Parents' Campaign Leads To Wi-Fi Ban In New Zealand School

drmofe writes "Two parents in New Zealand have orchestrated the removal of a school's Wi-Fi system. They have expressed the concerns that Wi-Fi causes cancer and other health issues. The child of one of these parents died recently from brain cancer. This appears to be an emotional area and one where decisions appear to be being made without evidence. The NZ Ministry of Education provides guidelines for the safe use of Wi-Fi in schools and the school itself was operating within those guidelines."

Comments

There's a question about that at Skeptics

[satuon]

There's a question about that are Skeptics stack exchange - http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1178/are-wifi-waves-harmful

This is the answer:

===============

WIFi is non-ionising radiation and so has similar issues to other radiation using similar frequencies such as mobile telephones and microwave ovens. These produce heating effects. WiFi is not focused, so any impact should be very small and perhaps not measurable.

I am not aware of any health studies specifically on WiFi. There have been studies on mobile phones which has shown that while the phone is in use and held next to the head, there is small but measurable heating effect on human tissue. My guess is that it has less impact than standing at right angles to the Sun so one side of the head gets warmer faster than the other. Even then, these studies have produced no evidence that this has any health impact, positive or negative:

A large body of research exists, both epidemiological and experimental, in non-human animals and in humans, of which the majority shows no definite causative relationship between exposure to mobile phones and harmful biological effects in humans.
And per Dr. Michael Clark of the HPA, WiFi is a fraction of the energy of a cell phone:

“When we have conducted measurements in schools, typical exposures from wi-fi are around 20 millionths of the international guideline levels of exposure to radiation. As a comparison, a child on a mobile phone receives up to 50 per cent of guideline levels. So a year sitting in a classroom near a wireless network is roughly equivalent to 20 minutes on a mobile. If wi-fi should be taken out of schools, then the mobile phone network should be shut down, too — and FM radio and TV, as the strength of their signals is similar to that from wi-fi in classrooms.”
The Sun does emit ionising radiation (ultra violet) and that has significant health effects such as sunburn, pigmentation changes and Vitamin D production. WiFi's impact, if anything, is nothing like this.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Joce640k]

You expect us to believe a page on the Internet?

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Lisias]

You expect us to believe a page on the Internet?

It's not worst than papers, television and even radio - there's humans behind it, afterall.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Cryacin]

We Australians exported all of the people like this to New Zealand. It raised the average IQ in both countries.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[gl4ss]

well believe either that page or the one saying that we all have cancer..

Besides, if they didn't ban mobile phones I really, really don't see the point in banning wifi.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Joce640k]

Good post!! But really no need to post it here you need to fax this (oh wait that may also cause cancer)

That thermal FAX paper also contains massive amounts of oestrogen imitators that will make you sterile and grow massive moobs. Watch out for those next time you touch a till receipt in a shop...!

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it the wrong way ...
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/new-zealand-migration-to-australia-soars-40-per-cent/story-fnixwvgh-1226790754690

The article talks about dole bludgers heading across to Australia.

And the numbers ...
"648,200 New Zealand citizens are living in Australia" ...
"About 64,000 Australian citizens are living in New Zealand."

I know you meant it as a joke, but it sort of makes you look like the fool

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[jamstar7]

well believe either that page or the one saying that we all have cancer..

Besides, if they didn't ban mobile phones I really, really don't see the point in banning wifi.

Blaming wifi or cell phones is easy. Actually digging around and finding the true cause of the cancer is hard. Besides, you might discover the cause was environmental, say, the coating on some cookware, or contaminants in food, drink, laundry detergent, whatever. And discovering a household product triggered a cancer is actionable. Best blame it on the wifi and shift the attention of the pitchforks and torches brigade.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[CadentOrange]

You realise that faux is pronounced "foe"?

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Chuckstar]

For the record, the sun's heating and radio wave heating would work differently. The sun heats the surface. The sun wouldn't do a particularly good job of heating the brain. The scalp would heat up, but then blood does a pretty good job of distributing that heat around, and the skull would be a decent insulator. Radio waves would penetrate into the brain and heat it directly.

Furthermore, there is at least one study showing that glucose metabolism in the brain increases in the presence of cell phone radiation.

Having said all of that, there's pretty much no way that either cell phones or WiFi are causing brain cancer. We've been engaged in a natural experiment of the effect of these forms of radiation. Both WiFi and cell phone usage have gone from "doesn't exist" to "ubiquitous" in the course of the last couple decades. We're not seeing an increase in any cancer rate that would show a correlation (let alone causation) with the rather dramatic increase in exposure to such radiation.

These parents want someone/something to blame for their child's death. It's very much that simple.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[SumDog]

Fun fact: Kiwi student loans never gain interest and have no late fees. There's almost no point in paying them back...except if you want to leave the country. If you move to Australia, the US or any other country to work, you have to start paying off those loans and they gain interest.

There are only 4 million people here. The entire population of Melbourne (or Sydney) is this entire country.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[SteveTheNewbie]

You should really try coming up with something original..

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/new-zealanders-who-emigrate-to-australia-raise/411291.html

Who knows, maybe these parents are prime material for emigration to Australia. ;-)

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[mpe]

Blaming wifi or cell phones is easy. Actually digging around and finding the true cause of the cancer is hard.

It would be finding the cause of a specific cancer. Since that would be a combination of both how a cell malfunction and how it got missed by the immune system.

Besides, you might discover the cause was environmental, say, the coating on some cookware, or contaminants in food, drink, laundry detergent, whatever. And discovering a household product triggered a cancer is actionable.

Like many other things cancer is probably G by E. Involving the interaction of both genetic and environmental factors. So there is no single "cause" in the first place.
That's before even considering that some of the potential environmental factors might actually be common or even considered "healthy".

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[C0R1D4N]

When there's an environmental cause in a place such as a school, generally more than one kid gets it. Example

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[mpe]

It surprises me that it wasn't here in the US, but I'm waiting for it after this!!!
By the way (sarcasm) does New Zealand practice witch craft and believe in evil spirits? Because I thought they were beyond this type of voodoo!!!

You can find such people anywhere. Probably fewer in NZ than the USA. But only because of the difference in total population.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[fatphil]

Link is SFW, it's about a Hooker, and their diseased "love canal", nothing to worry about at all.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Hognoxious]

By the way (sarcasm) does New Zealand practice witch craft and believe in evil spirits?

Indeed, their rugby team put a hoodoo on their opponents before each game.

As to whether it works, I'd say statistically it's more likely than wifi causing cancer.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[pr100]

This is a clear reference to Bill Roger's joke about people moving from Oklahoma to California increasing the average IQ of both states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Rogers_phenomenon

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Merls the Sneaky]

Q: What does sperm and a kiwi (New Zealander) have in common?

A: They both come in their millions but only one of them works.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[flyneye]

Wi-Fi may not cause cancer, but it does cause anxiety, depression, fits of rage, convulsions and skin conditions when it isnt working properly.
Left on its own it draws electricity, war drivers and stupid questions.
Something should be done...

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Ash Vince]

We Australians exported all of the people like this to New Zealand. It raised the average IQ in both countries.

Actually, I think you will find us Brits exported the people like this to you in Oz first :)

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[TheTurtlesMoves]

And at a primary school its very distracting from basic education.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[flyneye]

So are the other fanciful ideas brought to basic education by child psychologists, teachers associations and unions.
Wi-Fi isnt even on the map as important, compared to these.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Vitriol Angst]

I'd say that I somewhat agree with the "has no effect" position, but only because of dumb luck. Between WiFi and Cell Phones -- the cell phone will have 1000x more chance of being a problem because you hold it right to your face. So just based on the "square of the distance" law with signal strength alone, it's going to be too low.

However, I do believe that EM fields are going to have an effect -- it's just that it's likely based on a specific frequency and it would "interrupt" the absorption of certain nutrients -- so the effect isn't direct but would cause symptoms and those symptoms would also be impacted by someone's lifestyle and metabolism. Cells have what is called a "Calcium gate" and that resonates depending on what signals it gets from the cell nucleus and this impacts what types of ionized molecules are let through -- attracted to the net positive potassium charge inside the cell. I'm not sure if this is part of the textbooks or not, but it will be I'm fairly sure. This resonance should be influenced based on what ions it's trying to attract and an EM field frequency -- but only a very specific one. And I'm not sure even if that's going to be in mHZ or kHZ -- I've not seen research on it yet.

We are just getting into the age where we have to figure out how complex systems are impacted. Currently, one drug and one pesticide can get approval when tested as one drug and one pesticide, and the same for EM fields. We don't know how to test for thousands of interactions. So the "cause = effect" scenario where there is positive proof is hard to find -- but it should be there in the real world. We just have a larger petri dish to contend with these days.

The growing angst of primitive fear I understand -- it's not just that things are too complex and people are Luddites, I think it's proper to question when things cannot be proven safe. There are too many who are ready to gloss over issues of immunization, EM effects and GM foods because there is no 1-to-1 case study showing "add X and get Y result." Toss in every letter of the alphabet and people just start getting sick in random ways. And human reason and emotion just lends itself to a vague sense of unease which results in irrational responses.

I only see these kinds of debates heating up because it's really hard to prove something definitive if we don't have an explanation of why more people are getting certain maladies.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[karnal]

As long as you didn't use WiFi to read it, yes.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Noughmad]

I would, but I suspect my router has altered its contents. Or it has altered my brain, I'm not sure which.

Re: There's a question about that at Skeptics

[henryteighth]

Faux isn't phonetically similar to fox, though. You do realise that faux is a French word, and that pronouncing it like "foe" is entirely consistent with other French pronunciation, don't you?

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[EvilSS]

Only if it's written with no scientific basis, is completely devoid of facts, and is insanely inflammatory. So, yes, believe pretty much any page on the internet... except that one.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[rossdee]

"The entire population of Melbourne (or Sydney) is this entire country"

Not so many Kiwis are in Melbourne, they tend to go to Sydney or Queensland

Say whats this about Holden closing down? How will they have motor racing in Oz without Holden Vs Falcon?

(/me is a former Kiwi living in the US)
 

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[TheTurtlesMoves]

True that.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[rossdee]

Yes there are Wiccans in NZ, and quite aa few other Fringe religions, but nothing as crazy as some of the extremists Christians in the US

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[jrumney]

Indeed. Going by the reports, the pressure group in New Zealand seems to total 4 people, two of whom are linked to this school. Most of their propaganda comes from snippets of research papers selectively interpreted and collated by similar groups operating in US or Canada.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[cusco]

And for all the young Rand-bots, Love Canal was the norm for disposal of chemical waste before the creation of the EPA. For all your whining about how the government can't do anything right, you little twits haven't grown up on top of a waste chemical disposal trench. Our tax dollars made sure of that. You're welcome.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Curunir_wolf]

Currently, one drug and one pesticide can get approval when tested as one drug and one pesticide, and the same for EM fields.

It doesn't help that the FDA in the US is now so heavily compromised. Much of their funding comes directly from the companies asking for approval of their products, which means that the FDA is now working directly for the manufacturers (they are signing the checks). This puts it in a similar situation to the big 3 "approved" rating agencies and their role in the US mortgage banking crisis. They were providing AAA ratings to bundles of mortgages loaded with sub-prime loans. It brought the entire banking system to crisis.

So what happens when the FDA is being paid by producers? We've already seen many drugs get approval, then pulled months or years later when it's discovered they are killing people. The FDA is now funding swat raids on farms selling raw milk while putting bans on cheap commodities like red yeast rice so pharmaceutical companies can make big money on patents for the same ingredients (lipitor, for one). It's much worse than just not knowing how to do the research, it's that there is no one willing to even try, since all the money for it is coming from the ones producing the products.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[kelemvor4]

You expect us to believe a page on the Internet?

Where have you been for the past few decades? If it's on the internet, it MUST be true.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Lumpy]

"For all your whining about how the government can't do anything right, you little twits haven't grown up on top of a waste chemical disposal trench."

I remember when Lake Erie was on fire, and I still KNOW the government cant do anything right.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[cusco]

Massive moobs? Count me in, the little tiny ones aren't fooling anyone. BRB, gotta fax everyone an invitation to the costume party!

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[ultranova]

And for all the young Rand-bots, Love Canal was the norm for disposal of chemical waste before the creation of the EPA.

A true Randian ubermensch will violate fundamental laws of physics to make the problem go away for themselves, then watch everyone else die. And perhaps give them a little push to help nature on its way.

For all your whining about how the government can't do anything right, you little twits haven't grown up on top of a waste chemical disposal trench. Our tax dollars made sure of that.

Therefore stealing resources from the productive elites for the sake of protecting the looters, the latter which is a bad thing in itself. After all, those destined for greatness will become rich enough to move elsewhere, and those who can't afford to should just die already. Nothing matters except the ego of the supermen.

You really don't get how these people think, do you? For all its anti-government creed, Objectivism is simply another totalitarian philosophy about reorganizing society based on some lunatic's idea of how everything should work to reach some utopian state of eternal bliss. And like its contemporaries fascism and communism, it too is not shy about breaking eggs to make an omelette. So telling a Randroid your tax dollars helped close an open chemical sewer is about the same as telling a neo-Nazi your tax dollars helped bring down the Third Reich.

We can only hope Rand's nightmare vision for the world will fade with time and never get a chance to become reality, like Hitler's did in Germany.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[cusco]

My folks used to know some folks who lived across a field from the enormous DEW line radar towers. They died in their early 80s, even having lived directly downrange from one of the largest EM emitters on the planet for decades. I've worked on an antenna farm on top of a local mountain, and the people with houses right next to the gate have lived there for 20+ years. When Ma Bell long distance relays were still microwave links I used to hunt near a couple, one of which was in the back yard of a farmhouse. I'd like to see a survey of the medical records of people who live in locations like those, but no one seems to be doing it.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[myowntrueself]

Fun fact: Kiwi student loans never gain interest and have no late fees. There's almost no point in paying them back...except if you want to leave the country.

If you want to leave the country and come back.

The NZ government reached out to some other, friendly, governments such as UK, Canada about tracking down student loan absconders. The response of these 'friendly countries' was: "We don't bother tracking down our overseas debtors, why should we help you track down yours?"

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Opportunist]

That is actually quite sensible. I don't mind paying for someone's tuition if he in turn provides the services he learns to me.

I do mind, though, if he just gets a good education on my expense and takes it abroad.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Opportunist]

Banning WiFi is easy. You only have a school opposing you that is basically shrugging with a "whatever..." and lets you have your way.

Banning cellphones means you have to take on a telco that fears you being able to ban phones in schools might lead to a precedent.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Idarubicin]

... it's just that it's likely based on a specific frequency and it would "interrupt" the absorption of certain nutrients ... Cells have what is called a "Calcium gate" and that resonates depending on what signals it gets from the cell nucleus and this impacts what types of ionized molecules are let through -- attracted to the net positive potassium charge inside the cell...

Okay, who the hell is modding up this sort of nonsense about magical resonance of calcium channels? I don't even know where to begin to address the abuses of terminology and confusion about mechanism in the parent post.

I'm not sure if this is part of the textbooks or not, but it will be I'm fairly sure.

Hmm.

I've not seen research on it yet.

Oh.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Derek Pomery]

Seems as good a place to ask it as any.
What does /. think of:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520940937

http://www.physiology.columbia.edu/MartinBlank.html
"
â EMR accelerates the reaction rate, i.e., electron transfer rate
â EMR competes with the chemical force driving the reaction, so the effect of EMR varies inversely with the reaction rate
â Interaction thresholds are low, comparable to levels found in EMR-cancer epidemiology studies
â Effects vary with frequency, and there appear to be different optima for the reactions studied: ATPase (60Hz), cytochrome oxidase (800Hz), BZ (250Hz)

These properties, in addition to stimulation of DNA in the cellular stress response, are consistent with EMR effects on many biological systems through interaction with electrons moving during redox reactions and also within DNA"

I ran into it a couple of weeks ago and it ran contrary to what I was expecting to find.
Curious if there's any problem with his work.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[nbauman]

Blaming wifi or cell phones is easy. Actually digging around and finding the true cause of the cancer is hard. Besides, you might discover the cause was environmental, say, the coating on some cookware, or contaminants in food, drink, laundry detergent, whatever. And discovering a household product triggered a cancer is actionable. Best blame it on the wifi and shift the attention of the pitchforks and torches brigade.

The IEEE Spectrum once had a big news story looking at the scientific evidence on the health effects of electromagnetic fields from power lines.

First question: How much EMF is there in the environment, and where is it coming from? There were studies that measured the EMF in households near power lines and away from power lines.

The strongest sources of EMF were food blenders, electric razors, and hair dryers. They were much stronger than power lines. And the ordinary 120v ac circuits in households were stronger sources than power lines in the back yard.

(Yes, they were intermittent sources, but the (weak) evidence of hypothetical damage (or at least biological effects) showed that intermittent sources had more of an effect (in tissue culture, among others) than constant sources.)

So I used to tell people, "If you're worried about power lines, why aren't you worried about the power lines in your baseboards?"

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Derek Pomery]

Grrr, when will /. implement a unicode whitelist so that pasting bullet points doesn't screw up a post...

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[tibit]

Cells have what is called a "Calcium gate" and that resonates depending on what signals it gets from the cell nucleus and this impacts what types of ionized molecules are let through

Protip: science fiction is, you know, fiction. Just because you've read it in a science fiction text doesn't make it real beyond those pages.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[nbauman]

I did a bit of research into Love Canal at that time. (For the record, the best summary I read was an article in C&EN.)

The birth defects were the big problem, and I tried to find the studies. They weren't published, and the EPA told me they contained confidential medical information.

I later figured out the significance of that.

One of the major causes of birth defects is a sexually transmitted virus, and if you were trying to explain a cluster of birth defects, that would be one of the first things an epidemiologist would look for.

Another cause of birth defects is genetic damage. You could have clusters, as a result of a family with one mutation, like the Amish.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[nbauman]

My favorite part of Atlas Shrugged was where they go off to Gault Gulch and live off of perpetual motion, by generating power from static electricity in the air.

BTW you can easily find Atlas Shrugged free online. It's worth reading it (or as much as you can stand) to find out what those acolytes are talking about.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[lgw]

The Sun is also one heck of a bright radio source, microwave source, x-ray source, and so on. Even indoors, I suspect you'd have to swallow a WiFi router to get more of any kind of radiation from it than the Sun.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Nethemas the Great]

That's interesting and may well be true, however can we please step back from the copse of trees to see the whole forest? That DNA is a fractal antenna is an interesting bit of trivia, but requires context for proper interpretation of what that means when applied to the scope of our everyday lives. Electromagnetic radiation is not a human invention, it has always existed, both in ionizing as well as non-ionizing wavelengths. For the average person, even in our electronic age, natural sources account for the greater portion of our day-to-day electromagnetic radiation exposure.

While it only deals with ionizing wavelengths I still want to call upon XKCD's radiation dose chart because it provides some much needed perspective. I would further like to include a nice little tutorial on EM. Before we even begin to pick on WiFi, there are plenty of other things in modern society we should ban first including, the Sun, cordless phones, cell phones, TVs, microwave ovens, electric space heaters, electric motors, baby monitors, analog radio stations, high-voltage power lines, etc.. I find it simply amazing how the same people whom are so concerned about radiation from cell phones, will think nothing of placing a baby monitor right next to their child's crib.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[sir-gold]

And the British increased their average IQ by exporting all the criminals to Australia.....

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[radarskiy]

"The strongest sources of EMF were food blenders, electric razors, and hair dryers. They were much stronger than power lines. And the ordinary 120v ac circuits in households were stronger sources than power lines in the back yard."

Calculating the relative field strengths was one of the homework assignments in the Fields and Waves course for my undergraduate degree.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[nbauman]

Right. I took a course like that too.

One of the high points of my physics student days was figuring out the equation for the interference pattern of monochromatic light coming through a narrow slit. It was amazing. You integrated from one edge of the slit to the other, and got a big peak. Then you multiplied that by a sine function and got the interference patterns.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Derek Pomery]

Well, our body is well evolved to handle natural sources of radiation which, nonetheless, can absolutely harm us.
We can handle a surprising amout of damage from UV, which luckily does not penetrate our entire body. And we've evolved to handle certain other kinds of radiation damage, heck, there's that evidence of hormesis. I don't know how that applies across the wholebody, nor how persistently high levels over a lifetime might cause an issue.

I also don't know how to address all the sources you listed because, well, I don't know much about this, that's why I was asking here. I did look for solar flux at radio frequencies here: http://www.astro.ethz.ch/people/pdf_files/benz/LBReview_thermal.pdf and if I'm reading the units right, it is not even close to being on the same scale, but... not sure really.
And I certainly don't know the power of all those other various sources.

But, this was interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm

So, seems to me from that chart and inverse square estimate, that a cellphone up close against you would have 500x the wattage of an FM radio station 10km away. Not that that dude's research was necessarily exculpating FM radio stations.

Glancing at the technical data here...
http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/00053/00673/03012/index.html

Seems like a baby monitor transmits about 100mW which is about 1/5th the power of the phone and of course not pressed against the flesh. Sooo.... if the cellphone is cranking out 500mW at say 1cm from some part of the body you might be concerned about, and the baby monitor is cranking out 100mW but 100cm away, then presumably the baby monitor is 1/50,000th the concern of the cell phone, right?

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[flabbergast]

"For all your whining about how the government can't do anything right, you little twits haven't grown up on top of a waste chemical disposal trench."

I remember when Lake Erie was on fire, and I still KNOW the government cant do anything right.

Lake Erie never caught fire, it almost "died" because of algae blooms though. The Cuyahoga River caught on fire.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[C0R1D4N]

From the article, and poorly formatted in this comment box:

At the time of the dump's closure, Niagara Falls was entering an economic boom and the population began expanding drastically, surpassing 85,000. The Niagara Falls City School District needed land to build new schools, and attempted to purchase the property from Hooker Chemical that had been used to bury toxic waste. The corporation initially refused to sell citing safety concerns, however, the board refused to capitulate.[1] Eventually faced with parts of the property being condemned and/or expropriated, Hooker Chemical agreed to sell on the condition that the board buy the entire property for one dollar. In the agreement signed on April 28, 1953, Hooker included a seventeen-line caveat that explained the dangers of building on the site. Hooker believed it was thus released from all legal obligations should lawsuits arise in the future.[9]

"Prior to the delivery of this instrument of conveyance, the grantee herein has been advised by the grantor that the premises above described have been filled, in whole or in part, to the present grade level thereof with waste products resulting from the manufacturing of chemicals by the grantor at its plant in the City of Niagara Falls, New York, and the grantee assumes all risk and liability incident to the use thereof. It is therefore understood and agreed that, as a part of the consideration for this conveyance and as a condition thereof, no claim, suit, action or demand of any nature whatsoever shall ever be made by the grantee, its successors or assigns, against the grantor, its successors or assigns, for injury to a person or persons, including death resulting therefrom, or loss of or damage to property caused by, in connection with or by reason of the presence of said industrial wastes. It is further agreed as a condition hereof that each subsequent conveyance of the aforesaid lands shall be made subject to the foregoing provisions and conditions.[1] ”

Hooker Electrochemical Quit Claim Deed to Board of Education Hooker stated that the area should be sealed off "so as to prevent the possibility of persons or animals coming in contact with the dumped materials."[10]

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[cusco]

Yes, before the creation of the EPA.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[cusco]

Roman_mir tried to convince me that the reason the Cuyahoga River burned was because it didn't have an owner. Everything in RonPaulLand apparently should have an owner, there are no Commons. The owner of the Cuyahoga River would have sued the companies dumping into it, they would have stopped, and everything would have been wonderful. When asked about why the owner wouldn't have just licensed them to pollute it as much as they wanted, or just sold it to the chemical and paint companies, the reply was that the owner of the next waterway downriver would have sued. Apparently Lake Erie needs an owner as well.

Not sure why every Libertardian solution that touches on the Commons needs thundering herds of lawyers, but apparently in RonPaulLand judges and juries are always competent and uncorruptable.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Chuckstar]

The point is that more people aren't getting these maladies. At least not in any way that would correlate with the dramatic increase in exposure to cell phone and WiFi signals.

But I do agree that we can almost certainly show that signals of these types do show up as at least minor changes in cell activity. But is that leading to brain cancer? If it is, then where's the brain cancer spike we should see related to the spike in exposure to these signals?

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[gmhowell]

The irony is that of many of those Libertarians will claim that Malpractice tort reform (ie, payout limits) will improve the costs of healthcare.

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Stubbyfingers]

The SUN can cause CANCER?!?!?

OMG! Somebody ban SUNLIGHT! We have to turn off the SUN!

Re:There's a question about that at Skeptics

[Sardaukar86]

You can find such people anywhere. Probably fewer in NZ than the USA. But only because of the difference in total population.

Thanks, I appreciate the call for balance. If it makes the people who are (rightfully) upset by this feel any better, I guarantee I am in good company as I writhe with embarrassment over our country's latest proclamation of self-idiocy. As always, the vacuous are the most vocal.

Although somewhat unrelated, the Aussies give as good as they get and the struggle for trans-Tasman supremacy doesn't get any easier for NZ when we busy ourselves with kicking own-goals. They'll be reminding us about this for a while yet I imagine!

Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[digitaltraveller]

Oh gosh. This is not a very good precedent. I hope the children are taught that:
-The radiation from WIFI is the same type as what comes from the Sun, which is essential for all life on earth.
-We all emit radiation.

A New Privacy Enhancing HTML5 Mobile Browser - It's your remote control for the world.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Joce640k]

You think that's bad? I just ate a banana...

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[YttriumOxide]

Oh gosh. This is not a very good precedent. I hope the children are taught that: -The radiation from WIFI is the same type as what comes from the Sun, which is essential for all life on earth. -We all emit radiation.

Thankfully, New Zealand isn't as 'backwater' and 'stupid' as the summary makes out.

From TFA:

Science Media Centre manager Peter Griffin says the death of Te Horo pupil Ethan Wyman from a brain tumour was a tragedy for his family, friends and school mates, but that to blame it on wi-fi is wrong.

Mr Griffin notes there is no evidence anywhere in peer-reviewed literature to suggest wi-fi signals pose an elevated risk of developing brain cancers.

And also:

In a statement, the Te Horo School board said it would take wi-fi out of junior classes and replace it with ethernet cable. However, wi-fi will not be removed from the senior school due to the wishes of parents who were surveyed on the issue.

The board says it shares the government's view that wi-fi is safe.

"We have sourced information from the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and other submissions," the board's statement says.

"Based on this information the board believes that Wi-Fi does not pose a health risk to staff or students."

So it really is just a couple of dumb people putting pressure on the school and not indicative of the school's or Ministry of Education's thoughts at all.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[jones_supa]

Brazil nuts are also slightly radioactive. It is said that the complex root system of the plant generates the radioactivity. Interesting.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Oh gosh. This is not a very good precedent. I hope the children are taught that: -The radiation from WIFI is the same type as what comes from the Sun, which is essential for all life on earth. -We all emit radiation.

As much as I think that these Kiwis are being a bit cracked (though, by the standards of grieving processes for dead children, I've certainly heard stupider strategies...), those are terrible 'educational' points.

They fall in the horrible zone of being nonfalse; while also eliding virtually all the important distinctions, and providing the poor sucker handed them basically no useful information on which to found decisions.

Is RF in the 2.4 and/or 5GHz band electromagnetic radiation, and thus in the same broad category as (much) of what the Sun emits? Sure. Is that largely meaningless when the flavors of electromagnetic radiation run from extremely longwave RF whose interactions with matter are barely discernable without specialized antennas, all the way to very high energy gamma radiation, with a lot of variety in between, and numerous different uses and effects for various bands? Unfortunately so.

Do we all emit radiation? Sure, in modest quantities. Does that tell us anything useful about radiation safety? Only that the default dose is higher than zero, and that apparently doesn't kill you horribly most of the time. Nothing else.

If you want to talk about safety, arguments from broad classes of things that have some nominal commonality are painfully useless. If you aren't at least introducing concepts related to dosage, population level statistical study, various epidemiological techniques, you are basically just waving your hands from first principles.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Joce640k]

Anything with potassium in it is radioactive.

"Naturally occurring potassium is composed of three isotopes, one of which, 40K, is radioactive. Traces (0.012%) of this isotope is found in all potassium making it the most common radioactive element in the human body and in many biological materials, as well as in common building materials such as concrete."

(Wikipedia)

Gee, I hope the "parents" never find out. This is real radioactivity, not the wussy WiFi sort.

OTOH a banana panic would lower the price of one of my favorite fruits, so .... maybe somebody should warn them - they might be feeding their kids cancer-causing bananas right now in their ignorance!

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Joce640k]

Science Media Centre manager Peter Griffin says the death of Te Horo pupil Ethan Wyman from a brain tumour was a tragedy for his family, friends and school mates, but that to blame it on wi-fi is wrong.

Mr Griffin notes there is no evidence anywhere in peer-reviewed literature to suggest wi-fi signals pose an elevated risk of developing brain cancers.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

You'd think that as a "scientist" Mr. Peter Griffin would have heard of the Stark-Einstein of photochemical equivalence, which tells you why WiFi is harmless. It was only one of the most studied pieces of science of the 20th century. Simply saying "we have no evidence" is a bit feeble.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[YttriumOxide]

You'd think that as a "scientist" Mr. Peter Griffin would have heard of the Stark-Einstein of photochemical equivalence, which tells you why WiFi is harmless. It was only one of the most studied pieces of science of the 20th century. Simply saying "we have no evidence" is a bit feeble.

You'd think for a press statement designed to appease worried parents, he doesn't need to talk science that is way about most of their heads - just tell them that it's okay.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Luckyo]

Imagine when parents do find out and attempt to ban potassium intake, with all the severe health problems such ban would cause.

Now that would be nasty.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Joce640k]

They'll also have to pull down all those cancer-causing concrete buildings...

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Joce640k]

What he really needs to to is to grow a pair and tell them not to be so fucking stupid (or words to that effect).

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Joce640k]

If you aren't at least introducing concepts related to dosage, population level statistical study, various epidemiological techniques, you are basically just waving your hands from first principles.

You're also willfully ignoring the actual science that's been done regarding electromagnetic radiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectrochemical_process

(In particular the Stark-Einstein law and the lower bound it places on the photon energy needed to cause a chemical reaction)

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/3109815261/sizes/l/in/photostream/ says it all

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[YttriumOxide]

What he really needs to to is to grow a pair and tell them not to be so fucking stupid (or words to that effect).

While tempting to do so in this kind of situation, I believe his approach was probably more effective. If you go around insulting people, they're less likely to take you seriously or listen to your opinion in the future.

Just think of the flamebait posts here on Slashdot. Occasionally they actually make a reasonable point, but they do it in such a way that most people aren't going to actually take the time to consider the point. It's a sorry state of affairs that 'how' we say something is important rather than only 'what' we say, but it is the case for the vast majority of people and if you intend to interact with other people throughout your life, it's an important skill to learn in order to actually get what you want in life.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[YttriumOxide]

Those parents who have lost a child must be heartbroken and grasping at anything to give some sort of meaning to their son's death. Removing WiFi from junior classes may be senseless, but it gives these parents some sort of resolution and justification for what happened. Just let them have this one; WiFi access isn't really necessary in junior classes anyway and they can switch it back on in a few years if needed.

I agree. I didn't mean to say the school was doing something 'bad' by taking away the WiFi. The parents are wrong, but they're also heartbroken and it's probably not going to cause any harm to remove the WiFi from these junior classes. I think the school did exactly the right thing - deny that WiFi is harmful (the truth), but take it away anyway in order to appease these people.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[N1AK]

It's a sorry state of affairs that 'how' we say something is important rather than only 'what' we say

Not really. The fact that it benefits an argument for it to be delivered clearly and politely isn't a bad thing unless you think a society in which such things are valued at all is a desirable outcome. What's sad is the people who occasionally have something worth sharing but are so completely unable to understand the need to be polite that they can't share it effectively.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[N1AK]

I think the school did exactly the right thing - deny that WiFi is harmful (the truth), but take it away anyway in order to appease these people.

Unless there were expensive consequences to leaving the WIFI there, for example a very expensive lawsuit, then no I don't think they did the right thing. Removing the WIFI is a tacit admission that concerns about WIFI are valid. All the parents, friends of parents, children etc all know that a school took WIFI out of classrooms because of concerns about cancer. I agree that sometimes very minor (pointless) concessions can be justified on compassionate grounds, however I think this kind of concession isn't as minor as you do.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[YttriumOxide]

What's sad is the people who occasionally have something worth sharing but are so completely unable to understand the need to be polite that they can't share it effectively.

This, I agree with. But only because of the limitations and requirements of the society we're in. I think it's sad that people are unable to effectively get their point across because it means that a potential for sharing information (and therefore increasing overall human knowledge) is lost.

The fact that it benefits an argument for it to be delivered clearly and politely isn't a bad thing unless you think a society in which such things are valued at all is a desirable outcome.

I'm taking a more abstract view here and imagining a world that we don't have. If no-one took offence at the style of how something is said and instead concentrated only on what was said, I believe that it would be a better world than the one we do have. More information would be shared, people would be happier, and misunderstandings would be fewer.

I fully agree though that we don't live in such a world, and therefore politeness is definitely important.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[YttriumOxide]

I think it's a matter of weighing the statement they made vs the action they took. Perhaps it's a cultural difference between us, but as a New Zealander myself, I believe that most other New Zealanders would pay more attention to the fact that they said, "we don't think it's harmful" than the fact that they removed it.

It is fairly clear that they removed it in order to appease the complainers and not out of any perceived harm.

If I thought the risk of false belief was higher (i.e. people paying more attention to the action than the words) then I'd complete agree with you that the action would be too much as it would spread the false belief further, causing additional problems in the future.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[mpe]

Brazil nuts are also slightly radioactive. It is said that the complex root system of the plant generates the radioactivity.

It's unlikely that a plants root system, however complex, would be capable to nuclear reactions :) More likely the plant is concentrating naturally occuring radioactive elements. Biochemical systems can even be capable of selecting specific isotopes in some circumstances.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[gsslay]

I lost a grandfather, and he was a prolific reader. So I want to remove the scourge of books from schools because they must have caused his death. I realise this is nonsense and illogical, but just let me have this one. Another parent I know lost a mother to pencils. Let her have this one. And I heard about a guy whose son died from arithmetic. Let him have this one. Our school now doesn't give much education, but at least us parents feel better.

You can have every sympathy in the world for this father's loss. It's terrible for him. But he has no right to enforce what is nothing more than a manifestation of his grief on everyone else's education.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[mpe]

Imagine when parents do find out and attempt to ban potassium intake, with all the severe health problems such ban would cause.

So long as the "no K" advocates started with themselves there probably wouldn't be too much of a problem :)

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[wvmarle]

I more hope they'll also ban all other devices that emit radiation in similar wavelengths, such as mobile phones. And that would of course include the phone of the children of the parents that arranged for this ban.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[LWATCDR]

I am all for wired ethernet. Probably get much better speeds that way.
As to WiFi causing cancer? There is as much proof that WiFi causes cancer as their is proof photovoltaic panels and organic kale do.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Ocker3]

Having Ethernet cables running all over the place is probably a greater measurable hazard than the WiFi. Tripping over a cable and injuring yourself Is a real danger, most workplaces are required to cover any cables running over the floor with heavy rubber mats or something like that. Or they could put in cable boxes into the floor of the rooms, very expensive, and very limiting to room geometry, which teachers Love to change!

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[jones_supa]

I see. It seems that this Wikipedia line had me confused:

According to Oak Ridge Associated Universities, this is not because of elevated levels of radium in the soil, but due to "the very extensive root system of the tree."[22]

The actual source indeed says:

The accumulation of the radium (and barium) is due to the very extensive root system of the tree.

So the root system is just effective in sucking in radioactive stuff.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[mwvdlee]

Perhaps you missed the "WiFi access isn't really necessary in junior classes anyway" part.
You might not agree with that particular statement, but I think we can both agree that books, pencils and arithmetic are necessery.

If you can make a convincing case for WiFi access being necessary in junior classes, I'll gladly agree with you.
Bringing forth strawman arguments (attacking something I did not say) can only damage a discussion.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[fatphil]

I remember when cellphones base-stations were being maligned as being totally cancerific (that's a mother-of-schoolchildren science term), the response to a "there's no connection, all published results say so" claim by the big companies was "therefore they're not publishing the stuff that proves our claims - it's a coverup" from the anti-sciencoids (that's a worked-for-a-basestation-manufacturer mild insult).

These mothers were unable to explain why the local Nokia R&D site had a massive base-station *right in the middle of it*, and how that would fit in with their consipiracy coverup theorem.

You can't argue with idiots whose minds are already made up using *any* language.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[chromas]

OTOH a banana panic would lower the price of one of my favorite fruits

Do glue sticks count as fruit?

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Electricity Likes Me]

The thing is you're not going to get cancer from that anyway. Dead (due to being burned alive) but not cancer.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[ericloewe]

If they want to avoid radiation, they should be given an airtight sealed room in a faraday cage and no light. Make it big enough so they survive long enough to realize how idiotic they were.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Joce640k]

Gluesticks isn't a fruit, it's a carbohydrate.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[wvmarle]

I wouldn't be surprised if the parents that campaign to have WiFi banned are the same parents that must stay in touch with their offspring on a near-constant basis. And where the mere thought of the kid not having a phone at hand would feel like an emergency situation.

It's just asking them to be consequent. If WiFi is a problem, then radiation from phones - which may be weaker on a per-device basis but when going on full blast is generally emitted much closer to a person's head - must be even more of a problem.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[postbigbang]

Mercury in vaccines causes autism.

WiFi boils the brain and causes cancer.

Obama is the Anti-Christ.

You will never stop stupid people because stupid can't be fixed. Once that one realizes that correlation != causation, you have a chance. Until then, you can only introduce the facts and hope for the best. It's tough to stanch meme propagation when the propagators are teary-eyed mothers with dead children. But it has to be done.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Joce640k]

I believe his approach was probably more effective. If you go around insulting people, they're less likely to take you seriously or listen to your opinion in the future.

But if we take that approach to everything then the idiots will always win eventually, leading to idiocracy.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[amorsen]

The R&D site has a massive base-station so that the phones would lower their transmission levels, thereby preventing the cancer of course.

Similarly, us in the telecoms industry have a conspiracy where we convince school boards that radiation is dangerous and get all wifi removed plus base stations placed far away. This ensures that the phones emit the high levels of cancer-inducing radiation needed to properly mind control the children.

At home those who are in on the conspiracy even place base stations right in their homes, in order to protect themselves! You probably have one of those deceptively-named "femtocells" too.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[EvilSS]

The actual source indeed says:

The accumulation of the radium (and barium) is due to the very extensive root system of the tree.

So the root system is just effective in sucking in radioactive stuff.

Bingo. This is also somewhat related to why health nuts should be careful about where all that kale and other greens they like to eat are grown. "Leafy greens" like kale and mustard greens are very efficient at sucking heavy metals from soil. So much so that they are sometimes used for that purpose at cleanup sites (Phytoremediation).

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[rossdee]

" I think we can both agree that books, pencils and arithmetic are necessery"

Spelling lessons are also necessary.

BTW Kids in NZ learn English, rather than American.
(The other official language in NZ is Maori (te Reo o Aotearoa)

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Hognoxious]

It's not rude to disagree with people, and it's possible to tell them that they're wrong politely.

Like I just did there, you silly cunt.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[gsslay]

And paper and pencils aren't either. Chalk and slate boards do just as well, don't they?

WiFi is a part of modern life, and is only likely to become an even greater part of these children's future. By crippling their access to it at school you are doing nothing to help them prepare for the rest of their life.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[cusco]

Can you doubt for an instant that there wouldn't be a lawsuit? That's the default anti-science position, "Do what I say or spend the next year in court and half a gazillion dollars in legal fees!"

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[tibit]

BULLSHIT. The frequency was chosen for effectiveness of generation (a very simple magnetron) and shielding, and for regulatory compliance - you don't want an oven that leaks in the frequencies that are useful for sensitive radio communications, for example. There are no sharp absorption peaks in water below 3THz. Over the range of 3THz down to 0.3GHz, the absorption decreases smoothly by two orders of magnitude. It'd downright boring. There is a slight dielectric loss peak (less than an order of magnitude's worth!) in pure water that is sharply dependent on temperature and thus is useless in heating scenarios. This is, again, only for pure water. If the water is bound, like it often is in the tissues, the frequency of this dielectric absorption peak goes down by orders of magnitude. So, let's stop with the myths.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Luckyo]

This is one place where "think of the children" is actually appropriate, because it's usually the children that suffer the consequences rather than adults.

I keep being reminded of the fairly recent case where a British newspaper dared to run an article on vegan parents that put their children on vegan diet with same supplements they were taking themselves.

Result was stunted growth, rotting teeth and other fun stuff that comes from severe deficiency of certain minerals. And their case is far from unique.

Frankly, I think that for all the evil that "think of the children" approach has done to the world, making children pay for obvious mistakes done by their adults should be minimized by society whenever possible. Especially when education would solve the problem easily.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Ralph Wiggam]

So it really is just a couple of dumb people putting pressure on the school and not indicative of the school's or Ministry of Education's thoughts at all.

But when 14 idiots in Podunk, Alabama do something stupid, it is conclusive evidence of how dumb Americans are.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[fatphil]

As you're plugging that page so much, I don't suppose you could fix it, could you? It's mostly bollocks that lies between unparseable and unintelligible currently, at least the S-E law part is, and I quote:
"""
The formula is:
        <ma
"""

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Nethemas the Great]

Thankfully, New Zealand isn't as 'backwater' and 'stupid' as the summary makes out.

You call the expense and inconvenience of replacing WiFi with Ethernet so as to appease a couple kid's emotional, irrational, and ignorant parents not evidence in support of that?"

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[fatphil]

The particular complaint at the time was over the erection of a base station in the vicinity of a primary school. So the existence of a base station in the vicinity of the Nokia R&D site was the perfect counterpoint.

Don't worry, I appreciated the humour of your post, I just didn't want there to be any ambiguities in my tale.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[fatphil]

There are logic anti-patterns two which are closely related, and quite often ovelap:
correlation implies causation
what happened after this is because of this ("post hoc ergo propter hoc")

Both are insidious. Humans are supersicious and overactive pattern-matchers. There's presently no survival disadvantage to that trait. If anything, strength through incorrect groupthink can still have a positive survival benefit (a community of fools will find things easier than a lone member of the outgroup).

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[poofmeisterp]

You think that's bad? I just ate a banana...

I have a lawyer reference for ya...

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[poofmeisterp]

Anything with potassium in it is radioactive.

"Naturally occurring potassium is composed of three isotopes, one of which, 40K, is radioactive. Traces (0.012%) of this isotope is found in all potassium making it the most common radioactive element in the human body and in many biological materials, as well as in common building materials such as concrete."

(Wikipedia)

Gee, I hope the "parents" never find out. This is real radioactivity, not the wussy WiFi sort.

OTOH a banana panic would lower the price of one of my favorite fruits, so .... maybe somebody should warn them - they might be feeding their kids cancer-causing bananas right now in their ignorance!

Must.... find... something... to.... blame.... must... get.. money... and attention......

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[poofmeisterp]

What he really needs to to is to grow a pair and tell them not to be so fucking stupid (or words to that effect).

I think that's what politics was originally designed for. Then came bribes...

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[poofmeisterp]

I remember when cellphones base-stations were being maligned as being totally cancerific (that's a mother-of-schoolchildren science term), the response to a "there's no connection, all published results say so" claim by the big companies was "therefore they're not publishing the stuff that proves our claims - it's a coverup" from the anti-sciencoids (that's a worked-for-a-basestation-manufacturer mild insult).

These mothers were unable to explain why the local Nokia R&D site had a massive base-station *right in the middle of it*, and how that would fit in with their consipiracy coverup theorem.

You can't argue with idiots whose minds are already made up using *any* language.

No kidding. Case in point:
My grandfather stood (with many other soldiers) in front of microwave radio transmitter directed cones (dishes) to warm themselves up in subzero temperatures. They didn't really wonder how or why it worked at the time.

Guess how many died from cancer as a result? Out of a group of 30-something guys, 10% died from *A FORM* of cancer.

<snark>Omg that's so much higher a percentage than the number of people that have not undergone that bodily microwave heating</snark>

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[poofmeisterp]

Mercury in vaccines causes autism.

WiFi boils the brain and causes cancer.

Obama is the Anti-Christ.

You will never stop stupid people because stupid can't be fixed. Once that one realizes that correlation != causation, you have a chance. Until then, you can only introduce the facts and hope for the best. It's tough to stanch meme propagation when the propagators are teary-eyed mothers with dead children. But it has to be done.

Amen to that.

Link: The discovery of microwave heating

Guess what Percy Spencer died from? Natural causes.

Hurry, conspiracy junkies! Define Microwave radiation as a "natural cause"!

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[postbigbang]

Is it an accident that microwave oven frequencies are really close to WiFi? No. Yet older color televisions also emitted Xrays. And lots of basements emit radon. Older watch dials glowed nice and radioactively.

Let's consider the facts:

A microwave oven has over 500w, often much more. WiFi? Limited to a skinny watt, often less.

Older color TVs emitted xrays-- out the back and bottom. Unless you put it in your lap for weeks at a time, not much exposure.

Basements in some areas do have a lot of radon. Oops, this one's real and needs to be dealt with through the use of radon detectors and remediation.

Finally, those old watch dials that glowed in the dark indeed had mild radioactivity.... about as much as ten minutes in the sun.

Conspiracy junkies? Paranoia is rampant, and often foolish.... although once in a while it's rewarded.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[poofmeisterp]

Conspiracy junkies? Paranoia is rampant, and often foolish.... although once in a while it's rewarded.

I can't wait for my electricity prices to come down from nuclea....
Oh, wait.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[fatphil]

50% of my grandparents have died from cancer.

Sounds like those dishes reduce cancer rates by 80%.

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[fatphil]

And to be less snarky, dishes are directional (otherwise they'd be useless as dishes), and the base station antennae are broadcast (otherwise they'd be useless as base stations).

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[xmundt]

I remember those Radium dial watches. My brother had one, and I used to enjoy looking at the dial under a magnifier. It was great to see the little, random sparkles as the decay particles impacted the luminous paint.

Re: Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[Blackeneth]

Wrong. A microwave oven is a dielectric heater.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating

Re:Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[redlemming]

If you want to talk about safety, arguments from broad classes of things that have some nominal commonality are painfully useless. If you aren't at least introducing concepts related to dosage, population level statistical study, various epidemiological techniques, you are basically just waving your hands from first principles.

You make some excellent points. An additional point comes to mind, and I apologize if it seems like hand waving ...

In the study of frequency dependent systems we often don't understand all the possible non-linear ways in which a given system can respond. As you mention, any system interaction with electro-magnetics is necessarily frequency dependent. It isn't clear to me how one would construct a medical study to take possible non-linearity of response into account.

In other words, a study might inject a signal at a particular frequency (yes, we can only approximately generate particular frequencies, but let's neglect that point) into living tissue, then vary the frequency to observe penetration depth as a function of frequency. But what if multiple frequencies are present at the same time? Might the system behave differently under some combination of signals than we would expect from the superposition of responses to the individual inputs?

It would seem that it would have to, since no real system is actually linear.

In medical studies of exposure to electro-magnetics, they are certainly exposing living tissue to some signal or combination of signals.

The question that then comes to mind is, what if the studies aren't generating the right combination of input signals to see a response that might indicate a problem? One could potentially do a lot of population studies without realizing that the inputs are wrong in every one, because we've made an unwarranted assumption regarding system linearity.

I think it's unlikely that any combination of low amplitude inputs would pose a problem, but who can be certain?

It seems like we would want some way of proving that any possible non-linear effect that can result is necessarily non-harmful.

Re: Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[poofmeisterp]

Exactly! Glad you got what I was getting at.

Re: Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[poofmeisterp]

You're talking to a ham radio op ;)

Re: Wouldn't someone think of the children?

[fatphil]

I will admit to not fully understanding your post at the time - there had been a little bit of a pub-crawl earlier that night...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm09d4z65Bg

sad

[X10]

It's always sad when superstition prevails upon science.

Re:sad

[Joce640k]

The Ministry of Education is run by people who publish "guidelines for the safe use of Wi-Fi in schools" so what do you expect?

Provide a tin foil hat instead

[kevingolding2001]

Maybe instead of removing the wifi, the school should make available a nice conical tin-foil hat, free of charge, to the children of those parents who request it.

And they could also put a prominent 'D' on the front.

Re:Provide a tin foil hat instead

[FrostedWheat]

It's not the kids fault, why make them suffer for their parents stupidity?

Re:Provide a tin foil hat instead

[Tom]

Because making the parents wear a tin foil hat wouldn't help? Wait, maybe it would. Heck, it's worth a try.

Re:Provide a tin foil hat instead

[EvilSS]

I'm really surprised someone hasn't started selling "faraday" hats to idiots yet. Just line it with a flexible metal mesh. Sell it for 1000% markup... er.. never mind. Ignore this post. And excuse me, I need to make some phone calls...

Re:Provide a tin foil hat instead

[GrumpySteen]

Because the kid is going to suffer for their parents stupidity no matter what you do. The tin foil hat limits the suffering to that one kid, though, rather than forcing an entire school of kids to suffer for the stupidity of one kids parents.

Re:Provide a tin foil hat instead

[Misagon]

Because focusing the radiation with a parabolic mirror to a single point in the brain is the way to go ...

Garden cress

[jones_supa]

Do you still remember the garden cress experiment? Did that one ever get solved? Maybe there is something in the high-frequency radio waves that are detrimental to life, or only plants, or maybe only limited to garden cress. I'm not commenting on the kid's cancer case here, that's likely unrelated.

Re:Garden cress

[Pinhedd]

It's most likely heat related

Re:Garden cress

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/danish-school-experiment-with-wifi-routers-and-garden-cress-good-example-of-bad-science/

Re:Garden cress

[HappyClown]

I hadn't heard of this experiment until now, interesting. The mainstream media reports I saw about it all seemed rather heavy on sensationalism and light on facts. I dug a little deeper and found this, which does a good job of pointing out the many flaws in the experiment: Does wifi stunt cress growth?.

This one also provides a summary of the points in the original.

Re:Garden cress

[Joce640k]

Do you still remember the garden cress experiment?

As evidenced by all the barren wastelands around the multi-megawatt radio transmitters out there?

Or not.

Re:Garden cress

[jones_supa]

Nope, they already excluded out many simple factors like that. Heat, light, position, etc. But I don't know if they ever came up with a definitive conclusion.

Re:Garden cress

[gnasher719]

Nope, they already excluded out many simple factors like that. Heat, light, position, etc. But I don't know if they ever came up with a definitive conclusion.

It is reported that the "radiation-damaged" plants had laptops placed quite close to them, while the others had not. Most laptops create quite a bit of heat. I don't know about other models, but any MacBook would create a zone of warm air in the area just behind it, which would remove the water in the earth around the plants more quickly.

Re:Garden cress

[tibit]

I hate to be so obvious, but this whole thing was fabricated for media attention. It's useless an experimental result. It is somewhat useful at giving some kids education in the scientific experimental method, but that's about it.

Re:Garden cress

[tibit]

Never mind that when you do such experiments, you remove all unimportant factors. This means that you sure as heck shouldn't be using off-the-shelf equipment. You get a radio test set to generate a WiFi test pattern of some sort, run it through an amplifier, and dump it into a radio-tight environmentally controlled enclosure with the plants. You then vary the power over 5-6 orders of magnitude to see if it really matters. That'd be experimental method 101. And all of this stuff could be had reasonably off eBay, probably for under $1k shipped if you're willing to wait a couple of months. But you need to fucking know what you're doing. No, a bunch of 9th graders and their clueless teacher probably won't cut it.

Re:Garden cress

[HuguesT]

Thanks, much more informative than the drivel one sees about this experiment. Clearly spectacular but inconclusive results get the limelight and not information.

Safe use rules...

[Firethorn]

Well, there are some concerns, such as:
1. Only use UL or similarly listed Wifi equipment.
2. If you must manipulate a ceiling mounted AP, use a ladder to reach it.
3. Do not open mains powered wifi equipment unless you are qualified to do so.
4. Do not attempt to hand anything off the wifi antennas.
5. Do not remove, disassemble, or modify wifi equipment unless you are authorized to do so.

Re:Safe use rules...

[Joce640k]

Speaking as a parent, a pamphlet called "Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wi-Fi in Schools" implies that there were schools with *UNSAFE* WiFi.

If WiFi can be unsafe, I don't want it in my school. My snowflake deserves a cancer-free life.

Re:Safe use rules...

[Firethorn]

Who says it'd be a pamphlet, much less one given to parents?

Re:Safe use rules...

[gnasher719]

Speaking as a parent, a pamphlet called "Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wi-Fi in Schools" implies that there were schools with *UNSAFE* WiFi.
If WiFi can be unsafe, I don't want it in my school. My snowflake deserves a cancer-free life.

So if I sent you a pamphlet "Guidelines for the Safe Use of Food and Drink", you would let your snowflake die of hunger and thirst?

Re:Safe use rules...

[Bazman]

If WiFi access points aren't properly fitted to walls and ceilings, they could fall off and hit the students. That probably happens more often than someone gets cancer from the radiation.

Re:Safe use rules...

[ranulf]

So if I sent you a pamphlet "Guidelines for the Safe Use of Food and Drink", you would let your snowflake die of hunger and thirst?

Yeah, I bet if I sent him a pamphlet "Guidelines for the Safe Use of Refridgerators, he would let his snowflake die of melting too... :)

Insane

[mosb1000]

The articles about this keep saying that "recent international research has shown there may be a link" without providing the source of that data! I can't find it anywhere, all the studies I can find show no evidence of a link. What the hell are these assholes talking about?! Why don't these journalists think this is an important piece of information to include with their articles?

I don't care if a bunch of nuts half a world away banned wifi for their elementary students. I but do care if they had a good reason to do it!

Re:Insane

[grimJester]

The articles about this keep saying that "recent international research has shown there may be a link" without providing the source of that data! I can't find it anywhere, all the studies I can find show no evidence of a link. What the hell are these assholes talking about?! Why don't these journalists think this is an important piece of information to include with their articles?

I don't care if a bunch of nuts half a world away banned wifi for their elementary students. I but do care if they had a good reason to do it!

Someone has falsely claimed that "recent international research has shown there may be a link", the press keep quoting it, and are of course unable to give a source since there is none.

Re:Insane

[cusco]

Journalism is dead, all that's left is the media.

Re:Insane

[mosb1000]

The problem with comparing two things over time is that things like cancer rates and cellphone use are changing all the time. So any comparison made this way is bound to show a positive or negative correlation. That's why controlled experimentation is such in important part of the scientific method.

Parents being rational about their children?

[Bruce66423]

Most world religions call for 'love of the neighbour as yourself'. However all who have children should hear 'love your neighbour as your child', as in practice parents are not good at being rational about when their children are concerned, with the result that we see children locked up in doors in reaction to 'stranger danger' - and thereby, overall, suffering more damage from lack of exercise and social interaction. This is merely an example of this wider irrationality... we can HOPE for reason to prevail...

Re:Parents being rational about their children?

[narcc]

we can HOPE for reason to prevail

Reason doesn't even prevail in skeptical and rationalist communities. Be reasonable here.

High pitched noises

[RogueyWon]

I wonder how much of the occasional health panic that springs up around wifi - and indeed other technologies - can actually be attributed to the high pitched hums that can be emitted by badly manufactured devices.

For instance, when I moved home last year, my new ISP - Virgin Media - provided me with a router when I signed up with them. Their "superhub" - basically a rebranded mid-range Netgear home router - shipped with a cheap and nasty plug adapter, which was prone to emitting a high pitched squeal. Google will turn up plenty of forum threads on the issue if you're interested. Anyway, because it was right on the edge of my hearing range, it took me quite a while to work out what was going on. Until I did, I suffered several weeks of sleeping problems, headaches and nausea - pretty much the typical symptoms associated with cries of "wifi is harming my health". Swapped the plug adapter for a better made one and everything was fine.

Now admittedly, I've always been sensitive to these things. When I was a teenager, my dad had a job that meant that there were often medical devices (monitors, defibrilators etc) used in training course in the home. One weekend he had brought home a monitor device that emitted a particularly horrible hum and left it switched on for testing. Nobody else in the family could hear it, but it made me quite violently ill. He refused to believe that I could actually hear anything until I talked him into a blind test where I went into another room and then shouted "on" and "off" as he toggled the power on the device.

So yeah... while schools should be pushing back on the idea that wifi can harm childrens' health, I do think a lot of them might want to check whether any of their electronics are giving out high pitched squeals like that (particularly as childrens' hearing tends to be more sensitive to these ranges).

Re:High pitched noises

[Joce640k]

I wonder how much of the occasional health panic that springs up around wifi - and indeed other technologies - can actually be attributed to the high pitched hums that can be emitted by badly manufactured devices.

Most of it can be attributed to Mr. Paul Brodeur: http://fumento.com/cancer/emf.html

Re:High pitched noises

[Kaenneth]

I've also read that a lot of the power line/cell tower 'cancer clusters' are explained by contractor massively (like 100x) overusing herbicides to prep the construction site; they think that no one will live there, so they dump enough poison to kill the neighborhood, literally.

Keeps the vines off the equipment tho.

Re:High pitched noises

[Tom]

until I talked him into a blind test

That is exactly what I've been missing from every single story on the subject. There are some fanatics who believe they actually get ill to the amount of feeling it in their bodies within minutes of getting near a signal source.

A TV show once made a 30-minute documentary about one such lunatic. The one thing they didn't do, the first thing I thought of when watching the crap, was to put him into a room shielded from outside influence with a device that has its power-on button disabled, or is hidden, or whatever, and have him tell them whether it's on or off. Repeat 10 times. Might take an hour or two, but they followed him around for at least a day for the rest of the bullshit, so that shouldn't matter.

Re:High pitched noises

[RogueyWon]

Yeah, I've noticed that as well whenever the subject comes up. If pressed, the "sufferer" will usually come up with some reason as to why the test wouldn't be valid.

In my case it was much simpler. The device was either making a loud high-pitched noise or it wasn't and I didn't want to prove a point or get sympathy, I just wanted it switched off.

Oh, my other bug-bear... those "teenager repellant" buzz devices that some shops have used to prevent teenagers hanging around outside their store (on the basis that teenagers have a higher hearing range). I'm in my mid 30s and I can hear those - and they're extremely unpleasant. I'd love to see any store owner deploying one of those arrested for assault. The "classical music" alternative is far more civilised.

Re:High pitched noises

[Joce640k]

Seems plausible.

Huh? How is that in any way "plausible"?

Why would they want to kill every plant in the area? (At great expense)

If they do, why do they only do this for power lines and not other types of construction?

If I google for images of "power lines", why is there usually grass underneath?

Did you know that most power lines go across farmer's fields....?

Re:High pitched noises

[Joce640k]

The "classical music" alternative is far more civilised.

Oh, you and your ear-preserving music...

A better way would be for every town to put some heavy metal, old mattresses and free soda out in a disused quarry somewhere and just let them get on with it.

It costs very little and keeps them out of our way.

Re:High pitched noises

[ByteSlicer]

I wonder how much of the occasional health panic that springs up around wifi - and indeed other technologies - can actually be attributed to the high pitched hums that can be emitted by badly manufactured devices.

It may be in your case, but I don't think that's the cause in most cases. I can also hear very high pitched sounds (transformers, bats), and while they can prevent me from sleeping, they don't make me sick otherwise.

I think the more general mechanisms at work are mass hysteria and the nocebo effect (placebo's evil twin), as evidenced by this story.

Re:High pitched noises

[Tom]

those "teenager repellant" buzz devices that some shops have used to prevent teenagers hanging around outside their store

Feel your pain. I'm a few years older and still have excellent hearing. It's crazy how noisy the normal urban environment is, and I often wonder why nobody gives a fuck until I realize that most people probably don't hear it or not as strongly as I do.

Re:High pitched noises

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

You need to watch this: This video will hurt. Be prepared for your ears and head to start hurting when you turn it on.
This video is especially relevant to the issue at large. The "Nocebo effect" is real and creates real symptoms in people. We need to understand that people who have these symptoms are not simply making them up, THEY IN FACT HAVE NAUSEA/HEADACHES/TROUBLE-BREATHING/ETC. and we need to be compassionate to that.
This is a complex issue and one that requires patience and understanding. When people complain of health effects due to wifi, power cables, or other things they don't understand they should be taken seriously, despite the fact that these technologies have no scientific reason for causing those effects.

Re:High pitched noises

[tibit]

The chirp is due to corona discharge, and is akin to a very tiny thunder that's on random autorepeat. It has got nothing to do with mechanical resonance of the heavy cables.

Re:High pitched noises

[fatphil]

If only the lines/transmitters were more toxic when running, then they wouldn't have to do that...

Re:High pitched noises

[Reziac]

I can 'hear' it, the same way I can 'hear' the highest pitch of a variable sonic pest repeller (rather more as pressure than as sound). I expect the nausea effect is because it impacts the inner ear, thus balance.

However, taking such effects seriously doesn't mean every nutjob's complaints are valid. I'm reminded of incidents where people were in an uproar over a new cell tower, how it was making them sick etc., only to learn that it hadn't been powered on yet. Contagious imagination, anyone?

Re:High pitched noises

[vandamme]

They spray just around the towers, so vegetation doesn't grow up the legs and short out the lines, which is expensive to fix. They don't need to spray under the lines.

Re:radiation and cancer

[Joce640k]

So tell us Mr. Scientist... how does photosynthesis work?

Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction caused by light and it doesn't need UV to work

(red/green light works best)

If light can cause chemical reactions then it can also cause cancer.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

In the early 1970's I worked in a machine shop. I was exposed to hand-soaking kerosene at one station, which was being used as a cheap cutting/ drilling oil. I developed small wart-like bumps. At a medical library I looked up if kerosene was carcinogenic. One book stated as a fact, that all petroleum distillates are. Another book stated as a fact that it was not, and that the whole issue of chemical carcinogenesis was 'iffy,' or unsettled. Guess which book was written by a chemical industry affiliated group?

But, Wifi causing cancer? I will believe if given a pile of proof.

Re:Hmmm

[mpe]

In the early 1970's I worked in a machine shop. I was exposed to hand-soaking kerosene at one station, which was being used as a cheap cutting/ drilling oil. I developed small wart-like bumps. At a medical library I looked up if kerosene was carcinogenic. One book stated as a fact, that all petroleum distillates are. Another book stated as a fact that it was not, and that the whole issue of chemical carcinogenesis was 'iffy,' or unsettled. Guess which book was written by a chemical industry affiliated group?

Considering the range of different chemicals present in "petroleum distillates" (also that these can vary depending on both the original oil and the refining process) claims that they are "all X" are likely to be nonsense.

Re:Hmmm

[nbauman]

In the early 1970's I worked in a machine shop. I was exposed to hand-soaking kerosene at one station, which was being used as a cheap cutting/ drilling oil. I developed small wart-like bumps. At a medical library I looked up if kerosene was carcinogenic. One book stated as a fact, that all petroleum distillates are. Another book stated as a fact that it was not, and that the whole issue of chemical carcinogenesis was 'iffy,' or unsettled. Guess which book was written by a chemical industry affiliated group?

But, Wifi causing cancer? I will believe if given a pile of proof.

About that time I was writing for an environmental magazine. Every time the EPA or OSHA or somebody would ban a compound because it had evidence of toxicity, the users would come up with a new chemical without evidence of toxicity. Or we'd have to figure out what to do with water that was contaminated by dioxins and stuff.

I used to go to the library, and interview scientists (on both sides) and ask them, "How do you know this chemical is safe? How do you know it's dangerous? Where's the evidence?"

I was amazed to find out that for most chemicals in daily use, like the ones you could pick up at a hardware store, there was no good evidence one way or the other.

Think about it. How do you prove a chemical is safe? How do you figure out whether a chemical is dangerous? Do you feed chemicals to people and watch what happens? Do you feed chemicals to rats? Do you go back and look at medical records of people who were and weren't exposed to chemicals?

Computerized records now make it easier to keep track of what happens after occupational exposure, but still, it's damn hard to figure it out. There are a few cases where investigators luck out (to the misfortune of the subjects) and find a well-documented pattern, but most of the time it's a short-term study with a small number of (unfortunate) rats who were checked for a small number of problems.

I haven't kept up with that stuff recently. If anybody has I'd be interested in knowing what's going on.

Re:Hmmm

[mirix]

Yeah, longer straight chain stuff should be pretty much harmless, but aromatics tend to be carcinogenic, irritant, stink, etc. (though it depends on the chemical in question, it's not a rule.)

Short alkanes aren't very good either, being very flammable and toxic, but aren't carcinogenic afaik. As the carbon chains get longer they become benign (with the greatest risk being that of getting them in your lungs - hard to get out, causing some sort of pneumonia like illness).

Normal kerosene (in north america, at least), is about 15-20% aromatics IIRC, which is why it has an odor. More refined variants for lanterns don't. Same deal with (pharmaceutical) mineral oil, or vaseline. harmless, but they come from the same stock as kerosene, and they are all 'petroleum distillates'.

Re:Hmmm

[Reziac]

Consider that most hand creams and "anti-aging" creams are glorified vaseline, and marvel that so few of our hands and faces fall off. ;)

"Just let them have this one"

[Chas]

No.

Because then we eventually wind up with a long, LONG string of idiocies being perpetrated just to make someone "feel better".

No.

HELL FUCKING NO.

As sympathetic as I am to these people, no parent should have to outlive their child, there's no excuse for idiocy. NONE.

Issues like this need to be met with compassion and a firm resolve not to simply sway in the face of someone's excess of emotion. Especially when said excess of emotion leads to fuzzy thinking and unsupportable actions such as this.

If these people want to scream and call you a heartless monster, so be it.

The whole "give in just a little so we can all get along" mentality is part of what's wrong with just about EVERYTHING nowadays.
There's this braindead notion that you can just compromise on EVERYTHING and it'll be okay.
The problem is, it's NOT okay. And the only people who seemingly aren't willing to compromise are the ones who're making these logic-impaired demands on others.

It needs to change.

Re:"Just let them have this one"

[Chas]

I said "should". This normally clues most people in to the fact that I'm talking about an ideal here.

Re:"Just let them have this one"

[swillden]

The whole "give in just a little so we can all get along" mentality is part of what's wrong with just about EVERYTHING nowadays.

It's also part of what's right with just about everything nowadays.

Seriously, willingness to compromise your own wishes to accommodate others is the basis for human cooperation, which is the basis for not only not killing each other at an astounding rate (archaeological evidence suggests that pre-historical peoples had homicide rates about three orders of magnitude higher than is typical for first-world nations today), it's also the basis for all of the societal structures that enable commerce, technological progress and government, among many, many more.

I agree with you that the number of ridiculous compromises has been rising in recent decades, but that's been accompanied by large reductions in all forms of violence, including both retail and wholesale murder as well as rape, bullying and domestic abuse, just to name a few. I don't think the two are unrelated; I think both are driven by an increased willingness to "give in just a little so we can all get along", due to increased levels of empathy, and eye-rollers like unnecessarily removing Wifi are probably an acceptable price, as long as it isn't too high. In this case they're replacing Wifi with wired Ethernet, so they'll get some significant reliability and bandwidth benefits out of the change as well... and eventually I'm sure they'll put the Wifi back.

Re:"Just let them have this one"

[swillden]

As sympathetic as I am to these people, no parent should have to outlive their child..

Where is that written. Not so long ago most families lost at least one child at young age. So its not even remotely historically accurate.

And, historically, parents always felt that they should not have to outlive their children. The fact that it was common never made it anything less than heartbreaking.

Re:"Just let them have this one"

[tibit]

The problem I often see with people is that their emotions tend to take over rational thinking. This behavior should be shunned and held in disdain, much like farting at the dinner table. Losing your child is a thoroughly devastating experience. Since we're human, we shouldn't act like dogs who hump at the street corner because they feel like it. Just because we feel like "doing something" after a loss of a child doesn't mean we are free to go full retard.

Re: "Just let them have this one"

[danomac]

"One of the greatest tragedies in life is outliving your own children."

Re:radiation and cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing the difference between knocking an electron loose through sheer force (ionizing radiation) and simply exciting an electron to a higher energy state before passing it on (photosynthesis).

The difference is, if there were nothing for chlorophyll (or insert-pigment-of-choice-here) to donate it's electron to, nothing would happen to it. The excess energy would probably just be absorbed as heat, and you'd still have boring old chlorophyll. But, hit it with enough ionizing radiation and you can damage the molecule enough so that it's no longer boring old chlorophyll. And that's what causes super-powers.

The worst is yet to come

[paiute]

Wait until those parents find out that their kids are subject to trillions and trillions of neutrinos blasting into their kid each second as they sit in class. They will be demanding that those neutrinos be turned off, and I will be there to help - by selling them my patented neutrino shield. It works because it is patented.

Re:The worst is yet to come

[tibit]

I think that there should be a law that every school must have an operating, maintained cloud chamber a high traffic area. Nothing beats the stupid out of people's heads better, I'd hope, than seeing for themselves just a very tiny fraction of the junk that's passing right through us all the time. With a little plaque that says: this stuff can actually harm you and give you cancer. As you'll see, your cellphone has no visible effect. Move on.

Re:radiation and cancer

[lxs]

A red light photon carries about 16000 times the energy a photon from E.M. radiation @ 2.4 GHz carries. That difference is comparable to the difference between red light and hard X rays. Light from the indicator LEDs on the router has more chance of hurting you than the waves from the antenna.

here's the real problem...

[argStyopa]

...these parents are going to find evidence that they are right: Turning off the Wi-Fi will, I believe, lead to statistically significantly better performance by students.*

*Not by any means directly due to the Wi-Fi, indeed, but because neither kids nor teachers will have the ability to distract themselves by browsing the web during the school day. If they turn off cell access (meaning no texting either) they'll see a similar improvement.

Stupidity

[DaMattster]

This is an example of the dumbing down of the human race. There are so many other factors in our environment that can be cancerous. At best, this is a large jump to a conclusion, especially when the wattage of WiFi is very low.

Using 2,4Ghz in wireless network is not harmful

[jonfr]

This is not complex, at 2412Mhz (start of 2,4Ghz wlan) does not harm you at the transmission levels used in wireless network. The transmission power is around 100mW, based on the law of square that signal fades quickly when the distance is more then 100 meters. Just if there is nothing blocking the signal. If anything is blocking the signal it fades faster and more quickly. At 5180Mhz (start of 5Ghz wlan band) the signal goes even shorter distance at the same power.

The idea that people can get sick or even cancer from normal radio bands (2Mhz to 60Ghz) is just ridiculous. It is nothing more then a chance that this boy got the brain cancer. It has nothing to do with wireless networks, mobile phones or television transmission masts (they broadcast in the 230 to 800Mhz range). Mobile phones are in the range of 700Mhz to 2100Mhz (LTE/GSM/3G). Depending on country and location.

For the sake of discussion I have simplified use of frequency band used in mobile phones and 5Ghz wireless network.

Re:Using 2,4Ghz in wireless network is not harmful

[jonfr]

You want facts? Here are facts for you. I don't make any guarantees that you understand those facts.

http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/05_radiowaves.html
http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/01_intro.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_wave

2412Mhz has the wave length of 124mm according to this calculator (http://www.onlineconversion.com/frequency_wavelength.htm). The size of human DNA molecule is far smaller then this. The wavelength of 2,4Ghz and 5Ghz is therefore too big to have any effect on DNA in living animals.

Re:Only if there's an absorption band.

[amorsen]

Radio waves don't just get absorbed when passing by some matter, they have to be of the right energy.

Water will absorb an extremely wide band. Contrary to popular belief, 2.5GHz is NOT a special resonant frequency for the water molecule, pretty much any cell phone band would work fine for microwave ovens. 2.5GHz was picked for engineering reasons, not out of physical necessity.

I will pray for them.

[oscrivellodds]

That's the only reasonable thing to do in a situation like this and it the chances of it working are about the same as removing the wifi network. Praise Jesus!

Sigh

[ledow]

I work in schools.

In one school the parents protested the installation of a mobile phone mast 500 metres from the school. They failed. While all the time we were having to remove phones from students and all the staff were wandering around with them strapped to their belts.

Then they protested our "wireless networks" (really a couple of WAP's on a trolley). While more parents complained that we didn't offer free Wifi in the reception area, and that they couldn't connect to the Internet when we had open-days.

People completely misunderstand the technology, and on the other hand also demand the services that technology provides. They also miss the point that, pretty much, vastly more "damage" is done by holding a transmitter with more power per square centimetre to their heads than anything outside the school building could manage.

Pretty much, they had petitions, the petitions were sent off into the consultation process, the mobile phone mast happened anyway, and we were allowed to "put in" the wireless networks that had been in the school for 4+ years beforehand anyway. Then all the moaning disappeared and the parents were happy because we gave them Wifi in reception.

Re:Why wifi anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

...because cables are an actual safety hazard.

Attention span

[jbmartin6]

At first I assumed from the headline that the parents wanted it removed since junior was playing on the Internet during class instead of learning. I was saddened to learn the real reason, as discussed in all the other posts.

Re:The school would be better off

[rossdee]

"When you throw them at a distracted student the screen might break."

I don't suppose they use chalk for that these days, since they don't have blackboards anymore

Re:radiation and cancer

[rossdee]

So how is the ozone hole doing in the southern hemisphere these days

Compared to broadcast radio

[Jawnn]

...the signal strength of WiFi is tiny. That AM station or even the ham down the road keying up on his 1,500 watt HF rig, produces far higher levels of RF. So STFU about the "dangers" of WiFi. Oh, and get your kids vaccinated too, you moron.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It depends

[justthinkit]

It depends on how the antennas are aimed. They are directional after all. For example, you talk about an "old school" microwave long distance relay -- how likely is it that this will be aimed at you, the ground, etc. It is aimed, as tightly as possible, at the next relay tower.

To the direct south of me, just five houses away, I've measured levels of 24,000 microwatts per meter squared (on the sidewalk) -- one-third of the reading directly in front of a working microwave oven. Move ten feet (or one foot) over and it is "just" 2,000 or 4,000. Outside my home it is 700 and the one time I took readings north of me I gave up after a house or two -- they were in the 100 range. And yes I have an "antenna farm" just a hundred yards away, with dozens of antennas spread over an enormous retirement center roof. By the way, at the base of all that, the front door measurements at the center are just 100 to 300.

It is about are you line-of-sight, and where are the antennas aimed.

My video on the subject.

Re:radiation and cancer

[cusco]

Closing fairly rapidly the last I heard. What does this have to do with anything at all?

Re:Only if there's an absorption band.

[tibit]

Are you a radio astronomer or something? Because yeah, what you say is true on astronomic scale, it's also true in gases, hey, we're no stars no gases, right?

Radio waves don't just get absorbed when passing by some matter, they have to be of the right energy.

For real-life complex organic matter, the "right energy" is not just a few absorption peaks, it's a rather broadband spectrum. It'd be rather cool if you could use some meat from your freezer as narrowband RF filters. Nature doesn't work that way.

Parents suck

[Nyder]

Back when I was a teenager, we had an underage night club. It was great. 2 kids, who ran away from home to hang out on the streets of Seattle, to go to this nightclub and do other things, had some parents who managed to get a group behind them, to shut down underage night clubs in Seattle. The kicker? They didn't even live in Seattle.

And after the nightclubs got shut down, and those 2 kids went home to new cars and other luxuries, what did all us kids who lived in Seattle have to do? Nothing, go hang on the streets.

Parents fucking suck.

There's something much more important here

[holophrastic]

I could care less about wifi radiation. In my mind, it's fine. But that's not the point here. There are plenty of things in this world, fully legal, regulation-approved, and with no proof of toxicity that are, in every sense of the word, completely toxic.

We've had bright and shiny paint based on uranium. A century later, we've had bright and shiny paint based on lead. We've had nonstick coatings with toxic fumes. We've had cigarettes that were thought to be safe for decades. Pesticides. Estrogyn-mimicking plastics. Countless drugs and treatments -- thalidimyde, blood-letting, witamins. Heck, even normal ordinary pollution. We've had all sorts of dangers unknown until they were known.

The point is that it takes time, often decades, to actually prove that something is toxic over the long term. Big surprise, you require a long term experiment to prove a long term result.

But that doesn't make the early skeptics incorrect when there wasn't proof. It actually makes them correct retroactively.

I'm not saying that these parents are correct. I'm saying that 100 years from now, they may have been correct. And because that's a possibility, and this is their own children for decades of schooling, they have every right to control that environment.

And that makes them right.

Re:The school would be better off

[AK Marc]

That's dangerously close to "computers make you dumber". Is that really the impression you wish to share?

Re:radiation and cancer

[WilyCoder]

Please tell me where I can buy a red-light-photon wifi router. Sounds like the speed is insane!

Re:radiation and cancer

[fatphil]

And don't forget - light is *higher energy radiation* than heat! Someone tell the media!

The albinos and gingers were right all along...

They invoked that special science rule

[Applehu Akbar]

If your concern is "environmental" in any way, conventional scientific evidence is not required. You just gather up some "concerned" housewives, claim that radiation, genetics, or chemicals are involved, and you can ban anything you want.

Magnitude Ignorance

[Martin Spamer]

The maxiumum power output of Wifi is 200 mW
A mobile phone is 500 mW
240 volt AC cable give off 10 Watts of radio noise.

So are they going to ban lighting and heat as well?

Re:Yeah right Mr. Einstein (not)...

[Chuckstar]

LOL... No. That doesn't happen. You can stand in the sun all day in 25C temps. You might get a bad sunburn. You might get dehydrated. But your brain doesn't heat up and fry in your head.

Hell, where I grew up it was regularly 45C+ during the day. You had to worry about staying hydrated, and about getting sunburned if you didn't have a good tan (or use sunblock), but otherwise you could be out in the sun for hours without your brain overheating and killing you.

Toe Cancer

[Tannasgh]

My uncle found cancer in his toe. It's my non-scientific silly wild ass guess aka my belief that it was caused by his shoes. Let's ban shoes... :/ yes this is sarcasm...

If I was smart

[vandamme]

. ....and had no scruples, I'd be selling Orgonite. Look it up, it's hilarious. If you've studied emag, it's gonna kill you with laughter.

Salt

[phorm]

Why not just use salt?

Reminds me of a great quote

[neminem]

From the great book, Zodiac:

      My office was the size of a piano crate, but mine nonetheless. I wanted a computer on my desk, and none of the other GEE honchos would risk sharing a room with one. Computers need electrical transformers, some of which are made with PCBs that like to vaporize and ooze out of a computer's ventilation slots, causing miscarriages and other foul omens. The boss gave me his office and moved into the big barnlike room.

      The same people barely noticed when Gomez, our "office manager," started painting the walls of that office. By doing so he exposed them to toxic fumes millions of times more concentrated than what I was getting from my computer. But they didn't notice because they're used to paint. They paint things all the time. Same deal with the stuff they spray on their underarms and put into their gas tanks. Gomez wanted to paint my office now, but I wouldn't let him.