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 )

OP, do stop the shrieking childish abuse please, to me and to everyone else who isn't telling you what you want to hear. You asked for advice, you get given facts, you don't like the facts, so you squeal 'that's rude'.

listen to 'MadameCurie' - and it would also be educational for you to look up the derivation of the name.

or just go live somewhere with no modern tech where you will feel safe. You may find that quite difficult.

But at least you won't be on here.

Even supposing it turned out that wifi (or eating bananas) increased your risk of getting a brain tumour from 1 in 10000 to 2 in 10000, is it really worth worrying about?

There are other things far, far more likely to kill your child (car accident, getting hit by a car whilst walking to school, house fire, getting hit by lightning) than wifi. To can't eliminate all risks. You can obviously drive safely, wear properly fitted car seats, avoid hanging about under trees in thunderstorms in order to reduce risks.

Most people on here are mums. We love our children as much as you love yours. But in the nicest possible way OP, your being daft.

@specialsubject oh dear "shrieking" are you going to tell me to "calm down dear" next? I think I'm getting your number my friend. Wouldn't you say calling some one an "ignoramus" is insulting?

@MadameCurie every generation of scientists thinks that they have all the answers, you seriously think if we went back forty years scientists would be saying "don't listen to us, we don't know what we're talking about" Of course not, they'd say they were cutting edge. Yes you have provided some good information, but I'd say an industry that makes $1.4 Trillion every year could probably rustle up a lot of favourable evidence. I'm not a scientist I'm a Mum and my stance is not anti wireless, just pro caution, scientists make mistakes especially with new technologies, so I just don't think it's wise to bath the most important thing in my life in non ionizing radiation for 24 hours a day, especially when children's brains go through so many changes etc. Childhood brain tumours are on the increase, fact, who knows what's causing the rise, but we can all take measures to lessen the risks, surely prevention is way better than cure...

Interesting article here about children using Ipads etc... www.2machines.com/articles/181304.html

Can anyone post the link to the Ben Goldacre page where he's criticising the science in the BBC panorama program?

@coruskate a troll is "a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people" - I'd say that's pretty accurate, I'm still desperately waiting for you to add something, some research just something instead of just saying "here here", actually you can help me, everyone has said that Ben Goldacre has ripeed the BBC Panorama program to shreds on a page, now I can only find a page where he says that Panorama was biased and unbalanced but no mention of "bad Science", you mention Goldacre before, can you post the link?

No scientist ever thinks they have all the answers. That is not how science works.

Scientists generally do have a pretty good idea how to read and evaluate scientific information, though.

You don't, and you don't even know that you don't.

And btw, if something purporting to be scientific is biased and unbalanced, then it is by definition 'bad science'.

Pretty much every scientific study comes with the caveat that goes something like 'we don't have all the answers, further research is required'. So no, scientists do not always think that they have all the answers and they don't just say that in support of more research grants.

Pretty much every non ionising radiation refusenik that I have spoken to, and that's a lot, have said that we should adopt the precautionary principle, lets not take the risk, and I agree. Let's turn it all off for 24 hours. No internet, no radio, no television, no wifi, no mobile phones. Turn it all off. The world won't stop turning, but it'll be a bloody great big shock to a large majority of the population, not least all those who use the internet to spread their conspiracy theories .

And can anyone see the irony in someone that is so anti communications addressing everyone using @twitters - a 'thing' that basically exists because lots of people are constantly connected to each other by wireless technology . (I'm not on twitter, so I don't know what they're really called, but one thing that makes me go is using @twitters when not on twitter).

just in case you want to read something well thought out and researched

Interesting that as well as causing brain tumours all these hideous devices are causing ADHD too.

Of course you are right, 30 years ago when I was at school there was no Or little ADHD, just a few kids in every class that had to sit at the back as they found it difficult to learn and would regularly get in trouble as they couldn't control their urges. Back then they were just called unruly, or troublemakers.

Enjoying this thread. Can we have one on the "dangers" of fluoride please?

it's not a chemical put into the body but apparently it is non iroizing radiation put through our bodies in large quantities, radiation like the type that cooks Lidl ready meals in your microwave...

OP, you mean non-ionising radiation. Ionising radiation is radiation with enough energy to knock electrons out of atoms - this turns them from atoms to ions. Ionising radiation is quite damaging to cells.

Non-ionising radiation doesn't have the energy to do this.

It does indeed include microwaves (which I use to heat waitrose ready meals thankyouverymuch ;) ) but it also includes light. Non-ionising radiation isn't in itself anything to worry about.

When I had my PFB I was filled with anxiety about everything, but I have a PhD in physics and I can honestly say this didn't concern me. Charles is really precious and as a parent, we're filled with a desire to protect them, but I think it can go awry sometimes. Be careful not to become too focused on potential risks and enjoy your baby.

So Ok all you scary scientists ...

Why are you treating scientists like an enemy? Scientists are just people who have decided to use evidence to study things.

You seem to be veering off to attack science in general, so this is off topic but I want to say it anyway.

Society takes risks all the time. Do we allow people to drive at 70mph on a motorway knowing if there was a crash it would probably be fatal, or do we insist on a speed limit of 30mph with the trade off that it would take an age to get anywhere?

You can name a few things that have gone wrong but how long would it take you to name all the things that science and technology have done that were 'right' and have progressed our life spans and our standard of living?

Society - note, not science - makes decisions about what to embrace based on evidence, cost, the effect (good and bad) on peoples' lives and emotive factors. There are risks and decisions we've made as a society with just about everything - for example, our energy supplies, food, water, medicines. Without those decisions being made on the best available knowledge at the time, society wouldn't progress.

Sorry op but comparing wifi to smoking and thalidomide is just ridiculous. This is an open forum btw, and we aren't all here to agree with your crazy, ill founded concerns. If you google any ridiculous theory you will find someone who agrees with you - it doesn't make them, or you, right.

I just don't think it's wise to bath the most important thing in my life in non ionizing radiation for 24 hours a day

He already is. The sun will be hitting him with close to a kilowatt of non-ionising and ionising radiation on a clear day. And then there's the cosmic microwave background radiation...

But, no, it's the 0.1W of non-ionising radiation from Wifi that's the problem. Sure.

The Ben Goldacre page I previously linked to (this one ) gives a good overview of the major problems.

The programme was bad science in that the "radiation monitor" had no useful scale so saying that it was indicating into the red area is meaningless unless we know what that red actually indicates.

It is bad science in that the person who made that meter (Alasdair Philips) has an undisclosed financial interest in propagating fear about possible health effects.

It is bad science in that the programme talked much about "electrosensitivity" while neglecting the numerous scientific studies that demonstrate that electrosensitivity is psychosomatic.

It is bad science in that rather than presenting a balanced view of the actual risks and real evidence, it went for a sensationalised and misleading scare-story.

I could go into more detail but:

a) that would mean I'd have to re-watch that Panorama episode again and, frankly, I've got better things to do with my time (watching my fingernails grow, polishing the inside of my toilet cisterns, counting the blades of grass on my lawn etc), and

b) I've got no confidence whatsoever that you'd actually bother reading what I write because you are so determined that there is a Vast Conspiracy of Evil Scientists Hell-Bent On Killing Your Baby that facts and logic have become irrelevant to you.

You guys are so convinced that you're wasting your time with me and yet you still persist on tapping away, why?

@CorusKate, that's classic you, thank you.

@HowardTJMoon, This is powerwatche's reply to the Ben Goldacre malarkey: <a class="break-all" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070529_panorama_extra.asp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070529_panorama_extra.asp

@MadameCurie, the @ was on keyboards long before Twitter, it's just forum protocol that I've adopted, and yes if I was communicating from a wireless device, the irony would be big!

ChasedByBees very well said. "Society - note, not science - makes decisions about what to embrace based on evidence, cost, the effect (good and bad) on peoples' lives and emotive factors."

jill9999, Thankyou for demonstrating exactly what I said in my post of 22 May at 10:05. I'll repeat it for you here:

Where's the debate? Where's the considered review of the evidence? I've looked at a couple of the latest round of posted links and considered going through them in detail but what's the point? I could spend an hour or two doing that and jill9999 will just ignore it all and, at best, just post up some more links to other websites without comment.

As for why I keep responding, two reasons:

1. Although I know you are so far into the paranoid depths of the conspiracy theory loons that you can't even distinguish between WiFi and mobile phones, you're not the only person here. There are undoubtedly other people reading this who are capable of rational thought and who might benefit from being pointed at the real science rather than nut-jobbery scare-mongering by the likes of Alasdair "Please peruse my selection of wire-mesh hats to save you from the evil microwaves" Philips.

2. You're funny.

Howard - There are undoubtedly other people reading this who are capable of rational thought and who might benefit from being pointed at the real science

Exactly that. Thank you, to you and all the others who have calmly and clearly explained reality.

Those concerned by the supposed radiation should obviously just put their children in a faraday cage for ever.

And never, ever take a flight - particularly not a long haul one.

And don't go to Aberdeen. Or anywhere with granite.

Avoid bananas.

And stay out of that very nasty ionising radiation (know as daylight).

Yes Howard, ChasedbyBees, MadameCurie and others, thank you for your explanations. This thread is really informative.

@HowardTJMoon I am funny aren't I, I stopped taking this thread seriously a while ago so I've just been having fun recently, the "go outside the graphics are great" was a corker of a line wasn't it! I do have to say you have chosen to ignore the few voices that agree with me, almost like they don't exist, what's up with that hey?

@CorusKate Even though the majority of responses have been negative to my beliefs it's still attention that I'm getting and it energises me, I'm sure in your heart of hearts you're well meaning and that and your posts come from a place of peace and love so thank you!

@greenbananas Looks like your head in that sand wasn't necessary after all...

I wish I actually understood what wi-fi was. I'm not worried about it, it just puzzles me.

Mind you I used to think if you had an electric socket where the switch was on but nothing was plugged in it leaked electricity (it doesn't does it?)

And don't go to Aberdeen. Or anywhere with granite

I went to university in Aberdeen. Do you think that explains my confusion about electricity?