Am I being Unreasonable to worry about the longterm effects of wifi and mobile technology on my kids

[Noellefielding]

with information like this out there?

YABU

Every particle emits electromagnetic waves. The universe is positively dancing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

She is now one of the country’s few professional advisers on medical conditions related to radiofrequency (RF) radiation and other electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

You know why she's one of the very few? Because its bad science. She's full of it.

Same paper, total opposite info: www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/11599311/Wi-Fi-is-not-harming-our-chidren-heres-the-evidence.html

seems to me that the dangers of the technology are simply unproven and also that the simple safety I would expect to be demonstrated, of the technology is equally unproven.

If there are dangers than we are among a massive number of lab rats here in UK plc waiting to see if our swimming in our nation's EMF soup effects our fertility and chances of getting cancer.

I enjoyed the picture of her pointing her bullshit-meter at a completely disconnected patchframe, which contains no active components and isn't connected to any source of power.

It may seem that way to you, but thats based on a misunderstanding of how Science works.

"seems to me that the dangers of the technology are simply unproven"

You'd have thought that after a hundred or more years we'd have a reasonable knowledge of the "risks" of broadcast radio. Could you explain why you think 2W of 2.4GHz WiFi is a risk, but 250KW of 800MHz TV isn't? Do you go around campaigning for television and radio transmitters to be turned off? Why not? They're hundreds of thousands times more powerful and broadcast exactly the same stuff.

If there are dangers than we are among a massive number of lab rats here in UK plc waiting to see if our swimming in our nation's EMF soup effects our fertility and chances of getting cancer.

Oh, but the pseudo-scientists are doing bad science and getting all sorts of answers.

Here's a particularly ludicrous paper from a Tunisian group which claims that WiFi makes you cleverer and less likely to get Alzheimers. They've got experiments and graphs and everything, and it's even published in a non-sketchy journal. Fisking it for errors is a good "research skills" exercise for prospective PhD students.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23195115

www.accountablescience.com/no-wi-fi-isnt-making-you-sick/

www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2015/01/20/wi-fi-exposure-isnt-killing-your-kids/

www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11449216

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20536/abstract;jsessionid=2910D7DFE5FDF632CDF3B4FDC8D7CDF9.f02t03

It's media hype, all of it. Nothing scientific about that.

Worry all you like, but there is no proof.

How did you post on here? Did you use WiFi and/or a mobile phone? Very likely you used WiFi somehow so did you banish the rest of the family from the house whilst you did it?

Are there some countries in Europe who are banning it schools? France?

Yes you ABU. It's fine. If you don't like it go buy an island somewhere. ;) Honestly, it won't harm you.

Do you own a microwave?

It's NBU to worry about the long term effects of mobile technology - but not for these reasons.

I like the idea of WiFi soup. Would make lunch a lot easier. Make mine a chicken noodle.

Tinfoil hats I tell you. TINFOIL HATS!!!!

Are there some countries in Europe who are banning it schools? France?

There's a ludicrous piece of legislation been passed in France, affecting pre-school settings. I assume that either everyone who does daycare in France is out researching how to line their buildings with 10cm-pitch (actually, 5cm-pitch, we'd better do 5GHz as well) copper mesh, or that the usual weak grasp of physics by grandstanding politicians is at a maximum.

OP, do you worry about TV transmitters?

The Telegraph should be ashamed of its self, I think in the first article mentioned is a scare story which is an example of a "false light". False light is where you tell the truth in such a way that it gives a very misleading impression to the reader or viewer.

It states that radiowaves are a IARC Class 2B carcinogen, when you know the meaning of class 2B carcinogen it is not so scary it means

"Possibly carcinogenic to humans",

The IARC have four classifications they are

Class 1, "Carcinogenic to humans"
Class 2A, "Probably carcinogenic to humans"
Class 2B, "Possibly carcinogenic to humans"
Class 3, "Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans"
Class 4, "Probably not carcinogenic to humans"

So class 2B is a substance with very little evidence in humans, see monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/CurrentPreamble.pdf on page 23 where it states for Class 2B

It means that only a very weak case can be argued for the thing being carcinogenic in humans.

Also being in class 1 does not mean a chemical or other agent is a very potent carcinogen, it just means that it is possible to prove it is carcinogenic in humans. For example estrogen is a class 1 substance, it does have some carcinogenic effect and it makes breast cancer grow faster in many cases. But estrogen is needed for women to stay healthy (estrogen helps a woman's bones) and it has an anticancer effect for some cancers.

Class 2B includes coffee and pickled vegetables, for example. Or perhaps that should be coffee, and pickled vegetables; as a mixture coffee and picked vegetables is unlikely to top Costa's Christmas Choices.

Coffee and pickled veg are a summer special in Costa I think.

Tinfoil hats I tell you. TINFOIL HATS!!!!

Oh, not just hats. Those conductive suits used for maintaining overhead power systems would probably work.

here's an interesting story about how nonsense science can come up as peer reviewed gold ...

While I might not like Teller, this reminds me of how he complained that the Three Mile Island nucear accident harmed his health. He blamed what he viewed as nonsense from Jane Fonda regarding nuclear issues for giving him stress which resulted in a heart attack.

Maybe the stress and worry caused by the French law and some of the scare mongers will do a lot more harm than WiFi.

Meanwhile, the biggest nuclear reactor in the solar system continues to rain down unimaginable amounts of ionizing radiation onto us. We weren't consulted about it's building or placement, and have no say in how it's run. And this has been going on for billions of years. Someone really should do something about that. Or the huge quantities of dihydrogen monoxide current stockpiled off our coast - probably because the Europeans don't want it. Do you know how deadly that stuff is to kids ? A couple of litres can kill.

Waits for a certain poster to appear

I do think there might be an issue if you hold your mobile close to your head as the strength of the waves is more intense depending on distance but the intensity drops off quickly.

dihydrogen monoxide

Lethal stuff.

I do think there might be an issue if you hold your mobile close to your head

Yes. It might warm you up slightly.

There is no plausible mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation causes cancer. If it did, you would be at risk of skin cancer from staying indoors in a room lit only with a 60W bulb.