NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
on students. Such action is also being sought by the Professional
Association of Teachers - the group has called on Secretary of State
for Education Alan Johnson to launch an official investigation into
the issue. Current figures indicate that wireless networks are now
deployed in over half of primary schools and four-fifths of secondary
schools in the country.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
aljuhani wrote:
> NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
>
> Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
> wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
> on students.
>
> More: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece
[sigh] Someone needs to recharge their Clue Card and go shopping again for
more clues to reality.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
DTC
Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for one
would be very intrested in your point for point rebuttle.
"DTC" <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote in message
news:WE5Zh.4850$Ut6.1372@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> aljuhani wrote:
>> NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
>>
>> Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
>> wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
>> on students. More:
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece
>
> [sigh] Someone needs to recharge their Clue Card and go shopping again
> for more clues to reality.
>
>
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
In article <1177867041.282923.5870@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.c om>,
aljuhani <private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
>
> Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
> wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
> on students. Such action is also being sought by the Professional
> Association of Teachers - the group has called on Secretary of State
> for Education Alan Johnson to launch an official investigation into
> the issue. Current figures indicate that wireless networks are now
> deployed in over half of primary schools and four-fifths of secondary
> schools in the country.
>
> More: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece
From the article referenced above:
> Wi-Fi - described by the Department of Education and Skills as a "magical"
> system that means computers do not have to be connected to telephone lines -
> is rapidly being taken up inschools [...]
Now *that* inspires confidence in their skills at analysis! Move over,
Ted Stevens, you have competition!
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
"That Bloke" <nospam@nospam.plus.net> wrote in message
news:4634f6d1$0$8738$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
| DTC
|
| Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for
one
| would be very interested in your point for point rebuttal.
I was deeply involved in the question of the bio hazard effects of RF/EMF
from cell phones in the mid 90's. Given that the power levels from wifi are
a fraction of that from cell phones and are at a frequency where the SPF
(specific absorption factor) is very poor and that the typical distance from
a wifi AP is a meter or more vis 1 or 2 cm from hand held cell phone the
impact is neglable. (less than the EMF generated by a jogger running
east/west in the earth magnetic field.)
BTW there were similar claims made with regard to honey bee deaths in the
USA. Something I found very interesting in that bee stings were a major
danger when I was climbing radio towers in the 70 and 80's as bees would
build hives in the cable races right under the antennas for some high power
transmitters..
Re: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
"aljuhani" <private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message
> NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
>
> Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
> wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
> on students. Such action is also being sought by the Professional
> Association of Teachers - the group has called on Secretary of State
> for Education Alan Johnson to launch an official investigation into
> the issue. Current figures indicate that wireless networks are now
> deployed in over half of primary schools and four-fifths of secondary
> schools in the country.
>
> More: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece
Anyone who knows anything about RF Exposure knows that at the power levels
an assess point operates at even at 2.4Ghz won't ever hurt you unless you
happen to be sitting right on the antenna and even then.... Once you get a
few inches away there really isn't that much to worry about.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
"That Bloke" <nospam@nospam.plus.net> hath wroth:
>Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for one
>would be very intrested in your point for point rebuttle.
Oh, that's easy enough. 2.4GHz Wi-Fi uses the same frequency as a
microwave oven. The average Wi-Fi access point and client belches
about 35 milliwatts. When you get about 10,000 of these dangerous
Wi-Fi devices together in one place, you have the equivalent power of
a microwave oven with the door open.
This can easily happen at conventions, rock concerts, hotels, and
Burning Man, which goes far to explain the vacuous stares and burnt
out look of the attendees. This can also happen at schools, where
each student brings their Wi-Fi enabled PDA, laptop, game machine, or
robot. Get enough of them together and the combined transmit power
will cook what's left of their brains after the skool gets done with
them.
There's also the danger of having students use their computers to
contradict the teachers. Given Wi-Fi and internet access, any student
can look up the topic on Wikipedia, and contradict the dogma spewn by
the instructors. This tends to create a credibility challenge, which
the instructors are not equipped to deal with. Little wonder the
teachers are protesting Wi-Fi at skool. (Incidentally, I did this a
few times in grade schools, except I used borrowed reference books.)
Another danger is Wi-Fi enabled cheating on exams. Ad-Hoc wireless
networks are easily established and can greatly facilitate the
exchange of test questions and answers. Again, the instructors are
not equipped with sniffers and direction finders in order to deal with
the thread. Little wonder they want to ban Wi-Fi. (Incidentally, I
did this in grade school, except I used Morse Code and ham radio.)
Finally, there's a real danger that the administration might notice
that students are learning more from the internet than from the
instructors. Online instruction is nothing new, but constitutes a
serious threat to the teaching establishment. It's conceivable that
the subject might be taught online, with the instructor in absentia.
(I did this in college by tape recording the boring lectures.)
Whether Wi-Fi will cook the brains of the students, or constitute a
threat to public instruction as we know it, will remain to be seen.
However, I can be certain that the teaching establishment will not go
down without a fight, in a futile effort to retain the status quo in
the presence of progress.
Re: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
"Adair Witner" <buhbear007@mail.com> hath wroth:
>Anyone who knows anything about RF Exposure knows that at the power levels
>an assess point operates at even at 2.4Ghz won't ever hurt you unless you
>happen to be sitting right on the antenna and even then.... Once you get a
>few inches away there really isn't that much to worry about.
>Adair
Perhaps some calculations would be more definitive. See:
<http://n5xu.ece.utexas.edu/rfsafety/>
First, a typical access point or client radio.
0.035 watts
2.2 dBi dipole
20 ft radius area of interest
2400 MHz
Include ground reflections
That yields a safe radius of 0.16 ft = 2 inches.
At the other extreme, is the high power base with a common patch or
panel antenna.
0.400 watts
8.0 dBi patch
20 ft radius
2400 Mhz
Include ground reflections
That's safe to 0.79 ft = 10 inches.
Actually, that's rather conservative because the Wi-Fi xmitter is NOT
generating full power at all times. The transmitter is pulsed on and
off at a rate set by the traffic requirements. It never gets even
close to 100% duty cycle. Therefore, the *AVERAGE* xmit power is
considerably less than the 35mw or 400mw I'm using.
Yeah, unless you sit on the antenna, you're safe.
The effects of RF exposure appear to cumulative over long periods of
time. For example, before I got involved in the RF business, I had a
full head of hair, a full bank account, and a generally positive
attitude. After many years of exposure to RF, the hair is falling
out, the bank account depleted, and the attitude is decidedly
pessimistic. Obviously, this was all caused by RF exposure.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
In article <ro9Zh.536$mO4.470@newsfe03.lga>, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
> BTW there were similar claims made with regard to honey bee deaths in the
> USA. Something I found very interesting in that bee stings were a major
> danger when I was climbing radio towers in the 70 and 80's as bees would
> build hives in the cable races right under the antennas for some high power
> transmitters..
The other interesting thing is that up until this came out, all the
research, etc. , was on how to stem the tide of bees getting killled off
by a virus that was spreading. Now this comes along and all of a sudden
the virus isn't talked about any more. Interesting.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>In article <ro9Zh.536$mO4.470@newsfe03.lga>, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>> BTW there were similar claims made with regard to honey bee deaths in the
>> USA. Something I found very interesting in that bee stings were a major
>> danger when I was climbing radio towers in the 70 and 80's as bees would
>> build hives in the cable races right under the antennas for some high power
>> transmitters..
> The other interesting thing is that up until this came out, all the
>research, etc. , was on how to stem the tide of bees getting killled off
>by a virus that was spreading. Now this comes along and all of a sudden
>the virus isn't talked about any more. Interesting.
Pesticides, a fungus perhaps, possibly a virus, or all of these:
<http://www.latimes.com/news/la-sci-bees26apr26,0,7437491.story>
As always, the deep pockets get the blame for literally everything.
Searching Google using "cell phones cause" yielded 10 million hits.
Cell phones can asllegedly cause auto accidents, headaches, cancer,
dead bees, world wide hunger, airliner crashes, gasoline explosions,
computer illiteracy in Japan, cell mutations, stunted cell growth,
etc. Never mind that the incidence of brain cancer has been
essentially constant for many years, while cell phone usage has
increased astronomically. If they were related, the curves would
track each other.
Incidence of brain cancer:
<http://planning.cancer.gov/disease/Brain-Snapshot.pdf>
My comments on RF safety and such:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/e937848e7a1fcb20>
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/msg/2e8392cfdb8028e2>
The radio towers I used to climb in the 60's had a mild bee problem.
Bees just love the inside of fiberglass radomes, outdoor racks, cable
trays, and poletop boxes, for hives. I've only been stung a few
times. One nice thing about the bees is that we didn't have to do
much about site security. No sane person would break into a building
or cabinet full of bees.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
In article <c1ha33drn1mk3uos5pj5ajmah5b4fc9jf3@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> Searching Google using "cell phones cause" yielded 10 million hits.
> Cell phones can asllegedly cause auto accidents, headaches, cancer,
> dead bees, world wide hunger, airliner crashes, gasoline explosions,
> computer illiteracy in Japan, cell mutations, stunted cell growth,
The auto accidents is well established and they can cause
headaches (largely when the spouse goes up side of your head with
one-g).
> etc. Never mind that the incidence of brain cancer has been
> essentially constant for many years, while cell phone usage has
> increased astronomically. If they were related, the curves would
> track each other.
While I don't have any reason to think otherwise, cancers of the
induced type are cumulative and the advent of cell phones that you put
next to your head are (in these terms) relatively new. I think you can
shoot the link down from a technical point of view quite effectively,
you probably have to wait another 10+ years before you can put a stake
in it epidemiologically.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> "That Bloke" <nospam@nospam.plus.net> hath wroth:
>
>
>>Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for one
>>would be very intrested in your point for point rebuttle.
>
>
> Oh, that's easy enough. 2.4GHz Wi-Fi uses the same frequency as a
> microwave oven. The average Wi-Fi access point and client belches
> about 35 milliwatts. When you get about 10,000 of these dangerous
> Wi-Fi devices together in one place, you have the equivalent power of
> a microwave oven with the door open.
Uh, microwave ovens have door interlocks, so opening one turns off the
transmitter.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
On Apr 30, 4:54 am, Jeff Liebermann <j...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us>
wrote:
> Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
> Searching Google using "cell phones cause" yielded 10 million hits.
> Cell phones can asllegedly cause auto accidents, headaches, cancer,
> dead bees, world wide hunger, airliner crashes, gasoline explosions,
> computer illiteracy in Japan, cell mutations, stunted cell growth,
> etc. Never mind that the incidence of brain cancer has been
> essentially constant for many years, while cell phone usage has
> increased astronomically. If they were related, the curves would
> track each other.
>
> Incidence of brain cancer:
> <http://planning.cancer.gov/disease/Brain-Snapshot.pdf>
Further this is about Mobile Phones and RF from Saudi Medical
Journal2004 ; Vol. 25 (6): 732-736:
"The extensive use of mobile phones has been accompanied by public
debate on the possible adverse effects on human health. The concerns
relate to the emissions of radio frequency (RF) radiation from the
mobile phones and the base stations that receive and transmit the
signals. There are 2 direct ways by which health could be affected as
a result of exposure to RF radiation. These are thermal (heating)
effects caused mainly by holding mobile phones close to the body and
also as a result of possible non-thermal effects. Mobile phones may
cause adverse health problems such as headache, sleep disturbance,
impairment of short term memory and more seriously significant
increases in the frequency of seizures in epileptic children, brain
tumors and high blood pressure amongst users of mobile phones. In
addition, mobile phones can cause discomfort, lack of concentration,
dizziness, worm on ear and burning skin"
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>In article <c1ha33drn1mk3uos5pj5ajmah5b4fc9jf3@4ax.com>,
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>> etc. Never mind that the incidence of brain cancer has been
>> essentially constant for many years, while cell phone usage has
>> increased astronomically. If they were related, the curves would
>> track each other.
> While I don't have any reason to think otherwise, cancers of the
>induced type are cumulative and the advent of cell phones that you put
>next to your head are (in these terms) relatively new. I think you can
>shoot the link down from a technical point of view quite effectively,
>you probably have to wait another 10+ years before you can put a stake
>in it epidemiologically.
Baloney. Cumulative effects might be possible if there were a static
group of potential victims that was being studied. However, the class
of potential victims (i.e. all the increasing number of cell phone
users) has increased dramatically in the same time span. It has
increased sufficiently for used cell phones and dead batteries to be
classified as an environmental waste hazard. Unless you expect RF
radiation exposure to be contagious, require a carrier, or is
self-limiting, where the mechanisms are quite different, cell phone
use and brain cancer should track.
However, I will grant that the decrease in SAR (specific absorption
rate) may balance the increase in cell phone usage. There may also be
non-linear threshold effects. However, if these were the case, one
would expect to see some variations in the brain cancer rate. There
have been none. The curve is flat.
What you're suggesting is very common in research, where the mantra
"more research is necessary" is traditionally added to any research
report. 10+ more years of throwing money at a problem that doesn't
exist isn't very useful. However, paranoia and statistical ineptitude
are powerful political motivators. Maybe add a cancer research tax
fund to our cell phone bills and be done with it?
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
>> Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>>
>> Searching Google using "cell phones cause" yielded 10 million hits.
>> Cell phones can asllegedly cause auto accidents, headaches, cancer,
>> dead bees, world wide hunger, airliner crashes, gasoline explosions,
>> computer illiteracy in Japan, cell mutations, stunted cell growth,
>> etc. Never mind that the incidence of brain cancer has been
>> essentially constant for many years, while cell phone usage has
>> increased astronomically. If they were related, the curves would
>> track each other.
I don't believe cell phones - or any other very low-level RF - causes
cancer, but your premise is wrong.
If low-RF causes cancer, then like any other low-level environmental
carcinogen, it won't start showing its effects for two or three decades.
The effect lags the cause considerably.
We won't know for probably at least ten more years if there's a connection.
(Well... I know.... I have Cingular, and there's almost NEVER a good
connection! <G> Oh... wait! That's not what we're discussing.....)
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
Bob Willard <BobwBSGS@TrashThis.comcast.net> hath wroth:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> "That Bloke" <nospam@nospam.plus.net> hath wroth:
>>>Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for one
>>>would be very intrested in your point for point rebuttle.
>> Oh, that's easy enough. 2.4GHz Wi-Fi uses the same frequency as a
>> microwave oven. The average Wi-Fi access point and client belches
>> about 35 milliwatts. When you get about 10,000 of these dangerous
>> Wi-Fi devices together in one place, you have the equivalent power of
>> a microwave oven with the door open.
>Uh, microwave ovens have door interlocks, so opening one turns off the
>transmitter.
Sorry. I wasn't specific enough:
When you get about 10,000 of these dangerous Wi-Fi devices together in
one place, you have the equivalent power of a microwave oven, with the
door open, case partially disassembled, the door interlock bypassed
with creative wiring, an external antenna attached to the magnetron
probe, and pointed at the intended victims.
If you need instructions or a recipe for microwaved students, I think
it can be found under cannibal resources.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
In article <6p3c33d7fdrsgerlgrn0untnamj5namgnl@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> Baloney. Cumulative effects might be possible if there were a static
> group of potential victims that was being studied. However, the class
> of potential victims (i.e. all the increasing number of cell phone
> users) has increased dramatically in the same time span.
But most cancers that are related to such thing (not "naturally
occurring" for lack of a better term") have dose-response relationships.
The longer you smoke the more lung cancers you see. Asbestos and radon
are both more likely with longer exposures than with shorter ones. Most
chemical cancers same way.
*IF* (real big if) cell phones are going to cause cancers by the
ways suggested, then you have to wait out lag times, because they will
be there.
It has
> increased sufficiently for used cell phones and dead batteries to be
> classified as an environmental waste hazard. Unless you expect RF
> radiation exposure to be contagious, require a carrier, or is
> self-limiting, where the mechanisms are quite different, cell phone
> use and brain cancer should track.
Right, they should track, but not right away because the
damage with cancers are related to long-term exposures. Their relative
waste hazard has little to do with their health hazard within the
context of their use. .
> However, I will grant that the decrease in SAR (specific absorption
> rate) may balance the increase in cell phone usage. There may also be
> non-linear threshold effects. However, if these were the case, one
> would expect to see some variations in the brain cancer rate. There
> have been none. The curve is flat.
>
May (or may not be) just that the cases haven't started showing
up yet. Look at the timeline with women and lung cancer, for example,
where they started smoking in increasing numbers, but the spike in lung
cancer in women did not begin until 20 years later. Cancers work that
way.
> What you're suggesting is very common in research, where the mantra
> "more research is necessary" is traditionally added to any research
> report. 10+ more years of throwing money at a problem that doesn't
> exist isn't very useful. However, paranoia and statistical ineptitude
> are powerful political motivators. Maybe add a cancer research tax
> fund to our cell phone bills and be done with it?
What you are suggesting is very common when discussing epidemiology,
not understanding that cancers and other diseases don't just pop up.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
>> In article <c1ha33drn1mk3uos5pj5ajmah5b4fc9jf3@4ax.com>,
>> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>>> etc. Never mind that the incidence of brain cancer has been
>>> essentially constant for many years, while cell phone usage has
>>> increased astronomically. If they were related, the curves would
>>> track each other.
>
>> While I don't have any reason to think otherwise, cancers of the
>> induced type are cumulative and the advent of cell phones that you put
>> next to your head are (in these terms) relatively new. I think you can
>> shoot the link down from a technical point of view quite effectively,
>> you probably have to wait another 10+ years before you can put a stake
>> in it epidemiologically.
>
> Baloney. Cumulative effects might be possible if there were a static
> group of potential victims that was being studied. However, the class
> of potential victims (i.e. all the increasing number of cell phone
> users) has increased dramatically in the same time span. It has
> increased sufficiently for used cell phones and dead batteries to be
> classified as an environmental waste hazard. Unless you expect RF
> radiation exposure to be contagious, require a carrier, or is
> self-limiting, where the mechanisms are quite different, cell phone
> use and brain cancer should track.
>
Well said!
>
> What you're suggesting is very common in research, where the mantra
> "more research is necessary" is traditionally added to any research
> report. 10+ more years of throwing money at a problem that doesn't
> exist isn't very useful. However, paranoia and statistical ineptitude
> are powerful political motivators. Maybe add a cancer research tax
> fund to our cell phone bills and be done with it?
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>In article <6p3c33d7fdrsgerlgrn0untnamj5namgnl@4ax.com>,
> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> Baloney. Cumulative effects might be possible if there were a static
>> group of potential victims that was being studied. However, the class
>> of potential victims (i.e. all the increasing number of cell phone
>> users) has increased dramatically in the same time span.
>
> But most cancers that are related to such thing (not "naturally
>occurring" for lack of a better term") have dose-response relationships.
So, how long do you want to wait? In 1985, there were about 600,000
cell phone users in the world. Today, there are about 2.5 billion
cell phones in the world in use:
<http://www.cellular-news.com/story/19223.php>
That's about 15 years (my guess) since cell phones became sufficient
numerous to be statistically significant for cancer research. The
original 600,000 users should have developed brain cancer by now,
especially after perhaps 22 years of exposure. Look again at the
brain cancer incidence graph. Flat, no increase, since 1984.
>> Wi-Fi devices together in one place,
>The longer you smoke the more lung cancers you see. Asbestos and radon
>are both more likely with longer exposures than with shorter ones. Most
>chemical cancers same way.
Asbestos and radon are both cumulative, which explains why they're
exposure related. So are all ingested carcinogens. However, the last
time I checked, the human body cannot store RF. It might store some
temporary heating, but that's very short term.
> *IF* (real big if) cell phones are going to cause cancers by the
>ways suggested, then you have to wait out lag times, because they will
>be there.
It should have shown up by now, since widespread cell phone use
started in approximately 1985. There is the possibility that vehicle
accident fatalities induced by cell phone use exactly balances the
increase in cancer rate. However, autopsy results on accident
fatalities does not show a high incidence of brain cancer.
>> It has
>> increased sufficiently for used cell phones and dead batteries to be
>> classified as an environmental waste hazard. Unless you expect RF
>> radiation exposure to be contagious, require a carrier, or is
>> self-limiting, where the mechanisms are quite different, cell phone
>> use and brain cancer should track.
> Right, they should track, but not right away because the
>damage with cancers are related to long-term exposures.
Is 10 years enough for tracking? If so, we should have seen an
increase in brain cancer from the 1985-1995 users of cell phones. We
haven't.
>Their relative
>waste hazard has little to do with their health hazard within the
>context of their use.
I meant that to demonstrate the large number of cell phones currently
in use (and discarded).
>> However, I will grant that the decrease in SAR (specific absorption
>> rate) may balance the increase in cell phone usage. There may also be
>> non-linear threshold effects. However, if these were the case, one
>> would expect to see some variations in the brain cancer rate. There
>> have been none. The curve is flat.
>>
> May (or may not be) just that the cases haven't started showing
>up yet. Look at the timeline with women and lung cancer, for example,
>where they started smoking in increasing numbers, but the spike in lung
>cancer in women did not begin until 20 years later. Cancers work that
>way.
Wrong. The tiny spike in about 1990 was caused by improvements in
cancer screening methods that improved early detection. As I recall,
it showed up for both men and women. As a result, more lung cancers
were identified on introduction. The curve dropped immediately
afterwards:
<http://planning.cancer.gov/disease/Lung-Snapshot.pdf>
Incidentally, lung cancer testing statistics are somewhat of a crap
shoot because the tradition chest x-ray generates large numbers of
false positives. The false positives tend to appear in the statistics
reported by doctors, while little effort is made in removing these
false positives from the statistics when more invasive tests show that
it's not a cancer. The few that I've seen tracked end up getting
classified as "spontaneous remission" which is a nice term of a bad
cancer diagnosis.
Incidentally, if you need some entertainment value, and have a 24dBi
barbeque dish antenna, you might try pointing it at the sun. The dish
diameter is roughly 1 square meter. The total power delivered by the
sun is about 1000 watts per square meter.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation>
Very little of this is at 2.4Ghz, but your wireless client or access
point should show a measureable increase in noise level when pointed
at the sun. I'm late for lunch or I would calculate the noise power.
Anyway, there's probably more radiation at 2.4GHz coming from the sun,
than from a nearby wireless client. (I'll grind the number later).
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:13:52 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
<63ca33p8n4pkbb9qf5l2h6if9sodn5o5ig@4ax.com>:
>Finally, there's a real danger that the administration might notice
>that students are learning more from the internet than from the
>instructors. Online instruction is nothing new, but constitutes a
>serious threat to the teaching establishment. It's conceivable that
>the subject might be taught online, with the instructor in absentia.
>(I did this in college by tape recording the boring lectures.)
Entertainment value of your comments aside, computer-based and on-line
education have thus far been found to be pretty much a flop in serious
studies. The latest is a new report from the Department of Education
which concludes that most education software does not boost test scores.
<http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074005/> Teachers are far, far more
effective.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:49:37 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless , "That
Bloke" <nospam@nospam.plus.net> wrote:
>DTC
>
>Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for one
>would be very intrested in your point for point rebuttle.
The trick is to read the actual story behind the headline, and strip
off the spin.
The HPA has called for nothing, and indeed has declined to back health
fears claims. Instead a senior figure within it has been pressed to
make a personal comment which has been taken out of context.
"Sir William - who takes a stronger position on the issue than his
agency -"
"In a statement, the agency says its chair Sir William Stewart, is
being "pressed by lobbyists to condemn wi-fi and is unprepared to do
so. He has not taken a position on wi-fi"."
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:43:36 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless , Mark
McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:49:37 +0100, in alt.internet.wireless , "That
>Bloke" <nospam@nospam.plus.net> wrote:
>
>>DTC
>>
>>Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for one
>>would be very intrested in your point for point rebuttle.
>
>The trick is to read the actual story behind the headline, and strip
>off the spin.
"The UK's Health Protection Agency, which has responsibility for
dealing with radiation safety issues, has said statements attributed
to its chairman, Sir William Stewart, in an article in The Independent
on Sunday were not his and that he was not prepared to condemn Wi-Fi,
even though he was being pressed by lobbyists to do so."
So the story seems to have been a slight embellishment of the
actuality...
--
Mark McIntyre
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:13:52 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
><jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
><63ca33p8n4pkbb9qf5l2h6if9sodn5o5ig@4ax.com>:
>
>>Finally, there's a real danger that the administration might notice
>>that students are learning more from the internet than from the
>>instructors. Online instruction is nothing new, but constitutes a
>>serious threat to the teaching establishment. It's conceivable that
>>the subject might be taught online, with the instructor in absentia.
>>(I did this in college by tape recording the boring lectures.)
>Entertainment value of your comments aside, computer-based and on-line
>education have thus far been found to be pretty much a flop in serious
>studies. The latest is a new report from the Department of Education
>which concludes that most education software does not boost test scores.
><http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074005/> Teachers are far, far more
>effective.
Maybe, but they're also expensive. Several states have organized
"virtual schools" that are taught online over the internet. Locally,
the skool district is experimenting with computer based remedial
education for those that are falling behind in class.
This looks interesting (9 page).
THE IMPACT OF COMPUTER-BASED SECONDARY EDUCATION http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...4/ai_n13633250
"Thomas predicts that within the next three or four years, most
high school students in the United States will take all or part
of their courses from the Internet."
What's funny is that the primary incentive for internet based
education is not coming from the cash strapped skool districts. It's
coming from the side effects of legal action. In 1999, the ACLU
successfully sued the state of Calif for failing to provide sufficient
advanced placement curriculum for those that couldn't handle it
anyway, but are somehow entitled to an advanced education (i.e.
college). The result is that the state has provide online versions of
these classes, probably because it was the cheapest way out of this
mess. I don't have any info on the success of advanced curriculum for
equal opportunity students aspiring to attend college, but I suspect
it's dismal. Yeah, online education is a failure.
"The Clark study found that rates of participation in K-12 courses
delivered via the Internet were highest in rural and small schools."
Translation: Those districts that can't find or afford decent
teachers resort to online curriculum. The above URL goes into great
detail on how this works.
"In the 1999-2000 school year, FLVS students posted higher AP scores
than the national average in Biology, Computer Science, and English
(Florida State University)"
"For the 2000-2001 school year, FLVS AP qualifying scores exceeded
the national average by nearly 9%."
So much for the latest report claiming that online education results
in lower test scores. Remember, this is in an impoverished school
district in Florida with no advanced academic history. AP is
"advanced placement" also known as college preparatory classes.
The student comments on the bottom of Page 7 are very illuminating.
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_200504/ai_n13633250/pg_7>
Speaking only for myself, I have trouble taking online classes. I've
done three, with mediocre results. My problem is concentration. If I
can avoid distractions, I can really get into the topic and really do
well. However, if I get distracted, it's like punching the reset
button. No electronic smog coming from my Wi-Fi hardware, but the tea
kettle is over boiling....(yet another distraction).
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
That Bloke wrote:
> DTC
>
> Can you please supply the full technical backup to your response. I for one
> would be very intrested in your point for point rebuttle.
Lets start with a quote from the article:
"Recent research has linked radiation from mobiles to cancer and to brain
damage. And many studies have found disturbing symptoms in people near masts"
First, there is also research that can NOT find a cancer link...but I'm not
going to weigh in on that debacle.
Second, it mentions "disturbing symptoms" and cell phone towers. Anyone
with basic RF propagation experience can tell you how low the signal is
below the tower. Key clue phrases: "inverse square law" and "antenna gain
patterns"
Bet you'll find many people will suddenly begin suffering from WiFi
problems if told that blue painted shoe box with a piece of coat hanger
sticking out box in the room is a WiFi transmitter.
Re: NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> hath wroth:
>Bet you'll find many people will suddenly begin suffering from WiFi
>problems if told that blue painted shoe box with a piece of coat hanger
>sticking out box in the room is a WiFi transmitter.
Chuckle. I was once asked to look at a test chamber and 800MHz cell
phone transmitter used in microbiological RF exposure testing. They
were getting results but the numbers weren't very consistent or
apparently repeatable. Everyone assumed it was something exotic like
standing waves in the box, or frequency selective dead spots. I
looked at the data before I started and agreed that there certainly
were microbiological effects. However, when I attacked the setup, I
soon discovered that the coax connector at the chamber entry point was
shorted by a sloppy connector crimp. At no time was there any RF
inside the test chamber. Yet, the researchers had numbers that showed
a statistically significant correlation with reproductive rate, cell
death, mobility, and DNA breakage. I later discovered that there were
several cellular repeaters in the vicinity, which really messed up the
test measurements. If you know what results you're looking for,
you'll eventually find data to demonstrate those results.
More on electronic smog:
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=450995&in_page_id=1879>
Re: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog'
"Adair Witner" <buhbear007@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1I9Zh.2988$HX7.2819@newssvr19.news.prodigy.ne t...
> "aljuhani" <private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog':
> >
> > Sir William Stewart, head of the Health Protection Agency in the U.K.,
> > wants a probe on whether the use of Wi-Fi in schools poses any danger
> > on students. Such action is also being sought by the Professional
> > Association of Teachers - the group has called on Secretary of State
> > for Education Alan Johnson to launch an official investigation into
> > the issue. Current figures indicate that wireless networks are now
> > deployed in over half of primary schools and four-fifths of secondary
> > schools in the country.
> >
> > More: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2472133.ece
>
> Anyone who knows anything about RF Exposure knows that at the power levels
> an assess point operates at even at 2.4Ghz won't ever hurt you unless you
> happen to be sitting right on the antenna and even then.... Once you get a
> few inches away there really isn't that much to worry about.
>
> Adair
>
>
Wi-FI is nothing. Try living near a 3 million watt UHF TV station. That is
enough to have shown changes even in rats.
NEWS: WIFI - Children at risk from 'electronic smog' 
Linear Mode
