Panorama - wi-fi network radiation risks

[WendyWeber]

Tonight's programme - says "radio frequency radiation levels in some schools are up to three times the level found in the main beam of intensity from mobile phone masts"

Completely crazy. They should get them out of schools straight away, and use cables. Makes me mad.

I'm planning to watch this. Should be interesting.

Given that the "risks" from mobile phone masts are considered by many to be unproven, it seems to be a moot point to say that radiation levels are three times that of mobile phone masts.

From BBC Website: Wi-fi health fears are 'unproven'

Yes, but all the experts say that there should be a precautionary approach where children are involved. Proper research into the effects of mobile phone use is only just beginning, let alone the effect of living near a mast, and obviously there are massive economic interests at stake in reassuring us that mobiles and masts - and wifi technology - are all safe. Cigarette manufacturers used to claim that not only was smoking safe, but also that cigarettes were actually good for your health. It took many years for the damage caused by smoking to be proven, but now it's incontrovertible. I'm sure the same will be true of mobiles, masts and wifi - it's just a matter of time. But the research could come too late for our children.

So how many of you have wireless at home?

Well, needless to say, I don't

we do. am thinking of going back to cable tho. AS there is a perfectly adequate alternative i would rather take a precautionary approach.

That's why schools should use cable. No reason not to, AFAIC.

Actually there is lots of reasons schools use wi-fi; Some schools have no dedicated computer room but use laptops in the classroom- hence wifi. The cost and inconvience of cabling all classrooms.

We do have wifi at home - am not worried about it - nor about mobiles. Plenty more things to worry abouyt - globel warming, pollution from cars, oil running out, being runover...etc etc

Surely they shouldn't be risking children's health, though, when the extent of the health risk hasn't been assessed? In a school, it's not an individual choice.

In fact a lot of schools that don't have wi-fi themselves have a strong enough signal from neighbouring systems to connect - you can pick up signals from 5 different networks at our school.

Your worried about it in schools - what about in the street walking around. Surely if it strong enough in the street to be picked up it is going to damage. Or it it when it it concentrated enough at the ariel I don't really understand enough about it to be worried.

I'm shocked by this actually. I have wifi in my home but hadn't realised there had been no testing about its affects at all. Its too late to take all of the wifi networks away but I hope that we dont live to regret it in the same way we now see the impact of smoking (which was also actively encouraged on it's introduction)

really, did panorama say ther has been no testing of wifi's effects?

Because that'[s not true. There may not have been any testing specifically of wifi vbut there has been lots of testing of other devices which use the same frequencies of radio waves. They found some possible problems when the signal is very strong or close to the brain (remember the thing about not giving a mobile phone to an under 8 yr old?), but nothing with normal use. so just don't fall asleep on your laptop....

panorama really is a bit too sensationalist now if you ask me.

Agree with Senora. I saw this advertised and for a moment thought I'd watch it, but then realised that if I want a balanced answer Panorama is no longer the place to get it. It's just Tonight for the BBC. Sham really given its history and previous reputation.

I missed 'long term' in my testing comment. Panorama said there has been no proof it is safe or not in the long term.

I agree though that it is becoming a sensationalist programme. I watch it more and more and am worried by the stories.

but no one knows the effect on young developing brains - foetuses and babies for example. And we live in a flat so are surrounded by the frequencies everywhere, even if we get cable.

The original link says "The findings are particularly significant because children's skulls are thinner and still forming and tests have shown they absorb more radiation than adults" and this applies to phones too, doesn't it.

Also, re networks/laptops, a child is more likely to be hunched over close to it than to a PC on a desk.

I know we had radiation hysteria when microwaves first became widely used (DH's BIL was a microwave engineer then, and on one occasion visited a faulty machine in a comercial kitchen to find the woman there plastered against the wall because the microwave's door was open and she thought the room was filling up with it ) but the long-term effects of all this is just not known. So why not be cautious about it?

my friend is electro-sensitive and this programme was not scaremongering about emissions from masts and wi-fi. she can tell if someone has a mobile phone on near her and i have seen how ill she becomes. DEc phones and digital baby monitors are the same as WIFI and mobile phone masts.

the government and the industry makes billions of pounds (out of revenue and rights sales) and the UK has one of the highest emission levels in the world. the government made planning laws so that local authorities have very little chance of refusing planning permission.

mobile phone masts are pulsating into our homes every minute of every hour every day without our permission and it is the frequency that they pulsate at that do the damage.

the government should be protecting us rather than industry, look at tabacco, asbestos, chemicals/pesticides and how long the Government took to become cautious on these - because £ was involved?

I agree, Mylittleimps. Other countries are protecting their citizens much more carefully, with much more stringent guidelines, especially with regard to children. It doesn't surprise me that we have one of the highest emission levels in the world

What it didn't say was whether the wireless signal you get from a single router in your home gives out the same levels of radiation you would get from systems set up in public places like schools etc. Does anyone know?

Panorama has a good reputation because within it's team are people who know about things. They may not be specialists, but they are close enough to any given area to usually spot bollocks.
Except if it's science.
Science is geeky.
Recall how they got an expert gyanecologist with an "interest" in skin in as an expert on Horizon ?

They do "cute furry animals with big eyes" better than anyone else on the planet. Great care is taken to get facts right, and professional scientists are involved.

But the point at which physics, or numbers appear is the point at which they give up and just broadcast "what people feel about it"

fair enough DC, but Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, may know what he is talking about, do you think?

Some bits of GCSE physics, that Panorama didn't make clear.
Signals obey the "inverse square law", ie you take the range and multiply it by itself.
Twice as far away means 1/4 the power, 3 times =1/9, 4 times =1/16.. and ten times means 1/100th the power.
A phone is about 3 cm from your brain, a desktop computer's card is about 1.5 metres from it.
That's 50 times further away, giving 1/2500th of the power.
WIFI Routers usually emit more power, but to give the same power to your brain they would have to be so hot that if you looked at them, you would go blind. Maybe you'd melt, depends on it's efficiency.

Much the same applies to phone masts.
Although they emit more power than phones or wifi gear, they are further away.

It is possible that phones do some harm to your brain, though what little evidence we have doesn't support this.
But what occurs to me that we have huge numbers of people on the phone several times a day for a decade.
With that level of exposure, even tiny risks would cause such an outbreak of illness that you wouldn't need to research it, since the hospitals would be swamped.
Mobiles have been in common use for more than 15 years, so long term effects ought to have shown up by now.
I'm not saying the risk is zero. You can't do anything to a blilion peple 5 times a day with no chance of anything bad.
But it's got to be very small.
Personally I think the biggest risk is from the chemicals used to make them. Some of these are bad stuff.
But the BBC doesn't "do" chemistry, since it doesn't involve celebrities or cure furry animals.

Ok, DC so another question. Does the radiation from wifi come from the router or the computer? We have a wireless router in our study where I work - about a foot away from where i am sitting right now and spend about 20 hours a week. However, we only use the wireless signal if the kids are on the laptop downstairs which is only a couple of hours a week. Am I at risk? Are they at risk. Does anyone know?