Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

University Bans wi-fi as Health Concern

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the microwaves-still-ok dept.

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?"

90 of 693 comments (clear)

  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 darth_linux · · Score: 4, Funny

      he's prob married.

      --
      Power to the Penguin!
    4. 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
    5. 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.

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

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

  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 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.

    2. 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.

      --
      Come hear me sing!
  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 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!

  4. 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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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."

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

      --


      Find Nearby Indie Events
    13. 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.
    14. 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

    15. 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.'"
  5. More tags by MeanMF · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [+] Tinfoil, helmet

  6. 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.

    --
    google.slashdot
    1. 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.

    2. 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);
    3. 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
    4. 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!
    5. 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
    6. 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?
  7. 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
  8. 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."
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    --
    go get it
  11. 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
  12. "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 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!
  13. Ban Girls by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

    that the earth is one giant magnetic field

    --
    Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
    1. 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
  15. 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 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?
  16. What is he, crazy? by l3prador · · Score: 3, Funny

    What is he, crazy?

    Hasn't he ever heard of magnetic therapy?

  17. 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.
  18. 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~
  19. 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.

  20. "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."

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  21. 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 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
  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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!

  25. 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.

  26. 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]

    --
    The ______ Agenda
  27. 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.

  28. 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

      Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm a grad student in theoretical physics. Here is some third party material to verify that the above is correct:


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field _tensor

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-vector

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_Equations

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformatio n

      http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures /node10.html

      http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures /node23.html

      http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures /node24.html

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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..
  32. Obvious solution by cuteintern · · Score: 2, Funny
    Clearly,

    All he needs to do is issue or orer students to wear tonfoil hats.

    So simple.

  33. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  34. 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

  35. 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.

  36. 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

  37. 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.
  38. 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.

  39. 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
  40. 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!

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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
  45. 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.

  46. 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.