Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
By Jonathan Owen
Published: 29 April 2007
The health risks posed by Wi-Fi technology should be investigated by eminent scientists to ensure that a generation will not be damaged by growing levels of "electronic smog".
"The research hasn't been done. Therefore we cannot assume that there are no effects," said Dennis Henshaw, professor of human radiation at Bristol University. "I would be in favour of an inquiry into the dangers of Wi-Fi. This technology is being wheeled out without any checks and balances."
His concerns were echoed by Alan Preece, professor of medical physics at Bristol University, a pioneer of the research into the effects of mobile phones on the brain. "No one is really aware of what we are dealing with," he said. "The Department for Trade and Industry needs to take the lead and do some investigation."
The developments came after a week in which a row has flared between scientists around the world. The exchanges were prompted by reports in last week's Independent on Sunday that teaching unions and scientists have been pressing for an official investigation into the potential risks of Wi-Fi.
The Health Protection Agency (HPA), chaired by Sir William Stewart, has yet to announce publicly its intentions, but senior sources have admitted to this newspaper that proper research needs to be done to ensure that Wi-Fi does not present a danger to children, acknowledging there are ethical issues and public health concerns.
It emerged yesterday that Professor Lawrie Challis, the head of the Government's committee on mobile phone safety, is also urging caution. "Since we advise that children should be discouraged from using mobile phones, we should also discourage children from placing their laptop on their lap when they are using Wi-Fi," he said.
And Dr George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in the US, is setting up a global registry of people suffering from symptoms relating to the technology. Commenting on Sir William's stance, he said: "I know he is under enormous pressure from the mobile telecommunications industry, and the official stance being taken by HPA is one that is different to his personal views. That is the reality. The HPA has dropped the ball in not requiring testing before Wi-Fi goes into schools."
The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation into the health risks.
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f1n96e$9o4$1@news.datemas.de
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>
> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that
> wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
> By Jonathan Owen
> Published: 29 April 2007
[snip]
> The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw
> the Professional Association of Teachers call for a
> formal investigation into the health risks.
I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the content of the message
and the poster, in case of any doubt.
On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:10:30 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f1n96e$9o4$1@news.datemas.de
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>>
>> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>> 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless networks
>> have no effects', expert warns By Jonathan Owen
>> Published: 29 April 2007
>
> [snip]
>
>> The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the
>> Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation
>> into the health risks.
>
> I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the content of the message
> and the poster, in case of any doubt.
>
> Ivor
Eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "bollocks" - unless
you got "bollocks" on your mind. :-)
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f1nn27$7lc$2@news.datemas.de
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:10:30 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> > news:f1n96e$9o4$1@news.datemas.de
> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
> > >
> > > Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> > > 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume
> > > that wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
> > > By Jonathan Owen
> > > Published: 29 April 2007
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week
> > > saw the Professional Association of Teachers call for
> > > a formal investigation into the health risks.
> >
> > I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the
> > content of the message and the poster, in case of any
> > doubt.
> >
> > Ivor
>
> Eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's
> "bollocks" - unless you got "bollocks" on your mind. :-)
It's bollocks. Prove me wrong. People have been trying for a long time but
they haven't succeeded yet. Nor will you.
On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:29:18 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f1nn27$7lc$2@news.datemas.de
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 17:10:30 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>
>> > "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
>> > news:f1n96e$9o4$1@news.datemas.de
>> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>> > >
>> > > Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>> > > 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless
>> > > networks have no effects', expert warns By Jonathan Owen
>> > > Published: 29 April 2007
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > > The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the
>> > > Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation
>> > > into the health risks.
>> >
>> > I think "bollocks" is the polite term. Both for the content of the
>> > message and the poster, in case of any doubt.
>> >
>> > Ivor
>>
>> Eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "bollocks" - unless
>> you got "bollocks" on your mind. :-)
>
> It's bollocks. Prove me wrong. People have been trying for a long time but
> they haven't succeeded yet. Nor will you.
You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem Ivor old man.
Are you saying you and your opinions carry more weight/value than those
of the scientists quoted in the paper?
rotflmao
A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global warming research
grant free for all need a scare story to get them more money otherwise
their country houses may have to be sold.
> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
> By Jonathan Owen
> Published: 29 April 2007
>
> The health risks posed by Wi-Fi technology should be investigated by eminent scientists to ensure that a generation will not be damaged by growing levels of "electronic smog".
<snip>
My DECT 'phone recently packed up so I was looking for a new one. Came
across this link (from a site that sells DECT 'phones!):
On Tue, 08 May 2007 06:26:28 +0000, Mugwump wrote:
> In article <f1n96e$9o4$1@news.datemas.de>, lenny@say.no.to.wifi says...
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>>
>> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Translated
>
> A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global warming research grant
> free for all need a scare story to get them more money otherwise their
> country houses may have to be sold.
I doubt that. Currently they are more likely to be looked upon askance
by their peers and the industry. The last thing they would want is to
loose their credibility. That implies that they must have very good
scientific reason for their calls.
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f1o5m0$662$1@news.datemas.de
[snip]
> You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem
> Ivor old man.
No, that's you. The *reality* of the situation is that so far, *nothing*
has proven *beyond all doubt* that mobile phones, wi-fi or eating toast
for that matter is harmful.
> Are you saying you and your opinions carry more
> weight/value than those of the scientists quoted in the
> paper?
Until they come up with *provable* data, then their *opinions* are
worthless.
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f1pgqe$ppb$1@news.datemas.de
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 06:26:28 +0000, Mugwump wrote:
>
> > In article <f1n96e$9o4$1@news.datemas.de>,
> > lenny@say.no.to.wifi says...
> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
> > >
> > > Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Translated
> >
> > A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global
> > warming research grant free for all need a scare story
> > to get them more money otherwise their country houses
> > may have to be sold.
>
> I doubt that. Currently they are more likely to be looked
> upon askance by their peers and the industry. The last
> thing they would want is to loose their credibility. That
> implies that they must have very good scientific reason
> for their calls.
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:53:38 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f1o5m0$662$1@news.datemas.de
>
> [snip]
>
>> You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem Ivor old man.
>
> No, that's you. The *reality* of the situation is that so far, *nothing*
> has proven *beyond all doubt* that mobile phones, wi-fi or eating toast
> for that matter is harmful.
Nothing in this field is 100%.
>> Are you saying you and your opinions carry more weight/value than those
>> of the scientists quoted in the paper?
>
> Until they come up with *provable* data, then their *opinions* are
> worthless.
What are your qualifications? If you want others including myself to
accept what you say you had better be a damn sight more high powered
than Professor Lawrie Challis, Alan Preece, professor of medical physics
and Dr George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in
the US.
Otherwise go and take a flying leap.
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:54:52 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f1pgqe$ppb$1@news.datemas.de
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 06:26:28 +0000, Mugwump wrote:
>>
>> > In article <f1n96e$9o4$1@news.datemas.de>, lenny@say.no.to.wifi
>> > says...
>> > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>> > >
>> > > Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
>> >
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Translated
>> >
>> > A bunch of scientists who missed out on the global warming research
>> > grant free for all need a scare story to get them more money otherwise
>> > their country houses may have to be sold.
>>
>> I doubt that. Currently they are more likely to be looked upon askance
>> by their peers and the industry. The last thing they would want is to
>> loose their credibility. That implies that they must have very good
>> scientific reason for their calls.
>
> Implication isn't proof. Where is your *proof* ??
I trust their judgment even if you don't. And it's not as if they are
calling for research out of the blue, on the off chance so to speak.
There are a few studies which have raised red flags in this field.
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f1qam8$eq2$1@news.datemas.de
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:53:38 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> > news:f1o5m0$662$1@news.datemas.de
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect
> > > problem Ivor old man.
> >
> > No, that's you. The *reality* of the situation is that
> > so far, *nothing* has proven *beyond all doubt* that
> > mobile phones, wi-fi or eating toast for that matter is
> > harmful.
>
> Nothing in this field is 100%.
Therefore worthless as far as I'm concerned.
> > > Are you saying you and your opinions carry more
> > > weight/value than those of the scientists quoted in
> > > the paper?
> >
> > Until they come up with *provable* data, then their
> > *opinions* are worthless.
>
> What are your qualifications? If you want others
> including myself to accept what you say you had better be
> a damn sight more high powered than Professor Lawrie
> Challis, Alan Preece, professor of medical physics and Dr
> George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy
> Institute in the US.
> Otherwise go and take a flying leap.
My qualifications are irrelevant. I'm not the one trying to convince
people that mobile phones or wi-fi is dangerous.
> > I'm still waiting for you to *prove* me wrong.
>
> I'm not here to entertain ijits like you.
You're doing a good job of it though, I'm in hysterics here..!
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f1qbjh$g8k$1@news.datemas.de
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:54:52 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
[snip]
> > Implication isn't proof. Where is your *proof* ??
>
> I trust their judgment even if you don't. And it's not as
> if they are calling for research out of the blue, on the
> off chance so to speak. There are a few studies which
> have raised red flags in this field.
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f1qbjh$g8k$1@news.datemas.de...
> I trust their judgment even if you don't. And it's not as if they are
> calling for research out of the blue, on the off chance so to speak.
> There are a few studies which have raised red flags in this field.
Of course they call for them out of the blue.
Its one way to get funding.
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f1qam8$eq2$1@news.datemas.de...
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:53:38 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
>> news:f1o5m0$662$1@news.datemas.de
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem Ivor old man.
>>
>> No, that's you. The *reality* of the situation is that so far, *nothing*
>> has proven *beyond all doubt* that mobile phones, wi-fi or eating toast
>> for that matter is harmful.
>
> Nothing in this field is 100%.
There is at least one known thing..
it is harmful to many people for them to be subjected to stress and fear.
You are doing so.
It is therefore proven that you are a bigger danger than mobiles/wifi are.
On 2007-05-08, dennis@home <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f1qbjh$g8k$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>> I trust their judgment even if you don't. And it's not as if they are
>> calling for research out of the blue, on the off chance so to speak.
>> There are a few studies which have raised red flags in this field.
>
> Of course they call for them out of the blue.
> Its one way to get funding.
Except it isn't really out of the blue. One can find no end of
paranoid anecdotes. Here's a good recent example:
In message <slrnf41rui.8s.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> writes
>Except it isn't really out of the blue. One can find no end of
>paranoid anecdotes. Here's a good recent example:
>
> http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3642285/
>
>I didn't know they had a blood test for "WiFi sensitivity".
>
>Dennis Ferguson
I love this bit...
'I am trying to find an attorney to represent us pro-bono in what likely
would be a multimillion dollar case, but I haven't had much luck finding
one yet.'
Looks like somebody's smelled the trough. You can imagine the adverts,
Have you had a headache in the past six years? Did you know you could be
WiFi sensitive, speak to our experts and we could get you a chav payout
on a no win no fee basis because people are gullible enough to believe
any old sh*t they read in the papers even if it's backed up with no
scientific evidence at all.
--
Clint Sharp
In message <slrnf41rui.8s.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> writes
>Except it isn't really out of the blue. One can find no end of
>paranoid anecdotes. Here's a good recent example:
>
> http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3642285/
>
>I didn't know they had a blood test for "WiFi sensitivity".
>
>Dennis Ferguson
I love this bit...
'I am trying to find an attorney to represent us pro-bono in what likely
would be a multimillion dollar case, but I haven't had much luck finding
one yet.'
Looks like somebody's smelled the trough. You can imagine the adverts,
Have you had a headache in the past six years? Did you know you could be
WiFi sensitive, speak to our experts and we could get you a chav payout
on a no win no fee basis because people are gullible enough to believe
any old sh*t they read in the papers even if it's backed up with no
scientific evidence at all.
--
Clint Sharp
On May 9, 8:03 pm, Clint Sharp <c...@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnf41rui.8s.dcfergu...@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis Ferguson
> <dcfergu...@pacbell.net> writes>Except it isn't really out of the blue. One can find no end of
> >paranoid anecdotes. Here's a good recent example:
>
> > http://omega.twoday.net/stories/3642285/
>
> >I didn't know they had a blood test for "WiFi sensitivity".
>
> >Dennis Ferguson
>
> I love this bit...
>
> 'I am trying to find an attorney to represent us pro-bono in what likely
> would be a multimillion dollar case, but I haven't had much luck finding
> one yet.'
>
> Looks like somebody's smelled the trough. You can imagine the adverts,
>
> Have you had a headache in the past six years? Did you know you could be
> WiFi sensitive, speak to our experts and we could get you a chav payout
> on a no win no fee basis because people are gullible enough to believe
> any old sh*t they read in the papers even if it's backed up with no
> scientific evidence at all.
> --
> Clint Sharp
Maybe the defence lawyer will be able to adduce alternative studies
that wi-fi sensitivity is carried by mutant bacteria living in the
guts of flying pigs, by tortoiseshell butterflies in the vicinity of
genetically-modified linseed, made worse by depleted uranium in the
natural environment as a result of airliner crashes, and ... [contd p
94]
In message <1178743133.888956.3000@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.co m>, andy
<andy.ggrps@googlemail.com> writes
>Maybe the defence lawyer will be able to adduce alternative studies
>that wi-fi sensitivity is carried by mutant bacteria living in the
>guts of flying pigs, by tortoiseshell butterflies in the vicinity of
>genetically-modified linseed, made worse by depleted uranium in the
>natural environment as a result of airliner crashes, and ... [contd p
>94]
Actually, scientists demand an inquiry into this. Regularly. After all,
exposure to mutant bacteria carrying butterflies could harm your kids
development.
>It's as likely as anything Lenny has made up.
Hhhhooowwww dare you.... Lenny is a god, he *knows* things that don't
need proof because proof denies faith. Blasphemy I say...
>
>
"Clint Sharp" <clint@clintsmc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vSQjQrWWojQGFwW4@clintsmc.demon.co.uk
> In message
> <1178743133.888956.3000@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.co m>,
> andy <andy.ggrps@googlemail.com> writes
> > Maybe the defence lawyer will be able to adduce
> > alternative studies that wi-fi sensitivity is carried
> > by mutant bacteria living in the guts of flying pigs,
> > by tortoiseshell butterflies in the vicinity of
> > genetically-modified linseed, made worse by depleted
> > uranium in the natural environment as a result of
> > airliner crashes, and ... [contd p 94]
> Actually, scientists demand an inquiry into this.
> Regularly. After all, exposure to mutant bacteria
> carrying butterflies could harm your kids development.
> > It's as likely as anything Lenny has made up.
> Hhhhooowwww dare you.... Lenny is a god, he *knows*
> things that don't need proof because proof denies faith. Blasphemy I
> say...
"Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing" said Lenny, and
promptly disappeared in a puff of logic.
Lenny wrote:
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2494225.ece
>
> Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi
> 'The research hasn't been done - we cannot assume that wireless networks have no effects', expert warns
> By Jonathan Owen
> Published: 29 April 2007
>
> The health risks posed by Wi-Fi technology should be investigated by eminent scientists to ensure that a generation will not be damaged by growing levels of "electronic smog".
>
> "The research hasn't been done. Therefore we cannot assume that there are no effects," said Dennis Henshaw, professor of human radiation at Bristol University. "I would be in favour of an inquiry into the dangers of Wi-Fi. This technology is being wheeled out without any checks and balances."
>
> His concerns were echoed by Alan Preece, professor of medical physics at Bristol University, a pioneer of the research into the effects of mobile phones on the brain. "No one is really aware of what we are dealing with," he said. "The Department for Trade and Industry needs to take the lead and do some investigation."
So they have really no ideas?
Nah... The frequency is around 2.4GHz, but the power is much lower.
And more importantly, Wi-Fi isn't held against the head.
The problem is really the word "radiation", this same word covers a large
spectrum from the completely harmless to very harmful nuclear radiation.
According to modern physics, all radiation occur in streams of packages
(quantum) of distinct energy, and that energy depends only on the
frequency. Hence there is a separation between ionising (hard) and
non-ionising radiation in terms of hazard.
2.4 GHz has very low quantum energy, even lower than visible light.
The only potential effect of 2.4GHz is local heating as in a microwave.
Heating is mostly healthy and pleasant, but can be less wholesome if
transmitted to internal organs, but this would require power, proximity
and focus. (Not common in Wi-Fi)
>
> The developments came after a week in which a row has flared between scientists around the world. The exchanges were prompted by reports in last week's Independent on Sunday that teaching unions and scientists have been pressing for an official investigation into the potential risks of Wi-Fi.
>
> The Health Protection Agency (HPA), chaired by Sir William Stewart, has yet to announce publicly its intentions, but senior sources have admitted to this newspaper that proper research needs to be done to ensure that Wi-Fi does not present a danger to children, acknowledging there are ethical issues and public health concerns.
>
> It emerged yesterday that Professor Lawrie Challis, the head of the Government's committee on mobile phone safety, is also urging caution. "Since we advise that children should be discouraged from using mobile phones, we should also discourage children from placing their laptop on their lap when they are using Wi-Fi," he said.
>
> And Dr George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in the US, is setting up a global registry of people suffering from symptoms relating to the technology. Commenting on Sir William's stance, he said: "I know he is under enormous pressure from the mobile telecommunications industry, and the official stance being taken by HPA is one that is different to his personal views. That is the reality. The HPA has dropped the ball in not requiring testing before Wi-Fi goes into schools."
>
> The concern is not confined to scientists. Last week saw the Professional Association of Teachers call for a formal investigation into the health risks.
>
> <snip>
>
> I trust their judgment even if you don't. And it's not as if they are
> calling for research out of the blue, on the off chance so to speak.
> There are a few studies which have raised red flags in this field.
>
No there is not. There has not been one single repeatable and I stress
repeatable, because if it is not repeatable it was just a random fluke,
study in the last 50 years that have shown any adverse effects of non
ionising electro-magnetic radiation on biologically active tissue (unless
it is of sufficient power to cook it).
Basically it requires that there is some currently unknown interaction
between EM radiation and matter that physicists have missed but should
have been abundantly obvious in the myriad of experiments they have
performed (it would require the Standard Model to be wrong within it's
tested parameters; which is basically impossible). It's Nobel prize for
Physics time if you find it.
Not only that but it should have been clearly apparent in the population,
which it is not.
Call me a sceptic, but it is just rubbish.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195
On Tue, 08 May 2007 21:12:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f1qam8$eq2$1@news.datemas.de...
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:53:38 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
>>> news:f1o5m0$662$1@news.datemas.de
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem Ivor old
>>>> man.
>>>
>>> No, that's you. The *reality* of the situation is that so far,
>>> *nothing* has proven *beyond all doubt* that mobile phones, wi-fi or
>>> eating toast for that matter is harmful.
>>
>> Nothing in this field is 100%.
>
> There is at least one known thing..
> it is harmful to many people for them to be subjected to stress and fear.
> You are doing so.
> It is therefore proven that you are a bigger danger than mobiles/wifi are.
On Tue, 08 May 2007 19:08:41 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f1qam8$eq2$1@news.datemas.de
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:53:38 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
>> > news:f1o5m0$662$1@news.datemas.de
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > > You seem to have a fundamental reality disconnect problem Ivor old
>> > > man.
>> >
>> > No, that's you. The *reality* of the situation is that so far,
>> > *nothing* has proven *beyond all doubt* that mobile phones, wi-fi or
>> > eating toast for that matter is harmful.
>>
>> Nothing in this field is 100%.
>
> Therefore worthless as far as I'm concerned.
>
>> > > Are you saying you and your opinions carry more weight/value than
>> > > those of the scientists quoted in the paper?
>> >
>> > Until they come up with *provable* data, then their *opinions* are
>> > worthless.
>>
>> What are your qualifications? If you want others including myself to
>> accept what you say you had better be a damn sight more high powered
>> than Professor Lawrie Challis, Alan Preece, professor of medical physics
>> and Dr George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in
>> the US.
>> Otherwise go and take a flying leap.
>
> My qualifications are irrelevant. I'm not the one trying to convince
> people that mobile phones or wi-fi is dangerous.
You're a joke Ivor.
You say "Professor Lawrie Challis, Alan Preece, professor of medical physics
and Dr George Carlo, chair of the Science and Public Policy Institute in
the US" are "bollox" and you refuse to say just how qualified you are to
make that statement.
I think I can safely snip/plonk *anything* you say in reply to me from now
on.
>> > I'm still waiting for you to *prove* me wrong.
You show very little understanding of how research works.
>> I'm not here to entertain ijits like you.
>
> You're doing a good job of it though, I'm in hysterics here..!
>
> Still waiting on that proof.
I haven't purported to prove anything. You don't even read very well Ivor.
I merely copied some interesting research and proposals information
authored by highly qualified people in the field. Asking *me* to prove
their research/claims just shows *your* ignorance.
On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:16:06 +0100, Clint Sharp wrote:
> In message <1178743133.888956.3000@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.co m>, andy
> <andy.ggrps@googlemail.com> writes
>>Maybe the defence lawyer will be able to adduce alternative studies that
>>wi-fi sensitivity is carried by mutant bacteria living in the guts of
>>flying pigs, by tortoiseshell butterflies in the vicinity of
>>genetically-modified linseed, made worse by depleted uranium in the
>>natural environment as a result of airliner crashes, and ... [contd p 94]
> Actually, scientists demand an inquiry into this. Regularly. After all,
> exposure to mutant bacteria carrying butterflies could harm your kids
> development.
>>It's as likely as anything Lenny has made up.
> Hhhhooowwww dare you.... Lenny is a god, he *knows* things that don't need
> proof because proof denies faith. Blasphemy I say...
Both of you, andy
<andy.ggrps@googlemail.com> and you are talking out of your backsides.
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f21ev2$1tc$1@news.datemas.de...
>> There is at least one known thing..
>> it is harmful to many people for them to be subjected to stress and fear.
>> You are doing so.
>> It is therefore proven that you are a bigger danger than mobiles/wifi
>> are.
>
> Just one thing to say to you - it's good advice:
>
> Head in sand - out of - asap.
>
>
>
Its easy enough to test..
find people who claim they are WiFi sensitive.
setup some access points
write a program to *randomly* select which AP is powered up.
run program while asking what the WiFi sensitive person feels.
Correlate results.
Dismiss claims.
It should only take a week or two.
PS I have done this on a limited scale after getting complaints about my AP
causing problems.
It wasn't as it wasn't connected (I was lacking the PoE bit) but what do
scared people do? They worry which effects their health.
On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:52:53 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
> news:f21ev2$1tc$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>>> There is at least one known thing..
>>> it is harmful to many people for them to be subjected to stress and
>>> fear. You are doing so.
>>> It is therefore proven that you are a bigger danger than mobiles/wifi
>>> are.
>>
>> Just one thing to say to you - it's good advice:
>>
>> Head in sand - out of - asap.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Its easy enough to test..
> find people who claim they are WiFi sensitive. setup some access points
> write a program to *randomly* select which AP is powered up.
>
> run program while asking what the WiFi sensitive person feels.
>
> Correlate results.
> Dismiss claims.
>
> It should only take a week or two.
>
> PS I have done this on a limited scale after getting complaints about my
> AP causing problems.
> It wasn't as it wasn't connected (I was lacking the PoE bit) but what do
> scared people do? They worry which effects their health.
"Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
news:f21j2b$bdm$2@news.datemas.de...
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:52:53 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lenny" <lenny@say.no.to.wifi> wrote in message
>> news:f21ev2$1tc$1@news.datemas.de...
>>
>>>> There is at least one known thing..
>>>> it is harmful to many people for them to be subjected to stress and
>>>> fear. You are doing so.
>>>> It is therefore proven that you are a bigger danger than mobiles/wifi
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> Just one thing to say to you - it's good advice:
>>>
>>> Head in sand - out of - asap.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Its easy enough to test..
>> find people who claim they are WiFi sensitive. setup some access points
>> write a program to *randomly* select which AP is powered up.
>>
>> run program while asking what the WiFi sensitive person feels.
>>
>> Correlate results.
>> Dismiss claims.
>>
>> It should only take a week or two.
>>
>> PS I have done this on a limited scale after getting complaints about my
>> AP causing problems.
>> It wasn't as it wasn't connected (I was lacking the PoE bit) but what do
>> scared people do? They worry which effects their health.
>
> Of course professor
>
>
Scientists demand inquiry over Wi-Fi 
Linear Mode
