases" out of court. It is a legal protection racket, as are many (Most?) class-actions suits. The American Physical Society debunkled this nonsense, as did a National Research Council report.

  152. remove accretidation from that university by peter303 · · Score: 1

    How they they claim to be a place of higher learning with a gaff that large?

  153. Re:Noisiest. Spectrum. Ever. by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

    didn't you read that other slashdot article about the tinfoil hat making it easier for the government to read your brainwaves?

    --
    disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
  154. Mostly... by mtreibel · · Score: 1

    I'm worried that a tin foil hat bozo is RUNNING A UNIVERSITY! Maybe its not so bad, it is Canadian.

  155. Oh, my... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I used to think that canadians were way less stupid than americans...

  156. Oh brother... by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    These people are teaching our children, folks! Well, Canadian children....

  157. Tin foil hats for all! by Ric+O'Shea · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nothing beats a nice faraday cage hat for keeping nasty EM waves from toasting your brain. Maybe the school could offer free tin foil hats to each student This guy has nice instructions for building your own. Just slap the school logo on the front and, hell, why not a propeller on the top.

    1. Re:Tin foil hats for all! by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Those only work if they are also pyramid shaped and lined with crystals.

      But seriously. Shouldn't this guy be more concerned with sexually transmissiable diseases, or lead and mercury content in the drinking water? I'm fairly certain there are more cases of HIV or car accident fatalities at a University than there are brain tumors.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  158. To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Informative

    I see a lot of wannabees rant about this university being run by unscientify crackpots. And that the sun and radio and tv is more radiation blah blah ...
    I've got news for you: Microwaves damage health. Period.
    The debate is at which intensity do they start doing that.
    I generally turn my Wifi of if I'm not using it and have stopped carrying my cellphone close to my body, since it's on all day. I turn it off at night. I also hold it away from my head when I make a call until the cell handshake is over and the remote connect is there. My Siemens M35 even has a beep to indicate when the connect is there. Smart people the Siemens engineers, aren't they?
    Handshake you ask? That's the high-power meep-meep-meep you hear in nearby active FM radios just before you make or recieve a call. It's what establishes the conection to the cell network for communication. I even know a woman who can sense the cellphone handshake (she has e-magnetic field sensetivity) from meters away and has the habbit of anouncing cellphone calls seconds before a phone rings. Fun to watch with unsuspecting others near by :-) . Her life isn't that fun though. When her neighbor above leaves his 20" CRT on she can't sleep. She's got other trouble with that aswell and people often don't believe her and think she's crazy.
    On it goes:
    My father was a high profile radar electronics engineer - with Military (Nato, Cruise Missile), Airbus, Nasa/Grumman Aircraft (Lunar Module, Space Shuttle, etc) and some others. He forbid us to have a Microwave oven (they ALL leak Microwaves) and steared clear and went the other way whenever we got to close to a radar bubble when going hiking.
    There are people who've had terminal brain tumors due to intense cellphone usage and I work with doctors (medical IT) who keep all equipment far away and well cased according to TCO.

    Bottom line:
    Don't think it's not unhealthy just because most people don't care. A little common sense and forsight is needed when handling technology. You don't get universal flawless wireless conectivity without a tradeoff. Anyone who believes that is a crackpot himself.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "people often don't believe her and think she's crazy."

      That would be because she's crazy. It's unfortunate that she has people like you around to re-inforce her problems.

    2. Re:To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy by j-beda · · Score: 1
      I even know a woman who can sense the cellphone handshake (she has e-magnetic field sensetivity) from meters away and has the habbit of anouncing cellphone calls seconds before a phone rings. Fun to watch with unsuspecting others near by :-) . Her life isn't that fun though. When her neighbor above leaves his 20" CRT on she can't sleep. She's got other trouble with that aswell and people often don't believe her and think she's crazy.

      Sounds more like a issue with sensitive hearing and high frequency noises. If she can demonstrate the ability to sense EM cell phone calls via a double blind test, she might qualify for Randi's $1 million.

    3. Re:To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the smug:

      Yes...I'm sure being constantly bombarded with microwaves is really good for human tissue.

      As I'm sure at some point, people like you were saying:

      Bah! Cigarettes are perfectly healthy. There are no scientific studies saying otherwise. And even if there were, we'd pay for other studies to condradict them.

      I'm sure those hi-cap power lines right over where little Susie sleeps didn't cause her cancer. Or the similar cancer of all of her neighbors. Again, we'll pay for condradictory studies that defy your common sense.

      Lead paint? Perfectly safe. (Ask Sherwin Williams about it and take a look at its stock price).

    4. Re:To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy by geobeck · · Score: 1

      You're right. We should put an immediate stop to the single greatest source of microwave radiation absorbed by humans. Quick! Let's put out the Sun!

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    5. Re:To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy by Unxmaal · · Score: 1
      There are people who've had terminal brain tumors due to intense cellphone usage

      No, they haven't.

      --
      http://unxmaal.com
    6. Re:To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy by Qbertino · · Score: 1

      It's actually not unlikely that she senses this with her hearing nerves. Though it wouldn't be soundwaves because these could be meashured aswell. This type of sensetivity is uncommon but not unheard of. She's had it scientifically tested and says she feels it like a pulse. The hearing nerves are now to be sensetive to certain e-magnetic frequencies and cause sensations remotely simular to hearing.
      Tinitus is a damage of the hearing nerves and has been proven to be inducable with magnetic fields.
      However people who sense radiowaves are hardly displaying ESP rather than a heightend sensetivity for ... well ... radiowaves.

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    7. Re:To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy by j-beda · · Score: 1
      However people who sense radiowaves are hardly displaying ESP rather than a heightend sensetivity for ... well ... radiowaves.

      I haven't seen anything in the literature showing anyone with such EM sensitivity - do you have any references? I have no doubt that people can damage themselves with high EM fields - one need only stick your head in a microwave to demonstrate that. I have been unable to find references to anyone who could detect cell-phone radiation in a controlled double-blind experiment and would be interested in and references you might have.

      Randi's challenge does not have to be framed in terms of "ESP" - many things tested for the challenge have been similar to this type of claimed EM sensitivity.

    8. Re:To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy by pkphilip · · Score: 1

      I am presently working with someone on conducting a study on the effects of cellphone on humans and I do agree with you that there are good reasons to believe that cellphone do, infact, increase incidence of cancer and tumours. Please note that the effects do not seem to be limited just to the user, there is some evidence to indicate that people at close proximity to the user are also affected.

  159. It's all been said, but. by Jikrschbaum · · Score: 0

    KITTENS WITH SPIKES!!!

  160. sadly, yes by elmegil · · Score: 1
    Is anybody outside of this university's administration concerned about this?

    Yes, plenty of quacks are out pounding this drum. In Oak Park, IL, there was a parent's group trying to get wifi banned in the junior high schools for exactly the same reason ("think of the CHILDREN!"). Whether you agree that Jr High kids *need* wifi or not, the argument that it's harmful to their health is pretty ridiculous, and the group was eventually stopped from having any influence. But not after weeks of editorializing and wild claims on their part in the local papers.

    Of course you have to wonder if these people built faraday cages around their houses and cars, given their neighbors potential use of wifi and cordless phones, the prevalence of radio, cellular, broadcast tv, and other wireless waves.

    Maybe they have mapped the locations of all the towers around and have made sure they live a maximum distance from all of them. Maybe they never take their children to Borders, McDonalds, or any of the couple dozen other businesses that have wifi. Maybe they don't use cellphones themselves.

    But I doubt it.

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  161. Argh! by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone OD'd on granola. How does a member of the tinfoil hat set come to run a uni anyway? Friggin luddites... >_< I've got no problem with them barricading themselves in their tinfoil-clad homes, and dressing their kids up like baked potatoes while poisoning their minds with insane rantings about the evil radio waves and magnetic fields... But it pisses me off when their rampant insanity impacts others. Like those idiots who prevented a school from providing free broadband to the community via wifi because they were afraid it would melt their brains or something.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  162. Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot one: the sun

    You forgot that this university is in Canada , where they have only two seasons: Winter and July.

    So with only 30 days out of the year, exposure to the Sun on such a small scale constitutes an insignificant accumulation of solar radiation.

  163. That guy is very courageous... by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    Congratulations to that guy for taking a very courageous stand against exposing more people to more 'wireless' radiation. Everyone's daily exposure to this just keeps climbing with 'WiFi' access points, cell phone sites, ubiquitous cell phone use, etc. Yes, these technologies provide wonderful convenience. Yes, they seem harmless since they have no visible effects on us after we use them. But no, they are probably not harmless, although it will likely be several more decades before the magnitude of the harm they are causing is apparent to us.

    The Canadian university guy will probably be quickly pressured to recant his ban but it's great that he took the stand he did because it at least puts some light on the issue that might help to get independent studies of health effects funded in the future.

  164. flamebait???!!!! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 0

    Feel free to argue the opinion, but please don't mark honest opinion as flaimbait.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  165. Learning. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    How does a member of the tinfoil hat set come to run a uni anyway? Friggin luddites...

    There have been a lot of studies by reputable researchers which suggest that low power EM has numerous detrimental effects on the nervous system which have nothing to do with ionizion and cell destruction due to microwave heating. There are other mechanics at work, and they are understood.

    Whereas the only studies which claim that EM is safe were funded by such agencies as the Air Force, (which faced law suits for service men contracting cancer from working radar arrays), and the telecoms who use wording which is strikingly similar to that used by the tobacco giants. An hour of your time doing some research is all that is necessary. Learning is fun!


    -FL

    1. Re:Learning. . . by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

      Wow, a link to information on your geocities site. Yeah, you can get cancer from working a high powered radar system. Of course. You can get cancer from anything. Death is a side-effect of living. Pissing on modern convenience because it'll kill us just the same as everything else, is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

      Let's take this thinking a step further. Granted, something like the aforementioned high powered military radar isn't doing you any good, and probably speeds up the process. But so do phones, computers, radios, electricity, cars, EVERYTHING, with differing levels of efficacy. I think, if we all could live to be 200, barring accidents and illness, we'd all eventually die of cancer. Would I give up my computer, my phone, my DLP projector, my digital camera, my game consoles, and all the other things that are slowly killing me? No. You don't live longer, it just SEEMS longer.

      Once again, I have no problem with those kinds of views...there's always going to be people who think like that. But when they start forcing their lifestyle on others, they need to be told in no uncertain terms that it is decidedly not cool. Nice suburban community is about to get free wifi internet from a local school, handful of these people come out of the woodwork and complain, bam! No free internet for anyone. Why? Because of the radio waves and stuff. Guess what? There's nowhere on the face of the Earth where the radio waves and magnetic fields won't get to you. ET IS WATCHING OUR TELEVISION PROGRAMMING.

      --

      Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  166. Re:And I thought *MY* university president was nut by typical · · Score: 1

    "Lets hire Bob to be our president. He'll be free entertainment every day!"

    More likely, he just doesn't want the university to have to spend the money to set up WAPs around campus, and needed an excuse. People do this kind of stuff all the time. He just made the headlines.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  167. Re:"jury's out"? Who said there's equal evidence? by typical · · Score: 1

    No, the jury isn't "out on this one". That would imply there is evidence that WiFi causes any sort of health consequences- and further, that it is equal to evidence it does not.

    You know, something like eighty percent of Americans believe that there is a God, despite the fact that there is no evidence in favor of his existence. A jury is made up of these ordinary people...

    Admittedly, I'm taking the saying a bit literally.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  168. Post hoc ergo propter hoc... by Pedrito · · Score: 1

    is a Latin phrase that describes the whole situation of people trying to link cancer to cell phones and other EM emitting devices. It means, "After it, therefore because of it." It's like saying, "I use a cell phone and I got brain cancer. Therefore cell phones cause brain cancer."

    In the words of Martin Sheen, who described this expression in an episode of West Wing, "It's not always true. In fact it's rarely true." Who puts these idiots in charge?

  169. Holy ignorant Slashdotters! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Wow. What a body count.

    The posts here read like a grassrooting effort by some telco, except it's probably just a bunch of ignorant geeks who believe whatever they're told by big multinationals and their own beloved government. Oh, it hurts to read this site somedays. . !

    There have been a lot of studies by reputable researchers which suggest that low power EM has numerous detrimental effects on the nervous system which have nothing to do with ionizion and cell destruction due to microwave heating. There are other mechanics at work.

    Yes, I've met hysterical protesters who have used super-soakers to shoot magic indian water at cell towers. They do look silly. --As do hoards of poorly informed parents with bad research and high emotions.

    But even sillier are people who cannot make the distinction between a valid concern and an emotional protester with a squirt gun. Think: What if somebody came along jumping up and down with a goofy hat and spittle flying from his mouth insisting that the Earth orbits around the Sun? Would you be so disgusted and put off that you would instantly flee into the welcoming arms of the alternate corporate/government sales pitch for a Flat Earth? You might think you wouldn't be fooled, but the evidence of every day public behavior strongly suggests otherwise. A good example is the current war in Iraq; a lot of people here bought that pack of lies when the government came selling them. Indeed, most people garner most of their knowledge from television, and television has a vested interest in misleading us.

    Honestly. A little critical thinking from all the so-called skeptics is in order here, I think.


    -FL

    1. Re:Holy ignorant Slashdotters! by Art16 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So.... LESS IS WORSE! We already live in super high levels of EME compared with 1900, and the exposure levels keep getting higher. There is no such thing as "low level exposure" unless you inhabit a cave or salt mine. With the "less is worse" mythology, we should be seeing people getting healthier! Get out a spectrum analyzer and just see that in which you really live!

    2. Re:Holy ignorant Slashdotters! by geobeck · · Score: 1
      There are other mechanics [geocities.com] at work.

      Umm... Your reference is a geocities page?

      And you're saying that I should be concerned about the few hundred milliwatts coming from my laptop, but apparently have no concern about the few hundred kilowatts coming from the radio station in the next building? Or the few thousand watts/square meter of microwave radiation I get from the sun on a clear day?

      Then again, Thunder Bay residents probably don't get much sun through their snowsuits, so it might be a shock to their systems!

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    3. Re:Holy ignorant Slashdotters! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
      Umm... Your reference is a geocities page?

      Yes, and more specifically, the reference are pages from a book I scanned and posted there. I did this because the contents of the book were not otherwise available on the web for convenient linkage. If you would like to know more about that source, you may find it here.

      Now that this has been cleared up, you may now try actually reading the document before posting your comments.

      And you're saying that I should be concerned about the few hundred milliwatts coming from my laptop, but apparently have no concern about the few hundred kilowatts coming from the radio station in the next building? Or the few thousand watts/square meter of microwave radiation I get from the sun on a clear day?

      Is that what I was saying? No. Not even a little bit. If you had bothered to read the link provided rather than judge its content based on the quality of the bandwidth provider, you would have been able to work this out on your own, as well as have answered your other questions.


      -FL

    4. Re:Holy ignorant Slashdotters! by geobeck · · Score: 1

      Riiiiiight.

      Show me a link to a paper published in Nature or Science, or the New England Journal of Medicine, hell, even in the IEEE journal, and I'll check it out. A book on Amazon? Anyone can get any pseudoscientific crap published, and can even get a few Ph.D's to sign off on it, and will sell a million copies if it happens to relate to the FUD-du-jour.

      Until I see something credible, I'm not going to put on tin-foil underwear for the hour or so I use my laptop each day, or wear sunglasses while I stare at my 19" CRT, or hold my cell phone away from my head for the 5 minutes I use it each day.

      Yes, microwaves are dangerous. They heat you up, especially the water in your outer tissues. But I'm a lot more worried about the gazillion-watt microwave source 150 million km away than I am about the tiny transmitters in the city around me.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  170. Why did you post this by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

    "Comparing wi-fi to radio waves is completely ridiculous, as they are different wavelengths"

    When you're wrong? Why assume such a pompous attitude when a simple wikipedia check would have led you to this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves

    And a quick examination would have revealed that 2.4 Ghz is in the UHF range.

    It's ok if you're wrong, but make sure you're right before you start telling people their posts are "ridiculous".

    --
    How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    1. Re:Why did you post this by zCyl · · Score: 1

      When you're wrong? Why assume such a pompous attitude when a simple wikipedia check would have led you to this

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves

      And a quick examination would have revealed that 2.4 Ghz is in the UHF range.

      It's ok if you're wrong, but make sure you're right before you start telling people their posts are "ridiculous".


      Thank you for the link, but the post I was replying to was discussing "radio stations", which are not the same as the "radio frequency band of the electromagnetic spectrum". The absorption spectra of the AM and FM bands in different portions of an organism are entirely different from the absorption spectrum of the 2.4 GHz band.

  171. And when linked with actual research. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    In the words of Martin Sheen, who described this expression in an episode of West Wing, "It's not always true. In fact it's rarely true." Who puts these idiots in charge?

    You quote from television without having any of your critical faculties engaged, (and it was a pretend character, not Sheen, btw), and you have the gall to question people who work to extract their wisdom from the real world?

    In any case, the basis for much of the concern with EM radiation has nothing to do with clever Latin legal jargon. It has to do with legitimate studies which have repeatedly demonstrated that low-power EM can directly affect living cells and more importantly, biological nervous systems. Do would definitely benefit from some current reading on the subject. Latin philosophy is very clever, but when not properly coupled with real science, it spins off on its own useless masturbatory head-trip.


    -FL

    1. Re:And when linked with actual research. . . by Pedrito · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of people who aren't using critical thinking, there are MORE studies that show it does no damage. Furthermore, anyone with even an inkling of understanding of physics will understand why it's impossible.

      Cancer is caused by defects in DNA. Defects could come from two possibilities when dealing with EM radiation. #1 is ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is produced in the following ways (the yes/no in parenthesis is whether or not a cell phone has this): Extreme heat (no), radioactive decay (no), nuclear fusion (no), nuclear fission (no), accelerated particles (no). That's it. So, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY, that ionizing radiation is the cause.

      That leaves only thermal radiation as a possibility for causing DNA defects. This is impossible as well because there's not enough heat produced from the EM emissions of these devices to raise A SINGLE CELL 1 degree centigrade.

      So unless you think cell phones and wireless ethernet devices produce some, as yet, undetected force of nature, that interacts with living cells, I think YOU'RE the one that needs to do some critical thinking and extract some wisdom from the real world.

    2. Re:And when linked with actual research. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
      Furthermore, anyone with even an inkling of understanding of physics will understand why it's impossible.

      You are right. It is entirely true that ionization does not happen with the low power levels put out by cell phone devices, and therefore DNA damage cannot happen through this means.

      Unfortunately, most people, upon recognizing this oft-stated fact, stop questioning and embrace the technology without any further thought. The issue, however, is many times more complex than allowed for by simple ionization.

      I don't want to get into a giant essay here, but I will make two statements which you can take or leave. . .

      1. Regarding cancer. . . Cells turn cancerous in the body on a regular basis, and they do this due to any number of causes; radiation from the Sun, toxic chemicals, etc. In the healthy person, the body's immune system is well equipped to detect these rogue cells and kill them. However, it has been demonstrated that when exposed to certain wavelengths of low power EM, cancer cells divide much more quickly while at the same time the body's immune response system is depressed.

      2. Cancer isn't even main issue. The real problem is that low power microwave EM, when modulated to replicate low frequencies, (as cell phones do), has been shown to stimulate cells into reacting in a variety of other odd ways. When this happens to cells in the brain and nervous system, it has been demonstrated that perception and awareness are measurably altered at the biochemical level. One mechanic through which this happens is called, Cyclotronic Resonance. I have scanned and posted a chapter from Robter O. Becker's book on how it works here, if you are interested. Basically, EM makes people fuzzy in their thinking and thereby much more easily controlled.

      This to me is the real issue. Cancer is a side show.


      -FL

  172. r^3 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's 1/r^2, no? Inverse Square Law.

    The power reaching any distance is spread out over the (two-dimensional) surface of a sphere. Hence r^(-2).

    Unless this university has four-d space and hyperspheres, of course.

  173. It does? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Really, so when an apartment of students hook up their broadband router and then have it taken down as "banned" hardware, it was because it was costing money?

    1. Re:It does? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While I'm not saying they're right, your argument is entirely specious. Once you have such a policy in place, you pretty much have to defend it. Students get busted for breaking rules without hurting anyone all the time, just as other people do. Yesterday evening I saw someone driving [well] in front of me, who may or may not have been going faster than I was (for the record) get pulled over doing 65 in a 55 on a road (Highway 53 between Lower Lake and Middletown, CA) on which people regularly do 70. Coulda been me. The guy wasn't hurting anyone and a safe speed survey of the road would show that the safe speed is at least 60 mph. In that section, one has just come down a hill, so it's probably more like 65. In which case, why pull him over? Because he's breaking the law! Take that, lawbreaker! How dare you get anywhere in a timely fashion?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:It does? by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Well, if he wants to quote health concerns as a reason not to spend money on a campus-wide wifi, he cannot very well allow people to set up their own routers, can he?

      --
      AccountKiller
  174. Faraday Cage? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

    Why the hell can't they just wear tinfoil hats like the rest of us?!?

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  175. Well yeah by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

    "but it also means that they didn't prove that it is not harmful."

    Do I need to tell you why this statement is dumb, or can I trust you to educate yourself?

    Hint: proving a negative...

    --
    How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
  176. His attitude is probably right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even assuming we are past the point of worrying about wifi, it probably isn't a bad idea to ban everything until after we're sure it's safe for people.

    We used to use murcury in hatmaking, thought spreading DDT around peoples homes was a good idea, I remember a story about early radiation experiments leading to people with glow in the dark arms who died shortly after.

    Of course, getting a good mechanism for this is tricky, Vioxx was aproved.

  177. The Only Solution... by bloodmusic · · Score: 1

    The only comprehensive solution would of course be to ban all devices that transmit the evil little waves from campus, then surround the entire campus with a giant Faraday cage to prevent incoming. Problem solved!

  178. A poem of sorts... by HamOpMW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fred Gilbert still sees no problem with cell phones, bluetooth headsets, or the standard satellite dish(s) at most Universities (wifi uses on avg 100mW), but the wifi has got to go?

    Oh, don't forget the occasional lightening storm, or solar flare (or the "northern lights") but the wifi has got to go?

    Not to mention the municipal wireless network (used by police, fire, and more) brodcasting at at more than 1 watt, but the wifi has got to go?

    And least we forget... The HUGE head of Mr. Gilbert, which is now creating it's own electromagnetic poles, but the wifi has got to go?


    It's very hard to understand how this guy made it to the position he's in. I can't imagine a guy (who probably stands infront of the microwave at home (900Watts or more)) saying I won't allow wifi unless you can prove it doesn't hurt anyone. That's like going into surgery and coming out telling the doctor, I don't trust medications, and won't be using anything you prescribe. But anaesthesia, that doesn't count.

  179. What an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    What an idiot.

    Cellphone Radiation = (Number of students) x 2W at all times ON EACH PERSONS BODY (remember, 1/d propogation)
    AM RADIO = Minimum for a station = ~250 watts (one town)
    FM RADIO = ~100W (for 15 miles or so, a generic radio station)
    Then add in terrestrial television (analogue and digital), cellphone tower radiation, microwave links, and all other background radiation.

    Wifi Radiation = (20-100mW Per access point) + (20-100mW per simultaneous connected user)

    Wikipedia says they have 7,600 students.

    That means that even with a theoretical super-network of 200APs with 20 external repeators jacked up high with large yagi antennae with 5000 students concurrently accessing it, you'd be using MAXIMUM (all APs at maximum and all students having maximum power cards to give an absolute maximum):
        100mW x 200 APs
    + 100mW x 5000 Students
    + 200mW x 20 APs
    = 20,000 mW APs + 500,000mW Students + 4000mW external connections
    = 524,000mW or 524Watts spread over the entire campus supporting up to 20 long-range connections.

    In comparison, this is the same amount of power that would be present if ONLY 3% (262) of the students had their mobile phones turned on with a *much* lower individual dosage being spread over a far wider area, so *much* healthier. Someone isn't thinking this through and is just paranoid about "electrosmog".

    1. Re:What an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ in parent should read "Propogation = 1/d^2"

      Slashdot doesn't like my character set.

  180. Just a politically correct excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for regulating WiFi. The president hardly wants to say he is limiting freedom of speech or expression, but "protecting the health" from new age death rays is far more acceptable.

  181. Why Not Ban Alcohol? by Coco+Lopez · · Score: 2, Informative

    Firstly, let me just say that anyone from Ontario knows that Lakehead isn't a real university anyway...

    But, why not ban alcohol? It poses more real direct risk than WiFi. (see this report) This smells like a cost-cutting measure wrapped in a big politically correct environmental/health and safety wrapper.

  182. The Roll of Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without really taking a position on this, I would like to pose the possibility that studies are skewed by the inherent interests of the multibillion dollar industry that is cellular telephony. I'm not saying tha tI think they are definitely harmful, but if I remember correctly the March 2005 edition of the University of Washington's Columns magazine has a piece by Rob Harrill that Narendra "N.P." Singh and Henry Lai (researchers there) got in major trouble for just saying that their work suggested that radiation could cause some issues. Again, this doesn't mean that they do, I'm just saying that one should consider the possibility.

  183. No it's not a tumor!! -awwwnold by v3xt0r · · Score: 0

    What would Awwwwnold say about this?

    --
    the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  184. Nuts, teabags, Banana peaks... by friendswelcome · · Score: 1

    Lots of things can end up under a couch. Spilled nuts, drained teabags, old bannana peals, the secretaries un... But I digress. Maybe he just stores them there because he's like a squirrel. He likes to chew on nuts. While posting on slashdot. Flame on!

  185. Prove a negative? HA! by Art16 · · Score: 1

    To require proof of a negative is academic bankruptcy. To prove the negative cannot, nor will it ever be done with anything. The burden of proof lies with those who make the assertion, a "prove the positive". The response to this mythology goes way beyond reality and must be from another universe.

  186. EMF? by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 1

    Your purple 'fro just gives you away. You're unbelieveable.

  187. Double-whammy for Lakehead by geobeck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This comes as the British Columbia Institute of Technology, or BCIT, is about to introduce its own Mechanical Engineering degree for those who have completed the two-year Mecanical Design diploma. Previously, the only way for a Mechanical Technology graduate at BCIT to finish his Engineering degree in two years was to transfer to Lakehead.

    Let's look at the pros and cons of finishing your degree at Lakehead as compared to BCIT:

    Pros:

    • Well-established degree program

    Cons:

    • Summer school bridge program required
    • No wireless Internet
    • A tin-foil-hat president
    • Moving from Vancouver, BC to Thunder Bay, Ontario for two consecutive winters

    Anyone else see a slight enrolment falloff coming?

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  188. Yeah, I'm very concerned... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about crackpot-pseudo-science taking over the world.

  189. Glowing in the dark by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

    I should send my old Belkin WAP to this guy. When the WAP is powered on, it sickens everyone in the house, causes agitation and fights and just a really bad scene.

    Unplug power and everyone is suddenly fine.

    It sucks as a WAP but apparently it's useful as an anti-personnel weapon.

    --
    Sig for hire.
  190. I think the university is covering something up. by jlseagull · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The university is covering for something, this doesn't smell right. Watch for a sweetheart deal with a Wifi provider that has "hypoallergenic and safe" EM waves or something, and look for the uni to pay a premium for it, and banning all other wifi devices is for "health reasons" - not, of course, because the other company wants to charge a premium for their "safe" hardware.

    The students are going to get screwed one way or another, that's for sure.

    --
    'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
  191. Wi-Fi Ban by JerryLs · · Score: 1

    While he's at it, he better ban all cell phone use, and turn off the lights as well. Can't be too safe...

    --
    Ad Astra Per Asper
    1. RE: Wi-Fi Ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree with the gentleman. However, in my opinion he didn't go far enough in protecting his students. He needs to add automobiles (a known killer); electrical appliances (possible shock hazard); gas appliances (chance of asphixiation); open flames; alcoholic beverages; tobaco in any form; candy; any form of water over 1/2" deep (drowning hazard) to the list of possible dangers. While we're at it, eliminate sharp edges and hard surfaces, too. COME ON PREZ - REALLY PROTECT YOUR STUDENTS!!!!!!!!

  192. And the BEST part is.... by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Lakehead University's an engineering school, eh!

    just kidding....

  193. Let the Canadian bashing begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Canadian let me just say that this whole wi-fi affecting the brain issue ... sorry, what were we talking about?

  194. Fallacy by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    When we get to the stage where the evidence is conclusive there is no health impact I have no problem putting wireless in place," said Gilbert.

    Until you prove that ghosts are not secretly eating my food at night, then I will continue to believe that they are.

    What's that logical fallacy called?

  195. Parent makes a _very_ good point. by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone who doesn't know that electromagnetic fields include magnetic fields will likely not be able to comprehend a deep mathematical development of the fact. Unless they're a math major, they won't even get past Grandparent's "tensor" in his first paragraph. Science gets a black mark every time a scientist responds to a layperson's question with a development that buries the layperson in what they will take to be garbage.

    I think a better response would be "No, they are the same thing. The proof is extremely boring, but maybe this example/anecdote/etc. will make it clear." Use a thought experiment if you can; don't give a full treatment unless you know you're talking to someone that should have a background that will allow them to understand what you're saying. Failure to do so makes scientists look arrogant and detached from reality, and the last thing any scientist needs these days is to be dehumanized.

  196. Albert Einstein once said..... by Art16 · · Score: 1

    Albert Einstein once said..... "The law of causality has not the significance of a statement as to the world of experience, except when observable facts ultimately appear as causes and effects." Cite: The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916, trans.W. Perrett & G. B. Jeffery, The Principle of Relativity, p113, Dover, 1923. No one has seen anything about this WiFi mythology that meets Einstein's criteria, by any stretch of the imagination, dreams, magic mushrooms, or just plain holding ones breath.

  197. Alternate Solution by Keweenaw · · Score: 1

    I just wear my aluminum foil hat and copper mesh lined briefs. Problem solved. :) Don't use tin foil...it just doesn't have the style appeal. lol.

  198. It's fraud, probably. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    From the link you gave: "RF-EMF exposure (1800 MHz; SAR 1.2 or 2 W/kg)"

    It's a fraudulent way of getting attention. They are exposing delicate chemical reactions to a HUGE amount of energy. Probably there are times when there is local heating, in spite of the fact they say that is not the reason. Someone at the University of Washington was doing what appears to be the same thing.

    Someone who could show that small amounts of microwave energy could change chemical reactions would 1) become immediately famous everywhere in the world, and 2) win a Nobel Prize. There are many scientists who would like that. The fact that physicists show no interest in working in that direction shows their understanding of the issue.

    If discovers some means of interaction of low-energy photons and chemical reactions, it will probably be a physicist who does it, not someone from the "Division of Occupational Medicine".

    Gamma radiation is very high energy: "Gamma rays form the highest-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum."

    --
    Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

  199. Re:Why Not Ban Alcohol? Because... by geobeck · · Score: 1

    ...what else is there to do in Thunder Bay?

    Then again, with no alcohol on campus, the students could just drive their Ski-Doos to the local pub--sorry, I mean bar. West coast lingo has taken over my lexicon since I escaped from the prairies.

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  200. Guess we're in trouble here in Seattle by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    The entire University of Washington is being wired for Wi-Fi, as well as the adjacent University District, Capitol Hill, Fremont, Ballard, Queen Anne, and Downtown.

    If we're all going to die from Wi-Fi, well, then bring it on! is all I can say.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  201. he's a fool.... by sqrt7744 · · Score: 0

    Instead of banning wifi and cellphones he should introduce a university uniform: Tinfoil. Tinfoil vests, hats, underpants and socks would go a long way to protecting the student's bodies.

  202. Institutional Politics by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

    What, is this guy just trying to piss off the Physics department? Maybe his hard drive got erased when they fired up a big magnet or something...

  203. BAN Wi-fi now! by trelayne · · Score: 1

    Ok, hopefully that got your attention.

    I agree with his move. Why? Because he's being smart----unlike the Neanderthals who think that something they can't see can't hurt them (cell phones included).

    I am heavily pro tech, worked in telecom and some wireless projects. In fact I don't think we're developing technologies as fast as we should be able to.

    However, there is such thing as irresponsible technology. I suspect that we are still in the early days of a cool technological concept: highspeed wireless data communications.
    But these "early days" are akin to the early days of effective
    pesticides (when the now-outlawed DDT was used).

    I strongly suspect that one day, we will be able to come up with a safe and fast wireless comms using completely different means..that'll probably involve using Quantum phenomena. But until that time, we're running after candy being hung over our heads by telecom companies who only really care about making money off of us.

  204. Threat of lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Acting for the benefit of students? Pffft.

    There is only one thing that spins the slow gears of academia -- money. Someone must have threatened to sue.

  205. Bullshit by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

    You said "comparing wi-fi to radio waves" which NO ONE would ever say, knowing that wi-fi IS radio waves.

    That was a REALLY nice try, but you're full of shit, and you got pinched. Be a man and own up to it.

    --
    How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
  206. It's obvious by hausmaus · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's obvious that this is another incident of an "educated" person making a rash, inane and embarrasing decision without any knowledge of the subject they're making a decision on. As a US federally licensed amateur radio operator, it's part of the licensing exam for all three license classes to include a good portion of RF safety.

    If the good doctor would have bothered to check out the facts (such as what's at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html) before inserting his foot in his mouth, he would have read that it's very inconclusive that radio waves of any sort cause cancer. I use a handheld radio that transmits up to five watts of power within a few inches of my head and I've never had any problems. I've never heard of an amateur radio operator dying of cancer caused by his hobby either.

    As it's been said, everything causes cancer. Methinks that Der Fuhrer has alterior motives to shutting down Wi-Fi and everyone else suffers.

    --
    Your email has been returned due to insufficent voltage.
  207. Thank you, I love humorless bastards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a nice day! ;)

  208. It doesn't look ridiculous at all by Ogemaniac · · Score: 1

    There are benefits to imaging growing fetuses. They aren't just done "for fun". In the case of the old technology, there were some risks as well. I don't know enough to make a judgement as to whether the risks were worth the gains. With the modern technology, the risks are negligible and it is simply a matter of cost and convenience vs benefits.

    Tobacco companies in the 50s were much like "right-wingers against Global Warming" or "left-wing Harvard professors against anyone who dares suggest men and women aren't identical on average" are today - locked into nitpicking obvious scientific truths that differ from the world that they want to exist.

  209. Brain Function. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Wow, a link to information on your geocities site. Yeah, you can get cancer from working a high powered radar system. Of course. You can get cancer from anything. Death is a side-effect of living. Pissing on modern convenience because it'll kill us just the same as everything else, is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Hm. Well there's are several things I should point out here. . .

    The first is that Cancer is not the issue with regard to cell phones and low-level EM; rather, it's the effect on brain and cellular chemistry and its effects on consciousness and awareness.

    The second is that this state of affairs is understood by those who brought us the technology and was very likely deliberately designed to have such effects for specific reasons.

    Thirdly, it's fine to say that the world is dangerous and that living is worth the price, but it's an entirely different thing to choose to live under the strictures of a state which does not want you thinking clearly and which deliberately works to deaden your brain function.


    -FL

    1. Re:Brain Function. . . by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

      Now it's my turn to point some things out.

      For starters, whoever modded up "ZOMGLOL YOUR CELLPHONE IS PART OF A GOVERNM3NT PLOT TO MAKE YOU STUPID!!!1111!111" may well be proof of these 'deadened brains'.

      Secondly, this is the worst tripe I've ever heard. And that's saying something.

      Third, I call bullshit. If all this stuff deadens our brains, how do you explain the fact that Japan, which I think we can safely say has the highest density of sophisticated consumer electronics on the face of the Earth (especially cellphones), has a higher literacy rate than the United States, despite a written language containing several THOUSAND complex ideograms? I've got a theory; Americans are stupid. Base any theory or premise on Americans as a baseline, and you'll fail. It's laziness. As a people, we're stupid and lazy. Richest country on the planet, and our literacy rate has been in steady decline for the quarter century I've been alive. Technology didn't make American high schools graduate people who would flunk out of any other educational system on the planet, laziness did. Now _there's_ something that deadens the brain.

      Kindly return to tending your little conspiracy theory website before I sic the thought police on you. Or, if you insist on continuing to troll, might I suggest an elementary school playground as your next venue? The children would make a far better audience for your psuedo-intellectual paranoid delusions than the slashdot crowd.

      Good day to you, sir.

      --

      Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  210. Exactly by phorm · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they could have come up with another reason for not implementing it themselves, but by making it a ban nobody can implement any wireless.

  211. He's not alone... by part15guy · · Score: 1

    Someone should send him this link.

  212. What every happened to since by peej73 · · Score: 1

    What possible link to brain tumours? This seems very unlikely given the physics involved. Perhaps someone should explain the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation and then just to allay all fears they should explain the power levels that are involved. Perhaps he should consider banning FM radios; the remote central locking thingey for his car; and maybe he should go the whole hog and ban solar-flare activity (which actually produces dangerous radiation. Just 'cos you work at a Uni it doesn't mean you know your arse from your hand.

  213. Clarity by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    >>In general most modern applications are not expressed clearly or simply to
    >>normal every day people and programmers or advanced/expert users (i.e. much of
    >>the Slashdot crowd) simply make fun of them. Why should we expect any better
    >>when we don't understand something? Pot, meet kettle.

    I majored in computer science with a minor in writing. I hold nothing but contempt for people that take a simple idea and make it complicated. For people that 'understand' a complex concept but cannot express it with less complexity, again I hold low regard for their intellect.

    I flip it around see it rather as a challenge. If a person asks me, say, what the advantages are of a hyperthreading chip, and I found myself unable to reduce the issue into a correct, meaningful, and jargon-free response, I'd see that as a sign that I didn't understand it well enough, and would hit the books again. Defending a baroque explanation of divs, grads, and undefined variables to someone who obviously hasn't taken basic physics with this:

    "I can only report the truth. I do not have the ability to explain it better than Einstein, Bergmann and Wheeler themselves (Covariant 4-vector formalism is their work mainly)... This person is clearly ignorant about many things, and too arrogant to admit it and try to learn something interesting and relevant to the discussion. (American? Nah! That's just a stereotype)."

    is indefensible. Again, giving an explanation that only someone who already knows the answer can understand is no explanation at all. Perhaps you would call it a proof, or some such, but certainly not an explanation.

    >>My Jargon vocabulary was highly limited until I entered the business world.
    >> At University we used the specific, word that concisely and precisely
    >>describes what we are talking about. The Epidermis -> skin point you use is
    >>actually a good example as skin generally covers multiple layers as aspects,
    >>while epidermis is precise.

    Do you really think that you should tell people to apply a creme to their 'epidermis' instead of their 'skin'? Is Mrs Jones at risk of pulling back her epidermis and dermis so she can apply her antifungal creme to her hypodermis? Hey, you said "skin", after all.

    No. Use terminology only when the difference is important, and if you must, define your terms before unleashing them. Call it a bruise instead of a hematoma, so they don't get a heart attack thinking they have cancer.

    Even when my fiancee is explaining things like pharmokinetics to me, as long I stop her from using terms like AUC, MEC, MTC, etc. I can understand her lectures.

    The key defining factor, of course, is your audience. If I am conducting technology training with K-12 teachers, which I do on a fairly regular basis, I have two options: 1) Use big fancy words to make myself look and feel smart, or 2) Express the exact same concept in words they understand and can use. There's a reason why I get universally good reviews on my workshops: I don't have an ego to get in the way of a clear explanation.

    It doesn't just apply to the general public either. At my university, people applying for professorial positions and people giving defenses of their theses wuold generally talk for an hour or so on their respective areas of expertise, and then would be asked questions. Almost always, the first question was: explain your thesis in three sentences or less. If the person stumbled, or even worse, couldn't answer, they were almost sure to not get the position (graduating students were obviously given a little more leniency, but at the same time the dept chair would tell them they'd better damn well have an answer for that question ready when asked).

    This is a fairly common trend from what I've seen. Some say, for example, the genius of Einstein was not in his theory of relativity, but in his E=mc^2.

    It's a movement I wholeheartedly support.

    >>Is that the simplest explanation? Could

  214. Microwaves are GOOD for you! by Art16 · · Score: 1

    YES! There are prople who believe that electromagnetic energy below 300GHz is good for you. Take a look at the track record for medical shortwave (preWW2) diathermy, and microwave (postWW2) diathermy (2.45GHz). Deliberate exposure at levels and durations designed to produce tissue heating to millions of people for medical purposes. No one died from it, no one developed tumors, cancer, warts, electrosensitivity, itching, ESP, or anything else, for that matter. Microwave diathermy is still in use worldwide, primarily in sports medicine. Of course, there are some that believe that magnets are dood for you, and bad for you, too. Belief reigns, emotions run amok, but it is still zero in the end, the null set.

  215. Gilbert is a Doofus by Michael1Shop · · Score: 1

    I am a Lakehead U. Alumnus and have a different theory.

    Lakehead got a huge government grant a few years back to invest in their computer infastructure. They have little cubbyhole computer labs all over the place. It was a great idea and one the University implemented very well. You can't walk far in any University building before you pass by a room full of computers available for use.

    I would be willing to bet that alot of the reasoning here is they are afraid that if they launch Wi-fi, fewer people will actually use any of those labs. If noone uses the labs, then it will appear that their government grant was wasted, and that means fewer government grants in the future!

    Rather than see years of lobbying and hard work just thrown out the window, Gilbert has come up with a stupid excuse to say no.

    AND, to respond to a few comments...

    1. As with any student body ANYWHERE, banning alcohol WOULD cause an uprising, but this is especially true in Thunderbay. With 8 HOURS drive to the nearest city (Winnepeg or Deluth!) residents like to drink to forget that they are stuck in middle of nowhere... then they go bowling.

    2. A lot of people that leave comments don't have a clue what they are talking about (anymore than Lakehead's Gilbert!)

    .

  216. Oh stop it. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Riiiiiight.

    Show me a link to a paper published in Nature or Science, or the New England Journal of Medicine, hell, even in the IEEE journal, and I'll check it out. A book on Amazon? Anyone can get any pseudoscientific crap published, and can even get a few Ph.D's to sign off on it, and will sell a million copies if it happens to relate to the FUD-du-jour.


    Sooo. . , you only let knowledge in when it comes stamped with authoritarian approval? Do you lack so much confidence in your own abilities that you need others to sort sense from nonsense? You can't do that on your own? --When you give up your thinking powers to others, others will not respect you, nor will they give you the information which might allow you to grow powerful enough to question them. Slave herders like being in charge. Science and Nature and various Journals of Medicine are limited in what they can publish by boundaries which have more to do with egos, corporate funding issues and fear of ridicule than anything to do with the limits of real science.

    Until you change your approach to thinking, you will not be able to amount to anything beyond the limits placed upon you by those who have tricked you into believing that authority figures are the only ones who know how to assess data and that you are too stupid to think for yourself.

    Honestly. You act as though simply looking or thinking about anything beyond the safe, pre-defined boundaries will somehow corrupt your mind. You are stronger than that.

    Yes, microwaves are dangerous. They heat you up, especially the water in your outer tissues. But I'm a lot more worried about the gazillion-watt microwave source 150 million km away than I am about the tiny transmitters in the city around me.

    Yes, microwave radiation is directly damaging at high powers. However, at low powers, as from cell phones, etc., the concerns have far more do to with how cells react, particularly in the nervous system. Lots of funny things happen to one's cognition and perception and brain chemistry when using a cell phone. There are some mechanisms which have been recognized and studied which play a part in this. If you are even slightly human, then you should be slightly curious, and if you have any courage whatsoever, you might try doing some exploration beyond the orthodox limits. It's not going to kill you. And by all means, if a text seems lame, then ditch it. --But you should determine its validity through applied thought and cross examination, not by looking at which authority figures are sniggering and trying your best to not be labeled, 'uncool'.

    Only muggles care if muggles laugh at them.


    -FL

  217. Courage. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Good day to you, sir.

    Hm. This parting line of yours sounds suspiciously like you will be covering ayour ears now and saying, "La La La, I Can't Hear You!" no matter what I say from this point forth.

    Well, fine. While I may risk wasting my time actually responding to your 'points', here goes. . .

    For starters, whoever modded up "ZOMGLOL YOUR CELLPHONE IS PART OF A GOVERNM3NT PLOT TO MAKE YOU STUPID!!!1111!111" may well be proof of these 'deadened brains'.

    Okay. I don't actually know who you're referring to here or what it has to do with anything we've been discussing. Perhaps you are one of those people who thinks that because some people are insane that ALL people are insane. --Think of it this way; If you met a person who was nuts and you noticed that he wore a red tee shirt, would it be logical to then say, "People with red tee shirts are nuts."? If you need help understanding that, let me know.

    Secondly, this is the worst tripe I've ever heard. And that's saying something.

    Uh. . , (speaking of brain dead). . , this second 'point' of yours isn't actually a point. It's an opinion. If you want to call it a 'point', then you will need to explain why you hold that opinion.

    Third, I call bullshit. If all this stuff deadens our brains, how do you explain the fact that Japan, which I think we can safely say has the highest density of sophisticated consumer electronics on the face of the Earth (especially cellphones), has a higher literacy rate than the United States, despite a written language containing several THOUSAND complex ideograms?

    For that matter, how do I explain that with all this EM pollution people are still able to walk and drive cars? And speak? --And play video games requiring speedy hand-eye coordination!

    I can, however, say for all that, people sure seem pretty dumb. Your argument, for instance, is lacking a degree of necessary logic to be considered anything even remotely conclusive. --Nobody said that being able to recognize words on a page was removed from a person when they use a cell phone. Reading comprehension and higher reasoning, however, are probably in question. Perhaps I am bold in suggesting that you seem to be something of an example in this case. . .

    Kindly return to tending your little conspiracy theory website before I sic the thought police on you. Or, if you insist on continuing to troll, might I suggest an elementary school playground as your next venue? The children would make a far better audience for your psuedo-intellectual paranoid delusions than the slashdot crowd.

    I don't have a conspiracy website. I scanned a few book pages so that I might share them with others because it was easier than photocopying them and walking down to the mail box. I find it curious how often people are so scared of thinking and exploring that they recoil from the idea of reading a few paragraphs which may threaten their world view. If your world view makes sense, then surely it can withstand a few paragraphs, and if not, then surly you would want to repair it so that it can. Right? It's as though people are scared that their brains will somehow be corrupted by text. Have you no confidence in your own abilities to sort data on your own? A little courage is in order here.


    -FL

  218. The Technicalities Dont Matter! by MasterJediDoug · · Score: 1

    i agree that there may be some level of damage done with radiation, simply because... its radiation, it doesnt sound like something you would want on the list of ingredients in your food. but the point isnt so much whether it does damage, or even the extent of the damage (which seems much more important than the over all argument of yes or no, radiation?) but instead, is it worth the damage? sure it might emit radiation, which might be bad, but come on, its free wi fi! how can some radiation be compared to the possabilities made available with free wifi acces? if they really have any beef with it, well, they also make u sit in classes all day, which isnt what our bodies naturally want or need. but its the point of what we do sitting in the chairs all day that makes it worth the cost (usually) and so shouldnt the use fullness of wifi negate those "possible" side effects?