Wifi Worries.

[Jill9999]

Hi guys,

Just wanted some feedback/feelings from other ladies in a similar position, I've got a one year old boy and am becoming increasingly concerned about wifi around him and my iphone, I have some friends with older children who have got their own tablets and are hooked up to the house wifi all the time, but some things that my husbands friends have been hinting at recently have really worried me (one of them works in the wireless industry) so I started googling and found this study and web page:

generationzapped.com/trailer/

stopsmartmeters.org.uk/9th-grade-student-cress-wifi-experiment-attracts-international-attention/

My husbands friend used the tobacco industry as an analogy, apparently smoking used to been seen as healthy, doctors recommending it to people!!! Fact! It was a huge industry making billions (much bigger than it is now) the manufacturers suppressed studies that showed it was bad for health for ages until they couldn't hide it anymore but by then the health of many had been ruined beyond repair.

Wireless is a new technology, the industry makes trillions and apparently studies into the bad effects are being kept quiet, I love my iphone, would have it surgically implanted into my right hand if I could, but I waited so long for Charlie I just don't want to take any risks with him, am I being paranoid or healthily cautious? (first post so be kind )

to be honest you are being ridiculed because you are being ridiculous

I think we all get that YOU believe in the things you are posting - this is your total right

you have attempted, through faux science websites and various scare tactics, to convince everyone to join you ...you have failed

to carry on like some mad bible basher on a street corner does make you slightly daft

I'd just like to say, as someone who has a relevant scientific background, that this thread has been a joy to read.

infographiclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/cellphoneradiation_4f2015faab409.jpg

Oh Jill, let it go!

are you concerned about cellphone radiation now not wifi?

It's going to kill you trying to eliminate both. I think with cellphones it's easier to take sensible precautions like those listed. As the infographic says, you also need to eliminate cars (and not eat BBQs) if you want to avoid everything potentially carcinogenic. Also flying and xrays.

Jill for the love of all that is holy, walk away from google. Google is not meant for people like you. You can find substantiation for any theory in the world on google if you look for it. This reminds me of all the conspiracy theories that abound.

Enjoy your little boy and stop looking for problems.

Still not worked out the difference between WiFi and mobile phones then? And still not reading what other people are posting? In your eyes we're all just part of the Vast Evil Conspiracy hell-bent on killing children, aren't we?

Here's a couple of clues for you:

1. WiFi has a maximum power of 0.2W and a typical power of much less than that. Mobile phones peak at several watts. That's a big difference.

2. The usage profile of devices using WiFi is very different from that of mobile phones. Mobile phones are held against the head in use. WiFi devices are held away from the body. Inverse square law says that absorbed power falls of rapidly with distance.

3. The WHO has no conclusive evidence that suggests a link between cancer and mobile phone use. There is some data that suggests a possible connection between heavy mobile phone use and a rare form of brain cancer but that is by no means certain. There is zero evidence of any harmful effects on humans of WiFi use, not least because of (1) and (2) above.

You know there are satellites in space sending signals and waves back down to earth to satellite dishes all the time don't you? Radio waves are there all the time and have been for many many years. What about microwave oven waves?

Relax.

can only hope the OP will accept treatment for her mental problems, if that is the issue and not just ignorance and bigotry.

also hope the kid will pay better attention at school than mum did.

foolish statements do get ridiculed. She is saying the equivalent of 'the earth is flat' and 'the stars are holes in a big black cloth'.

Oh dear, this is interesting for me. I note that a lack of evidence for the induction of cancer by microwaves / wifi / mobile phones exists.

I would like you to consider for a moment a well know carcinogenic activity (smoking) it was shown years ago by Doll that a dose - effect relationship could be seen. Doll used male medical doctors, he found that the smoking related health effects were most common in the heavy smokers.

If we were to consider a totally different type of radiation which is well known to cause cancer (x-rays and gamma rays) then it is clear from groups that have been strongly exposed (some occupationaly exposed groups, accidents and people who were near atom bomb detonations) that a clear link between heavy x-ray/gamma ray exposure and cancer does exist. As a set of biological mechanisms by which these radiations damage DNA and cause cancer exists it is reasonable to conclude that x and gamma rays are carcinogenic.

On the other hand for wifi / mobile phone radiation no clear biological mechanism has been identified (despite the best efforts of a lot of people) by which these waves can cause cancer. Also as significant link has been seen in epidemiology between these waves and cancer and other serious health effects I think it is safe to conclude that wifi / mobile phone use is either harmless or such a small threat that it is not worth any action / worry.

The important thing is that a good study should use good statistical methods and also avoid a bias caused by other effects.

For example with a small pool of data then it is possible to be mislead by random events. For example if between 1980 and 1989 a total of 5 children died of X, and between 1990 and 1999 a total of 10 children died of X. Consider if this is a real difference or random variation.

The standard deviation of the counts is the same as the square roots, the sum of the two standard deviations is 5.4 As the difference between the two counts is smaller than 1 standard deviation then it is unlikely to be a siginificant difference.

On the otherhand with larger numbers of cases (500 and 1000) then the sum of the standard deviations will be 54, as the difference of 500 between the two numbers of cases is so much larger than the standard deviation then the difference is likely to be very signifiant and real

The reason I mention this is to try to save you from falling into the common trap of seeing a trend which does not exist in a small data set.

I would be interested to know if anyone on the anti-wifi / mobile phone side has considered looking at the most exposed groups, surely they would show more disease than the normal general public if these "scary" rays had any real effect.

Furthermore I would like to know how many of the anti-mobile phone / anti-wifi brigade have seen reports such as

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20737608
www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-438.pdf

In which it is shown that mobile phone radiation has no effect on humans, these reports are important as they include a control group and so have removed any placebo effect from the study.

Jill9999 I think it's a shame you are being ridiculed. You have decisions to make about risks to your child and you don't have the information or skills to evaluate it. You take that responsibility seriously so it's no wonder you're concerned - that's a hard position to be in.

You are correct that many businesses have hidden adverse results from scientific research. It stil goes on today and is the reason many scientists have signed up to The All Trials Campaign. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that every scare story out there is true. Activist websites often have just as much of an agenda and desire to bias as business ones. Scare stories can do a lot of damage, and even cost lives, as the MMR debacle proved. So it isn't just a matter of disbelieving big business - you don't do any better automatically going that route.

HowardTJMoon has given a good beginner level description of some of the reasons WiFi is unlikely to be harmful. But if you really want to be able to make good decisions for your son, you probably need to improve your scientific literacy significantly. You could try doing an OU science degree, or even just start by signing up for some science A levels (but you need more than A levels to evaluate most scientific data). Then approach a subject with an open and inquisative mind, not an agenda to "protect your son". Because that agenda is going to bias the way you look at information and hinder your abiility to assimilate all the data and lend it appropriate weight.

I suggested at the start that the OP should get herself better educated.

ignored.

Regarding the WHO's classification of mobile phones as a Class 2B carcinogen (ie, that mobile phone signals are possibly carcinogenic). Class 2B also includes coffee and carpentry.

By contrast, Class 2A (things that are probably carcinogenic) includes frying, hairdressing and shift-work that disrupts sleep patterns.

Hi Jill
Sounds like you are a wise mum :)
There is much research confirming biological effects from EMF's (electromagnetic fields) cause biological effects on the body that are way below the current standards in most countries. Children are especially vulnerable to this type of radiation and should be avoided. If you google the Bioinitative report and read the summary (you can read the whole report if you like, but it's very long) that will give you some more info. Also try googling "the procrustean approach', a thesis by Don Maisch which looks at how industry sets the standards. Basically a precautionary approach needs to be taken, where something needs to be proven safe before it's used. This is not the approach taken re setting guidelines for EMF exposure.
Hope this helps

Oh dear, shellsnbells, did you have to post these links? Seems to me that poor Jill has read enough internet claptrap that has little basis in scientific fact, and is mostly produced by conspiracy theorist kind of folk.

I understand what you are saying about electromagnetoic fields, and I kind of agree. HOwever, I am raising my children in a highly built up area, surrounded by concrete, metal posts, TVs, aerials, goodness knows what else. I can't afford to live on a smallholding in the middle of nowhere, this area is the cheapest place to live in the whole southwest. We can't move, we are stuck here. And at least there is a strong community and a decent school across the road.

Unlike Jill (who is horribly worried, and I am worried for her about how worried she is), I have chosen to bury my head in the sand. Yes, modern living is probably v.v. bad for us... but then again, modern medicine is pretty good for us, and modern society has many benefits which outweight the risks of EMF and pollution and all sorts of other evils.

I don't want to go back to the dark ages. So I understand that modern society has risks as well as benefits.

There are many scientifically educated people on this thread who have stated that the risks are fairly negligible. They (and Ben GOldacre) know more about science than I, you or Jill do.

Chill out!! And don't fuel the worries of an already worried mum who ought be relaxing and enjoying the cuddles and kisses with her little baby before he gets too big to snuggle with all the time.

shellsnbells did you join MN just to bump this thread

try reading it - lots of very good info which is all facty and based on real science

oh dear, another scientific ignoramus pops up.

newsflash for you: nothing can ever be proved safe, given that we are all terminally ill.

second newsflash: 'I read it on the internet' is NOT the same as scientific research.

@specialsubject, why do you have to be so rude all the time, rude and angry, no one is insulting you just raising questions and doubts about a technology, unless you've got a Joaquin Phoenix type situation going on, and if that's the case you need to go outside and get some fresh air, you'd like outside the graphics are amazing!

Where did you get the "I read it on the internet" quote from? If you're expecting everyone on Mumsnet to do scientific research before they post on a thread I suggest you locate to a different forum.

When I started posting on here I thought I'd be speaking to other mums, that may or may not share my concerns, not a group of lab rats just waiting for an opportunity to say "I'm a scientist, you don't have the right to an opinion!"

So Ok all you scary scientists answer me this, the whole Thalidomide disaster, feeding that poison to pregnant women, and Asbestos, a perfectly harmless insulation all backed by you scientists, how did that happen I'm confused?

I can't find the page where Ben Goldacre "tears apart" the BBC documentary I posted, all I can find is him saying that the show was unbalanced, not that it involved bad science, can someone post a link?

@shellsnbells, thank you so much for your input, I agree totally, if we a putting a relatively new technology around our children 24 hours a day then surely caution is advised, it's so short sighted not to see that, I get the impression that some people value their gadgets as much as their children... :-(

@CorusKate, you're just coming across as a troll, no useful input, just insulting, I think that defines troll like behaviour...

Have named changed....

My work involves measuring non ionising radiation, and communicating the issues. I have dealt with lots of people like the OP. OP, you are highly likely to be suffering from anxiety over this issue, or in general. Please talk to your GP. And PLEASE stop looking for rubbishy scare stories published on the internet by charlatans.

There are lots and lots of very clever people spending an awful lot of time and effort looking into any possibilty that normal environmental levels of non ionising radiation is harmful and not one single well designed study has found any strong evidence that it is, or come up with a credible mechanism.

The only biological effect of wifi is that is warms the surface tissues of the body by an imperceptibaly small amount (much less than normal body temperature variations).

Technically wifi (2.4 GHz) and 3G mobile phone signals (2.1 GHz) are effectively the same. The amount of wifi radiation that people are exposed to is dwarfed by signals from mobile phone handsets. Do you have a mobile phone OP? Any time you go out in public, you are being exposed to the mobile phones of everyone around you.

About 10 to 15 years ago, lots of people worried about mobile phone masts so we did lots of surveys. I remember the time that we detected a few signals and then someone walked passed on their phone, and we then picked up a huge signal from their phone that dwarfed everything else on our equipment.

Powerwise, the average wifi is 0.1 W, the average mobile phone is a few watts, the average mobile phone mast is about 50 W per transmitter and the average television transmitter is about 10 000 W.

We have been exposed to TV and radio signals for close to a hundred years. The only way to get away from all these signals is to live somewhere very remote, completely off grid, and with no mobiles, TV, radio or other communications. And in that situation you have a much higher chance of dying in an accident and not being able to get help in time.

Yes, Thalidomide, Asbestos and smoking are public health disasters of the past, but they come from a time where scientific knowledge and equipment was in its infancy - we did not know a tiny fraction of what we know today.

You might want to look at my new favourite website, spurious correlations link, which neatly explains the difference between correlation and causation.

But please, stop worrying. It is not possible to prove that anything is completely safe. And it is very unlikely that wifi or any other types of radio signals at the normal levels that people are generally exposed to, are a significant public health issue.

I'd be very suspicious of a website which tells you something is bad for you whilst selling you the solution to the bad effects. Which is what powerwatch does.

Jill9999 there are better websites to share woo ideas. Bit of creative googling I'm sure you can find one. Why waste your energy on this topic here?

If you're expecting everyone on Mumsnet to do scientific research before they post on a thread I suggest you locate to a different forum.

If you're talking about a scientific topic but neglect to read the science behind it then, frankly, you have failed.

There's some lovely science stuff here, so I bookmarked this thread so I can c&p some of it for my Science notes (with attributions, of course).

I think there's a general lack of science knowledge, which can feed into people's anxieties; and it can then be difficult for them to find the right resources to explain properly what's going on. But when people get trapped into that "conspiracy/danger" way of thinking, it can be almost impossible to get them out of that mindset.