Slashdot Mirror
UK Schools Bans WiFi Due To Health Concerns
Mantrid42 writes "Schools in the UK are getting rid of their WiFi network, citing health concerns from parents and teachers. The wireless emanations, parents fear, may be the root cause of a host of problems from simple fatigue to the possibility of cancer. A few scientists think younger humans may be more vulnerable to the transmissions, because of thinner skulls. From the article: "Vivienne Baron, who is bringing up Sebastian, her ten-year-old grandson, said: 'I did not want Sebastian exposed to a wireless computer network at school. No real evidence has been produced to prove that this new technology is safe in the long term. Until it is, I think we should take a precautionary approach and use cabled systems.'"
What doesn't cause cancer?
" No real evidence has been produced to prove that this new technology is safe in the long term."
I'm sorry, but we're not talking about kryptonite or magical dark matter here.. these are devices operating with known technology in a known spectrum-- and let me add, not the only devices in this spectrum. WiFi isn't the only technology to operate at 2.4ghz (and I think some of the standards.. 802.11a? operate at 5.8ghz) -- are these parents seking to ban microwaves and cordless telephones? Even cellphones (and I'm sure many of them at least use cellular phones around their kids, iand some no doubt actually provide their kids with mobile phones) operate on similar 900mhz / 1800mhz / etc frequencies.
Someone with more of a science background, please reply (and correct me if necessary), but whether or not wireless internet has been studied over the "long term" have not several other devices that operate in the same (or very close) sprectrums? How is this anything but FUD?
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Glad to see we don't have a monopoly on idiocy here in the States...
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Exception: Argument from Ignorance
there is no *evidence* that these devices CAUSE problems...
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Stands a greater risk of injury from tripping over the cables of a wired network than from the RF emitted from a wireless network. Our poor, ignorant UK friends...
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
The amount of energy pushed out bu 802.11a/b/g networks is miniscule and it's almost background level when you consider cell phones, TW transmissions, RADAR and a whole host of other technologies that have been in use for much much longer.
Many of the environmentalist policies and acts legislated by governments provide little or no real benefits.
As one friend of mine said - it's like putting a bandage on a wooden leg....
$5 bucks says she's talking on her cell phone with her little Sebastian within a few feet of her.
I haven't been able to pee since I installed my new linksys. This solves it.
...to chase away idiot teachers like this one. And they wonder why science scores are declining in England?
"Stowe School, the Buckinghamshire public school, also removed part of its wireless network after a teacher became ill. Michael Bevington, a classics teacher for 28 years at the school, said that he had such a violent reaction to the network that he was too ill to teach.
"I felt a steadily widening range of unpleasant effects whenever I was in the classroom," he said. "First came a thick headache, then pains throughout the body, sudden flushes, pressure behind the eyes, sudden skin pains and burning sensations, along with bouts of nausea. Over the weekend, away from the classroom, I felt completely normal.""
Having installed wireless networks in *dozens* of schools, this is pretty much the reaction I experience with a few hours exposure to schools.
Sounds like the grandmother needs the schooling at least as much as the kids. I suggest starting with a list of RF-producing devices, then move on to the inverse square law...
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Too bad the cables are covered in asbestos!!! Muhahahhaa.
I don't get it, are we not bombarded with radio waves. AM/FM Radio, cell phones, cordless phones. Natural occurring radio waves? I though it was just something in the environment we learned to harness.
No matter how many studies one has that fail to detect a hazard, there is always a chance that the hazard was too subtle to be statistically detectable, or was of a type of hazard that wasn't investigated (e.g., hearing loss or arthritis).
It's the old saying - you can't prove a negative. Actually, you can't prove anything in science. You can only present evidence.
Cellphones output many times the power of a wifi network (since wifi is in an unregulated band the power is limited) and you hold the transmitter right up to your ear. If the link between cancer and cellphones is tenuous, how are we to believe that wifi is terrible?
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
"First came a thick headache, then pains throughout the body, sudden flushes, pressure behind the eyes, sudden skin pains and burning sensations, along with bouts of nausea. Over the weekend, away from the classroom, I felt completely normal."
It's the HVAC. Classic infrasound symptoms.
He's not nuts at least.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Wireless is minimal compared to everything else. We live in an electromagnetic world, with electromagnetic waves everywhere.
802.11-b/g operate on the same frequency as microwaves (i.e. in the microwave spectrum); a microwave is shielded by physical means (no, no magical force fields when you power it up), and if you toss a laptop inside (don't turn the microwave on!) you can still connect to it over wifi with good signal. The shielding lets more through than wifi.
We have TV stations and radio stations broadcasting electromagnetic signals everywhere. There's electromagnetic waves from these and the earth's magnetic field all through the air. There's even electromagnetic radiation from space penetrating the atmosphere, although in very very tiny quantities; without the atmosphere, direct exposure to the level of electromagnetism out there would cook you, kind of like direct exposure to the 1200 watt microwave in the kitchen...
Many cordless phones operate on the 2.4GHz range (some in the 5.0GHz range to avoid colliding with 802.11-a/b/g Wifi) and are everywhere. Cell phones operate in that range too. The police band, tower-to-air radio, and Ham radio wade around high frequency EM as well. Aside from simple cordless phones, these are all a lot stronger than a Wifi AP.
Any device with electricity running through it produces an electromagnetic field in some abstract frequency. You get 60Hz EMI coming out of power lines and power cables; once it hits a transformer you might get more, such as the 15MHz that comes out of a flyback transformer in a TV. You won't get the gigahertz range or anything, but you'll get some sort of electromagnetic field just the same.
You can't escape it. You can hide under a rock 500 meters in the ground but you'll still have enough of the earth's magnetic field to use a compass. What kind of idiot thinks Wifi is magically special?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Fortunately, us stoopid Brits do understand enough statistics to know that drawing conclusions about the whole population from a sample of one is unlikely to give reliable results. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What fud!
This is not a concern of pretty much all UK schools, their pupils or their parents.
The reason behind the story is simply that newspapers sell papers based on how sensational the issues are. If they could convince people to believe parents won't sending their children to school because of fears of radioactive textbooks, they would print that also.
Another question is: what is the real reason behind banning wifi in schools? You don't ban technology because your child's skull is thin, do you?
hospitals have wireless networks
people die in hospitals, these wireless network tubes must be dangerous things! won't anyone think of the children?
According to the article, he taught in the same building for 28 years (which would predate the wireless network), and was ill when the wireless network was put in, but not after the portion near his classroom was removed. It seems unlikely that the lighting or chemicals in the air would change substantially in correlation with the activation or deactivation of the wireless router near his room.
Occam's razor says it was the wireless network. Let's not confuse science with wishful thinking in hoping all cool technology is safe.
I'm sorry, but what the hell does this have to do with "environmentalists"? You seem to have picked a group you don't like and ascribed some entirely irrelevant stupid belief to them.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
like the rest of us....
join the club....
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
"Occam's razor says it was the wireless network. Let's not confuse science with wishful thinking in hoping all cool technology is safe."
Yeah.. he couldn't *possibly* have just had a flu or something like that.
The article doesn't specify, but you'd think if it was such a horribly dangerous technology, there'd be sick people like this all over his school.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Just give them all tin-foil hats and be done with it.
any argument taken seriously that prevents young minds from communication is very troubling
the real issue here is NOT health - it is being driven by the idea that young minds have access to a world of ideas not under control from those in power. the Internet has a global set of ideas - empowering, liberating, libralizing, and educating ideasl this is quite contrary to the mentality in most lower schools which are follow the rules, learn/do what you're told, and tow the line.
the idea that kids the age of 8 or 9 or 10 (ish) are educated and empowered is deathly frightening to small minded parents, who are so childish themselves they can't deal with strong people. So instead, they cite some completely absurd health scare to keep kids from easy, broad access to online content.
it is sadly ironic that by applying an argument to protect their health, they will actually harm these children by limiting their access to the Internet
No; saying it is the wireless network would fly in the face of countless studies over decades that have tried (and failed) to identify any link between radio waves and wellness. The simplest explaination would be either another environmental difference (air quality, lighting, stress etc.) that are proven to affect people, or simple placebo.
Jeremy
They should check for other probable causes before thinking about EM. Symptoms outlined here seem to point to problems with air quality (fungus, dust). These problems are very prevalent in aging buildings.
Alright, so here's an idea: tell them you're turning it back on just to "see if the effects happen again". Then put fake routers in so it looks like there's a wireless network, but don't actually turn it on. See how many people complain about the illness they're getting from the non-existent wireless network.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Why in hell can't they just wear tinfoil hats like the rest of us?
You're using her as bait, Master!
Seeing as most people pick up wireless networks from their neighbours etc, are they going to ban people who live near schools from having APs? Big signs up near schools telling people to disable the wifi in their laptops? The whole thing is entirely pointless. Also hope that teacher has been to a doctor, sounds like he needs his head checked, or he really hates his job and hasn't realised yet...
"As a rational human being, Al-Qaeda are a loose association of psychopathic zealots who could be rounded up with a sustained police investigation. But speaking as a parent, they're all eight foot tall, they've got lasers under their moustaches, a huge eye in their foreheads and the only way to kill them is to nuke every country that hasn't sent us a Christmas card in the the last 20 years. Speaking as a mother..." - Bill Bailey
I'm reminded of a story from when I was at my British school in the eighties. We had a day trip to British Aerospace as they sponsored the technology course I was doing. At BA they had an enormous experimental radar system that the guy explained emitted MW radiation to work. To show us how much power there was in front of us he *threw* a raw sausage past the front of the thing and with much glee retrieved it and let us feel how hot it was!!
Pretty sure I was exposed to more radiation that day than in my whole life. And felt a man's hot sausage. But no-one thought of the children in those days so it didn't matter.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
Some people are susceptible to things others aren't -- lots don't notice 60Hz CRT screen refresh as anything more than the occasional flicker, others get migraines from anything less than 120Hz (or a stable display such as a TFT.)
Some people have the misfortune to be allergic to sunlight or even water.
It doesn't follow that because most people are fine in an environment that it doesn't make others ill.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
The 2.4ghz segment of the microwave spectrum used for wireless devices is essentially harmless. E = hc/w where w = wavelength (normally he symbol lambda is used). The wavelength in this section of the spectrum is very large, comparatively speaking. You know those little holes in the screen of the microwave? Simply put, even those are too small for a microwave to fit through. And the amplitude of wireless lan devices is rather small--ban cellular phones long before you ban a wifi network. The most that particular set of frequencies can do is warm the human body up, and to do that it would need to be far more intense of a signal to have any noticeable effect. Those florescent bulbs used for lighting are more harmful--that white coating on the inside is all that's keeping ultraviolet light, which is harmful, inside the bulb.
There's no evidence that it isn't harmful, I'll give you that. But find evidence that the easter bunny doesn't exist while you're at it. Just because some mammals grow so large, or just because some electromagnetic waves have the potential of being harmful, doesn't mean they all do.
2.4 ghz seems to be the frequency that messes with me. Had to go back to a long, long ethernet cable between two Macs in the house because the network was giving me headaches. And cell phones have always given me headaches if i use them for more than a few minutes. having 2 on in the house seems to have the same effect as a wireless network between computers. Finally, 2.4 wireless home phone systems also cause me grief. Have to use a headset or a mere 5 minutes into the conversation I'm in headache-city again. A 5.8 system I was given, married with the wireless computer network was the worst I've ever expereinced. Had to ditch the 5.8 phones. Though, it seems that over time I can get slowly used to it.
The most interesting moment was during a thanksgiving last year. My wife was working in the kitchen on the main floor, getting the dinner ready, while I was downstairs playing with our children. Had the wireless Apple Airport Express unit in the kitchen with my wife, and the wireless network card turn on in my Mac downstairs. I told her that in the next 2 hours or so, plug the unit into a wall outlet whenever she wanted, but write down the time, and I'd write down the time I think she plugged it in. She did it twice. About 35 minutes between each time, about 40 minutes into the test. I nailed it to the minute both times. Whenever she plugged it in, my eyes would within minutes get very dry, I'd get the cranky, dull headache, and the most odd feeling was the sense that I was moving in slow motion, but only for a minute or so. I of course realize none of this is supposed to be happening, but it happens far too consistently, for far too long for me personally to rule out. I can tell when a friend, client, or cafe has wireless within seconds of entering the home.
From the BBC:
"However with church attendance on the decline and only 7% of Christians in the UK attending church, the figure seems remarkably high."
So I'm going to say that based on your stat and this one, a significant (majority?) of people in the UK are culturally christian, but not epistemologically christian...
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
"Fortunately, us stoopid Brits do understand enough statistics to know that drawing conclusions about the whole population from a sample of one is unlikely to give reliable results. :-)"
That's interesting to hear considering a lot of the "Americans are stupid" and "Americans are fat" comments I've heard here came from Brits.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Or, all that fatigue, cancer, hyperactivity, confusion, stupidity, fat, and behavioral problems could be caused by being poisoned by sugar water. Sugar is one hell of a toxic substance to the human body... empty calories that rob the body of nutrient to process it, do not provide a continuous supply of energy for the body, are addictive, and when drunk in excess cause hyperactivity, then depression, hypoglycemia, getting fat, and eventually, diabetes. Add hefty amounts of caffeine into the mix (which is actually a poison given off by the coca plant) and you've bot one toxic mix.
After 20 years of drinking and being addicted to this crap, I've found out the hard way. Throughout those 20 years its tore up my life, made me think I was insane, chronically fatigued, confused, unable to concentrate, and eventually gotten down right sick.
Its not the wifi, its the sugar water.
Numerous studies on the toxicity of sugar to the body can be found on the net. No, refined sugar is not the same as blood glucose, and no, you body does not need refined sugar to function. Healthy vegtables, meat, water, and fiber. Zero sugar. Zero caffeine.
i have an acer aspire notebook with built in 802.11 G. I am a freelancer and work from this notebook every day - perhaps for 8-12 hours. the notebook's radio is offset to the right front portion of the notebook, say under the right hand when on the home keys.
maybe three to six weeks after getting the notebook, i started noticing a pain in my thigh. it was an internal heat pain in the right side of my thigh and it got worse the longer I was in front of the notebook.
i thought it was a cramp or orthopedic thing from bad posture. but when i use my other notebook, an IBM with the radio antennae (external) pointed out to the side, I don't feel this pain. Nor do I feel it when I turn off the radio and use a wired network.
I experimented with it over several weeks. every time I was in front of the notebook, I felt the pain in my right upper thigh, which worsened the longer I was in front of it.
I experimented further. I pushed myself away from my desk and increased the distance betwen myself and the notebook - this reduced the severity of the burning pain.
The final straw was falling asleep at my notebook and waking up with a blinding headache on one side of my head, which was against the notebook. To me the conclusion was certain.
I've permanently disabled the radio on that laptop and no longer feel this pain at all. It's gone.
My personal conclusion, proximity is the issue. And notebook proximity to wifi radios might be too close for prolonged exposure to RF radiation without appreciable detrimental symptoms.
Hours of staring at a screen without proper exercise or diet leading to fatigue?
:-)
Besides, CRTs blast more energy into your skull than wifi. We should ban old monitors and TVs
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
If the kids at school suffers from fatigue, headache, asthmatic and flue-like symptoms, perhaps it was time to check the indoor environment. Anything from mold and mildew over the paint used to the chemicals emitted from electronic components of new computers in the class room.
Given that microwave transmissions are designed to be picked up from far away by devices, perhaps the neurons in the brain are similarly capable of being affected by those transmissions?
Power levels are not the issue. The issue is that the human nervous system is electrochemical in nature and is designed to respond on the cellular level to vanishingly small electrical impulses. Of course, few are aware of this. The telcos are more than happy to keep the debate spinning on about the non-issue of human tissues being heated by microwaves.
-FL
Once more: 2.45 GHz is NOT the resonance frequency of liquid water, this is a myth.
What you have to realise about us British and to some extent mainland Europeans is that we'll take the piss out of everyone, everything and that includes ourselves. I think its a result of us not warring between ourselves anymore, instead of invading the French we just call them frogs, and instead of invading us they'll insult our cuisine. So when a Brit tells a joke like "I quite like America... its just a shame its full of Americans." we don't really mean it in a hostile fashion.
There: Problem Solved!
Yeah I noticed that too. Whenever there's some dick tailgating behind me chances are good that they'll have some Born Again insignia or We Support Our Troops magnets.
With the Born Agains, I guess they are just too focused on their eternal reward in heaven to give a fuck about some plain day-to-day courtesy on Earth.
Happy people make bad consumers.
One time I was playing around with a C-BAND dish (those big ugly satellite dishes your rich uncle had that he stole skinamax on). I had the LNB (pick up eye) hooked to a spectrum analyzer and was looking for satellites to peruse, and I noticed that there was a constant, clipped spike (past the limits of the analyzer's upper bar) around 2.4GHz, no matter if the dish was pointed at the sky, at the ground, directly into the building, or if the eye was off the dish entirely, it never changed.
I unplugged out 802.11g box to see if that was causing it, and it didn't make one difference in the size of the spike. The world is so flooded with consumer electronics that run at that frequency that it makes no never mind whether you, personally, give it up or not.
I'd be a lot more worried about crusading against the, undoubtedly high, levels of mold and mildew that no doubt infests the circulation system at such an instititution, as I've never worked in a school that had good air quality besides the new high school they built on the hill last year, and that was only good until the students showed up.
Absolutely. People seem to confuse "irradiated" and "radioactive". The "radioactive" symbol means just that, that whatever it is on is a source of radioactivity. Irradiated food merely had radiation passed through it - it does not remain radioactive.
The assassination of Litvinenko in London a few days ago is a case in point. He consumed radioactive material. That his unagi was irradiated in the process is irrelevant.
The difference between eating irradiated food and ingesting radioactive material is like that between eating a flame-broiled steak and eating a flaming Duralog.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
That's okay, I'm not using Aethernet, I'm using Tolkien Ring.
(Yah, I know, but is that really any worse than some of ther other jokes in this thread?)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
That will never work. It depends on people being able to think for themselves. To paraphrase Dan Akroyd as Ray Zalinsky in the movie Tommy Boy: What the average person doesn't know is what makes them an average person. Look at how many people buy lottery tickets every day.
(Yes, I know the article is about a school in the UK while the original quote was about the American public. Hence "paraphrase". Same principle still applies.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.