dslreports logo
 story category
Wi-Fi Health Fears Unfounded
Scientists debunk new BBC program and research

Despite no scientific evidence of harm, there continues to be people both here and abroad that believe Wi-Fi signals are a serious health threat. In the UK, fears were again spiked by a new BBC program that noted Wi-Fi radiation levels in one school were up to three times the level of mobile phone mast radiation. Of course, those levels are still some 600 times lower than the level needed to cause concern, and scientists are blasting the story as "grossly unscientific" because it failed to adhere to basic scientific principles.

Here's a new undergarment line for those who still worry.
view:
topics flat nest 
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Scientific fact > hysteria

Maybe we can get all the hysterical people to move out to nowhere and leave normal people all alone.
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Stumbles

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Ahh there's nothing like a good round of pseudo-science and ignoring some inconvenient truths to trump up so much hysteria. Of course only the non-thinking gullible types would buy into this sort of thing. Since these hysterical types have been sufficiently distracted they should try throwing themselves at the ground. They just might get lucky and start flying.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

You mean the religious right.. They're the 'hysterical' types we all despise

CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

1 recommendation

CrazyFingers

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Well, if you're going to believe in one fairytale, you might as well go all-in.

/me waits for the fundies to start squawking.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

1 recommendation

moonpuppy (banned) to karlmarx

Member

to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:

You mean the religious right.. They're the 'hysterical' types we all despise
Just like the radical left.

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

1 recommendation

jester121 to Stumbles

Premium Member

to Stumbles
Sounds exactly like the whole man-made global warming hype to me. Not quite as pervasive, but at least some true scientists are starting to speak up and call foul.

CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

CrazyFingers

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

BZZZZZT!

Oh, I'm sorry, but thank you for playing.
We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

jester121

Premium Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Ummm.. there ARE options out there besides gargling the Kool-Aid of the Week you know...

»www.stuff.co.nz/timaruhe ··· 571.html

»epw.senate.gov/public/in ··· ssue_id=

There's plenty more out there -- are you willing to read and analyze both sides of the story, or just accept what's splashed around the headlines?

CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

1 recommendation

CrazyFingers

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Oh my god, you've shown me the light!
The veil has been lifted, and now I see!

Look what else I found on the internets:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm

Thank you so much for showing me that The Truth is Out There, because I Want to Believe!


jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

1 recommendation

jester121

Premium Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

It's truly amazing that otherwise rational people are afflicted with brain freeze when anyone questions their views on climate change.

Isn't this all about science? Isn't questioning things the very basis of science? Why are people so willing to believe that there is only one possibility, and it's theirs? Sounds more like religious fanaticism than science to me.

Environmentalist bigotry is perfectly acceptable these days, but that still doesn't make it sane.

CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

CrazyFingers

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

said by jester121:

It's truly amazing that otherwise rational people are afflicted with brain freeze when anyone questions their views on climate change Intelligent Design.

Isn't this all about science? Isn't questioning things the very basis of science? Why are people so willing to believe that there is only one possibility, and it's theirs? Sounds more like religious atheist fanaticism than science to me.

Environmentalist Darwinian bigotry is perfectly acceptable these days, but that still doesn't make it sane.
I mean...as long as you're cooking up lists of people that claim to believe crackpot drivel supported by a couple of websites, we might as well toss IDers into the soup.

I'd love to hear your theories on the constitutionality of Federal income taxes.

And what about chupacabras?
DufiefData
join:2006-06-13
Gaithersburg, MD

DufiefData

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

That's an interesting question actually, since income taxes were unconstitutional until the Sixteenth Amendment. It certainly doesn't seem that the Founders of the country could have ever imagined an income tax, so it really does raise some thorny issues of original intent.

karthwyne
join:2003-04-27
Atlanta, GA

1 edit

karthwyne to jester121

Member

to jester121
i bet that there are plenty more "articles" like that out there: NEITHER one of them gives any facts nor debunks any facts, they are total propaganda.

will there be climatic Armageddon in 5 years, of course not; will the skeptics have any more proof one way or the other in five years, also no.
and a list of people who believe a certain thing does not make it so, however much you might wish it did. just look at religion, millions and millions of people believe completely contradictory things. i am sure we could compile lists of scientists that are christian, muslim, pagan, Buddhist, agnostic, and atheist, but that doesn't prove anything.

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

2 recommendations

jester121

Premium Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

said by karthwyne:

...and a list of people who believe a certain thing does not make it so, however much you might wish it did.
Sorry, I have to get the buzzer out now. Aren't we told over and over that climate change is a fact, because "all the world's top scientists believe it"?

You've illustrated my point perfectly, thanks.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

said by jester121:

Aren't we told over and over that climate change is a fact, because "all the world's top scientists believe it"?
Heh... wasn't it only 500 years ago that all of the world's top scientists were telling us that the world was flat too?

CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

CrazyFingers

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Sorry, but 500 years ago, there was nobody that could even remotely be considered a "scientist" by modern standards. Those who tried were typically threatened with a nice dry stack of kindling until they "remembered" that the sun orbited the Earth and witches floated because they were made of wood.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

said by CrazyFingers:

Sorry, but 500 years ago, there was nobody that could even remotely be considered a "scientist" by modern standards.
And how can you say that someone who is a scientist today by modern standards will be looked upon as such 500 years from now?

CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

CrazyFingers

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Now now pnh106, we both know that is an absurd statement.

We'll all be dead in 500 years after the arctic icecaps melt and the polar bears descend on us in a feeding frenzy.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

said by CrazyFingers:

Now now pnh106 (sic), we both know that is an absurd statement.
Why? You just said the same thing about the "scientists" of old. I am extending your statement to the scientists of new. Science certainly isn't dead as an academic discipline, and for us to assume that we "know everything" is silly and dangerous. To quote one such scientist, "we do not know, what we don't know."

My main problem with simply "going with the consensus" on any subject is that it discourages academic review. It is just as bad as answering every scientific question with the response "God did it." Without review and challenging of accepted scientific principles, how will we know that they are valid or not?

CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

CrazyFingers

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

*sigh*...

I had hoped that the sarcasm in the second sentence would have made the same in the first sentence obvious.
I over-estimated you. I'm sorry, I promise it won't happen again.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

said by CrazyFingers:

I over-estimated you.
You misunderestimated me

CrazyFingers
join:2003-10-01
Columbia, MO

CrazyFingers

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Well, as long as you don't take the nukular option...

Anubis Prime
join:2001-06-01
Avonmore, PA

1 recommendation

Anubis Prime to CrazyFingers

Member

to CrazyFingers
AND...I suppose we with our combustion engines, etc. are causing the temperature on Mars and the rest of the solar system to rise in unison.

Most people have no doubt that global warming is happening. We just disagree with the largely unproven notion that mankind is the major contributor to the problem. I would more believe that the great ball of burning gas in the sky has a great bit of culpability. Really, IMHO (and that's all it is) the population is starting to grow wise to this scam being perpetrated upon us. This is why there is such a big media push behind the global warming movement. (One last hurrah before global cooling begins. AND that would be a disaster because then many of these radical far-left leaning organizations would not be able to control CO2 production--thus not be able to control the means of production. For in an industrialized nation, there are very few economic activities that do not produce CO2. Poor Al Gore wouldn't be able to sell any carbon credits.)
Time's almost up... and time will tell.

I also love those graphs depicting rising CO2 levels and their effect on temperature (PSST...what they don't tell you is they are backwards on cause and effect. With higher temperatures come higher CO2 measurements, not the other way around--a bit "Inconvenient" for some people.)

Wow--another thought: Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. How do we stop water from evaporating?

For some it is a way to make us, as a civilization, feel important somehow when really we are just specks of dust along for the ride. OR is there a bigger more sinister reason that is oblivious to even those who are followers to the cause? There is a true Lord of the Sith--and it's not the bumbling dolt known as George Bush. He is the financier of all things left. His first name though, is also George.

AND for the last time: CO2 is not a pollutant--it's plant food!

karthwyne
join:2003-04-27
Atlanta, GA

2 edits

karthwyne to jester121

Member

to jester121
actually, i have never heard that as a reason to believe in global warming, only the bush administration, ie your .gov website, has used that tactic to say why we shouldn't.

personally i like to follow the scientific method and base ideas on logic and fact.
like the ice core samples that show we should be on a cooling cycle in global temperature based on historical record and instead are warming.
like the fact that the polar ice caps are forming 2+ weeks later than they used to, and melting 2+ weeks sooner killing numerous polar bears by starvation.

or in response to the volcano argument, yes, there have been volcano eruptions, and eruptions that caused massive global warming and mass extinction, but we also had 2x the amount of rain forest, and probably a good 100x the amount of temperate forest. just compare the temperatures in a city with the country and you will see the affects man has made on a smaller scale. when europeans first made it to north america, it is said a squirrel could traverse from the atlantic to the pacific without touching the ground as the continent was covered in forests.

and to the guy in black mountain, NC, i'm sure you can smell the paper factory in canton some days, you think that is natural? would you rather drink the water upstream or downstream from them?
DufiefData
join:2006-06-13
Gaithersburg, MD

DufiefData

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Maybe global warming is happening. Maybe it's not. Here's a perspective from a climate scientist in New Zealand:
Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
.....
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
.....
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
......
"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.

karthwyne
join:2003-04-27
Atlanta, GA

karthwyne

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

i don't know if you realize that is the first article that was posted for the "no such thing as global warming" earlier, but it does not reference any actual studies.

but regardless, his argument is flawed. yes, without greenhouse gases the planet would be just like outer space, scorching on the sun facing side, and almost absolute zero on the dark side (that's -459.67°F), so if we take a temperature range of 500°, that means that even his admitted numbers add up to a change of +1.395°. that kind of temperature change in the ocean means 10x the number and violence of storms. I don't believe that his numbers are realistic though.

besides, his argument is like saying that adding adding a drop of ricin to a glass of pure water is harmless because it is still 99.999% water.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

1 recommendation

sporkme to jester121

MVM

to jester121
said by jester121:

Sounds exactly like the whole man-made global warming hype to me. Not quite as pervasive, but at least some true scientists are starting to speak up and call foul.
No, you've got it backwards:

crazy unscientific wifi tinfoil crowd = the handful of oil "scientists" paid to still have "doubts" that the shit we spew out actually has some kind of effect on the planet

If you want to doubt science, join the tinfoil crowd.
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Stumbles

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Hmm, I wonder how many 1000s of times more all the volcano's spew out CO2 compared to all the human activity in one year. Oh that's right volcano's have only been doing that for thousands of years while the recent human industrial/technological activities only amount to a few hundred. I wonder how a few hundred years trumps a 1000 years plus.
bmn
? ? ?

join:2001-03-15
hiatus

bmn

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Gee, wow, if you had any sort of scientific knowledge, you would see the problem with that argument... But alas, that argument was generated by a blow hard with no scientific background at all.

While volcanoes did and do generate large amounts of CO2, the amounts produced were balanced by a large rainforests and temperate forest systems that could handle it. So, the CO2 that was released balanced out. With the addition of man-made CO2, we've created a surplus of CO2 on top of what the forests can handle. Not to mention the pesky problem of rampant global deforestation reducing the CO2 carrying capacity of the atmosphere. Not to mention the affect that particulate emissions have had in reducing the warming effect of CO2. And on and on and on...

Sorry, the volcano argument falls flat.
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL

Stumbles

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Gee wow, another imbecile spouting something as fact but no fact to back up just how much CO2 biomass consumes.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

Since you have all the facts, how much?
bmn
? ? ?

join:2001-03-15
hiatus

bmn to Stumbles

to Stumbles
said by Stumbles:

Gee wow, another imbecile spouting something as fact but no fact to back up just how much CO2 biomass consumes.
I'm sorry, but what is the extent of your scientific knowledge because apparently you have none if you are touting the volcano theory as a counter to climate change... The volcano argument neither proves nor disproves climate change.

Perhaps you should think twice before calling others imbeciles and go get a real science education.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc to sporkme

to sporkme
Ah, who cares? In 50 years I'll be gone and won't be dealing with it. I hope those who are (on both sides of this argument) manage to grow gills by then. And horns. You'll need the former to breathe and the latter to defend yourself.

Enjoy the future!

This story is about absolute hysteria regarding something even the biggest dolt can see is not a problem. Turning it into yet another global warming discussion is just as stupid.

The climate is changing. Nobody is really sure why. The only certainty is that those alive 100 years from now will be living in different weather than we are now. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on those gills and horns.
Mars4001
Premium Member
join:2007-03-23
Pacoima, CA

Mars4001 to moonpuppy

Premium Member

to moonpuppy
A normal intelligent people should consider all possibilities that can destroy mankind in the furure. Always be careful when say like "We can never fly", "We can never land on the moon", "Asteroid is no harm to human".

That's why we have the ability to learn, expolore and advance. We never know. There is always somthing obvious and other things not obvious.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Re: Scientific fact > hysteria

said by Mars4001:

A normal intelligent people should consider all possibilities that can destroy mankind in the furure. Always be careful when say like "We can never fly", "We can never land on the moon", "Asteroid is no harm to human".

That's why we have the ability to learn, expolore and advance. We never know. There is always somthing obvious and other things not obvious.
And? The original report on this WiFi pollution was so full of inaccuracies and barely used the scientific method that it was flawed to begin with. It was long on emotion and short on facts.

The Wright Brothers had already built gliders and were transitioning to powered flight. Moon flight was an idea for years until the technology finally caught up. Asteroids have always been an issue and now we can track them.
freebird152
join:2006-10-06
Dinuba, CA

freebird152

Member

Ok now...

Ok, now where did I put my tinfoil hat?
Timmn
join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL

1 edit

Timmn

Member

Forget the tinfoil hat, I want those breifs!

God only knows what all that "radiation" is doing to my manly parts. They might shrivel up and drop off!

•••••
Derfel
join:2004-06-06
Winnipeg, MB

Derfel

Member

WiFi fried their brains...

Who can trust scientists who claim WiFi is affecting our health? Obviously the WiFi has already affected them!

Dream Killer
Graveyard Shift
Premium Member
join:2002-08-09
Forest Hills, NY

Dream Killer

Premium Member

Stupid

If you look at the electromagnetic spectrum, microwave and radio signals have LESS energy than visible light. If Wi-Fi signals were to cause health risks, then we'd all be dying from light bulbs.

•••

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84

Member

What is wrong with the BBC?

The whole time I was waiting for them to come out and call all those people nuts, but they seem to actually think those crazy people have merit. Especially with the nut case with tin foil all over her walls. They should have taken her into a house and claimed it had protective paint when it didn't. Her symptoms would have still gone away.

rasmasyean
@rr.com

rasmasyean

Anon

Re: What is wrong with the BBC?

Well if you think about it, the molecular bonds in protein and DNA and even neuron signals are electrical-charge based. So it’s not entirely “un-scientific” to have caution. The fact that an electro-encephalogram exists states enough. So it IS possible to alter the molecular bonding behavior via some type of EM disturbance.

However, since WiFi goes like barely 300 feet while cell-phones go miles and you hold them next to your head…the concern is most likely misplaced if anything. And they have done “penetration tests” with various cell-phones and most don’t penetrate deep enough to be of concern. But does it affect the skin??? Who knows? It also depends on the wavelength too so it’s really complicated and at this point, we don’t know the answers. But overall, the potential harms don’t outweigh the benefits (so far at least). Cars kill an outrageous number of people…but does that mean we should eliminate cars?
Rascal999
join:2005-09-23

Rascal999

Member

Inaccurate article?

Idiots? Panorama is 20+ years old, get the facts right.
donkc1
join:2000-06-17
Haskell, NJ

donkc1

Member

Re: Inaccurate article?

What do people think that when they listen to a radio station in there car, or home that the signal just goes to the antenna,and nowhere else. We are constantly being bombarded by thousands of radio signals everyday, and nobody even says boo about that, yet as soon as someone mentions the potential from a specific source, everyone jumps on the band wagon. Face it, the number of radio signals is only going to increase, not decrease, so we will slowly get cooked over time.