Harvard PR - we've heard of it but never hear from it
|
|
|
Wi-Fi sensitivity is an urban myth
STORIES appearing in The Sun, The Telegraph, and The Daily Mail, and on Fox News have been claiming that two percent of the world suffer from an illness called "Wi-Fi sensitivity".
The stories focus on a British DJ who is convinced that Wi-Fi signals set off a variety of health symptoms, including dizziness, headaches, and nausea. He has found it difficult to pursue his career, but also simply to find a house, shops, and pub that he feels comfortable occupying.
The articles claim that two percent of the population suffers from the same problem. The Currant Bun tells us that Dave happens to have a new album out which is called Electrosensitive, but it also fails to point anyone to any medical data that backs up its story.
This is probably because there is none.
Ars Technica claims the whole thing is a PR stunt made up by someone claiming to suffer from a condition and promoting an album named after the nonexistent condition.
It says that the condition called electrosensitivity doesn't appear to exist and people who have claimed to suffer from it are incapable of determining whether there is an active wireless signal in their vicinity or not. In multiple blinded studies they did no better than random chance when asked to identify whether equipment that broadcasts on Wi-Fi or cellular frequencies is active.
Ars does have a point. Where did the hacks get the two percent figure? The scientific studies clearly indicate that, at a minimum, the number of people who claim electrosensitivity is much larger than the number of people who possibly could suffer from it, even if it existed.
While it is possible that a smaller group of sufferers actually exists within the larger group of people who claim they have the illness, so far all those who have been tested by boffins have been psychosomatic cases.
Besides, the part of the electromagnetic spectrum which Wi-Fi uses is more or less universal. If someone suffered from the illness they would never be able to get away from the radiation and would be sick all the time. It seems the illness is unique to the Wi-Fi standard and does not apply to mobile phones, microwave ovens, cordless phones and bluetooth.
The other problem is that the spectrum is extremely low energy compared to the energy involved in the sorts of chemical reactions that drive biological systems. In otherwords the energy is so low that it can't actually make anything happen to you.
If it could your biological system would be so sensitive that you could pick up Radio One and have Cris Moyles talking in your head, which would be a significant problem. µ
Share this:
Share
We are very aware of people who are sensitive to bee stings, nuts and sea food. So how is it that people find it so inconceivable that someone may be sensitive to wifi. I can tell exactly when I am in a wifi zone. In the house that I live I am bombarded by wifi from all three sides by my neighbours wifi, with no escape. My ears ring incessantly, my head feels like it is going over a speed bump, I get tingling in my fingers and toes and I get fluttering in my leg muscles. You find yourself in a situation which is beyond irritating. This is a very real thing for those of us that experiences it and not a figment of the imagination as some believe!
I do not know whether wifi illness is real, but I can report that my neighbor suffers from being around radiation-emitting devices and can tell when her husband has the wifi on. The article is a bit glib and shallow. In matters of this kind it is wise to remember that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mLtygxIaFs
Dr Robert O. Becker, M.D.
twice nominated for Nobel Prize of this research.
"I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time, the greatest
polluting element in the earth's environment is the proliferation of
electromagnetic fields.
I consider that to be far greater on a global scale, than warming, and
the increase in chemical elements in the environment."
I dont know anythying about dizzines and nausea, but icant use my iphone with the wifi on for more than a minute because of the horrible headache, i dont feel the same with the notebook or the wrouter. So i think this is about power and not frequencies. Right now, i found this article, looking for people with the same symptoms.
One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is that the article said that our biological systems are stronger then any Wi-Fi signal. The problem is not so much about the strength of the signal, although I do think it can be problematic to health, but the frequency in which the signal is output. In this case most cell and wireless signals are in the 60 Hz range which is very damaging to humans. Dr Royal Rife discovered in the 1930s that every organism has what is know as it's mortal oscillating frequency. In other words each organism is killed by a certain frequency, for example the Borrelia Burgdorferi Spirochete has a mortal oscillating frequency of 432 Hz. It literally kills the organism. I am afraid that we as Humans don't know that much about the long term impact of the constant bombardment to the cells by wireless signals. Sixty Hertz may not be a human mortal oscillating frequency, but it is damaging. The author of this article obviously does not show any understanding of this. Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt MD believes that molds have grown more virulent with all of the electrosmog because they have a mechanism that causes them to go into defense mode as if they are under attack. The molds grow more virulent as a result of the wireless signals causing more mold mediated illness then ever before. There has been a huge increase in Autism and Lyme disease and there is a relationship between damage to the immune system from molds and susceptibility to Lyme disease. Do your research before you write an article.
Several years ago, I was sitting in front of the computer and my husband noticed that my head was shaking. Since then, it has developed into a full blown tremor that only manifests in front of a computer using a wireless card. No one knows how the cells of a human or living organism reacts to all of the electrosmog in our environment. There have been many studies that purport that those who live under cell towers and transformers have higher rates of Cancer. Dr Dietrich Klinghardt MD believes that the increase in electrosmog may play a role in the increase in Autism which by some statistics are one in ninety children. This article sounds like propaganda paid for by the industry that creates this wireless mess. No such thing as Wi-Fi sensitivity? Tell my head tremor that.
BUT, in the good USofA we have warnings on gasoline pumps (petrol for you Brits) that warn of using cells phones near the operating pump. That too is a remedy for which there has never been a problem.
It's all politically motivated and as is the case when dealing with politicians the idiots usually win.
www.junkscience.com highlights a great deal of junk science including global warming.
...is that this phenomenon apparently only happens to the British, because I've never seen the slightest mention of it in the US.
For some reason, Wifi only makes people sick in the UK... gee - does it make more sense that the WiFi protocol can detect British people, or that the whole thing is unfounded hysteria that has merely (and mercifully) escaped my home country?
because there is a water absorption band there. That's mostly why microwave ovens work. But Bluetooth and WiFi signals should be at a much lower level and would seem harmless. At a higher level one might have to worry about premature cataracts. The military and workers have limits of exposure to microwaves set higher than cell users, Bluetooth users, and so on. It's worth watching out for a, say, 1.2ghz transmitter of some kind since a 100 kilowatt transmitter could have substantial, but still legal, output at its second harmonic.
There are firms like the US BSDM that make microwave equipment intended to heat tissues (eg tumors) by zapping them or heating them to aid chemotherapy where the heating increases the effect of the drug. They use computer directed antenna arrays to direct the microwaves to sum in a fairly precise cubic volume. So microwaves certainly do have physical effects and need to be kept track of in our environment.
We can use Bluetooth cell phone headsets knowing that our safety may be increased a tad for microwaves and a whole lot for car accidents....
i work 4 tech support for a UK computer company, i had a customer who claims that when he plugged in his ethernet cable he was fine, but tried using wifi card and he was getting pins n needles and felt sick? in the end i told him 2 see a doctor as i had not herd this situation before, still at least he hasnt called ba ck and i have not had that type of problem again... so far.
The study concluded that people were more attentive and scored higher when doing repetitive tasks while being bombarded by 802.11g signals. It did have a statistically positive effect.
An ancient brand of Motorola flip phone used to give me headaches circa 1998. But since then the broadcast intensity has gone so far down that it never happened again. I could actually tell about 1 full second before it rang, but only with that particular phone. It really depends on the type of signal though. I was roasted by enough microwaves to increase my body temperature by transmitters in the army. Actually felt good when it was minus 30 and I was out on patrol.
1) posing questions as "facts" is something only "creationists" and the likes do. strings of supposedly related questions do NOT create facts, but a narrative, which is usually FALSE.
2) to answer your questions with facts:
1. a radio needs to amplify electric signal so it can be broadcast. since amplifiers are not 100% efficient, some energy gets turned into waste heat.
2. 2.4GHz is not a frequency that is blocked so easily. if it was 400THz it would be blocked. (and be seen with the naked eye, since it is called red light).
3. since wimax uses MUCH higher radiation level, it is best to avoid being extremely close to it, when it transmits at the highest possible level.
4. 2-3GHz has been in use for decades and explored REALLY well.
5. I just saw someone who claims he was abducted by aliens on National Geographic. Anecdotal evidence is moot. besides, what has wireless Mics, that use FM frequencies, got to do with WIFI?
6. since you clearly have no idea what is the meaning of frequency, please avoid using terms like resonance - you are clearly and unequivocally wrong.
7. high voltage power lines create EXTREMELY high intensity electro-magnetic fields around them. wer'e talking MILLIONS of times higher power than a WIFI antenna, and at 50-60Hz - 40 MILLION times less frequency.
All Swede am fag...
Well, a few things you must have noted:
1. Why is that any device with a Wi-Fi chipset gets quite hot during operation?
2. Why the Wi-Fi signal is not blocked by your body?
3. Why is that Wi-Max Modems (operator level) have WARNINGS on them to stay away at least some distance and out of line-of-sight when switched on
4. No one has tested the effect fully on humans. What about all the animals?
5. In fact, I just saw a video on National Geographic of an elephant attacking the keeper who was wearing a wireless Mic for the first time
All this means is that, energy is energy and if it has to travel through you, your atoms would have to resonate causing heat to be released. In fact, no one has been able to pinpoint the cause due to the fact that your cells keep on dying and being replaced (though it all slows down eventually ... aging)!
There is documented evidence of people being negatively affected by living in close proximity to high voltage power transmission lines.
True that the effect of these wireless technologies cannot be so high that you feel sick, but, it is there like taking aspirin for a long time destroys your kidneys eventually. In due time we would know the truth!
Besides, Electro-Hyper-Sensitivity is a recognized medical condition in Sweden already!
Gee, let's write a comment that shows how we didn't read the article in question.
Declaring it an Urban Myth is as unscientific and as unsound as the claim itself. It is impossible to prove a negative, and we have not examined everyone for sensitivity. Scientifically, the condidtion cannot be ruled out. It may exist, as you point out, and so far nothing has been accomplished to "prove" otherwise. The best science can say is that so far, they have found nothing, but let's face it how long, and how hard have they been looking.
That said, I think it's probably just smoke, but that does not mean that we will not discover otherwise.
Any dolt knows that this is shameless publicity for a conveniently-named album that wouldn't otherwise receive such wide publicity.
Newpapers do this all the time—they'll receive a PR release from a company/celebrity/university and turn it into an article. Journalists love it because it's easy for them to paste it in as the bulk of the article has been written for them already, there's no need to perform additional research, and it nicely fills in the gaps of pages on a slow news day. Ever wonder why news websites and newspapers report inane stories like the formula for the perfect female waist-to-hip ratio (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6444851.stm)? Turns out that one was sponsored by Veet, and rigged to show that slightly curvier celebrity role models were preferred over the skinnier ones. And it's a great excuse to print a photo of Jessica Alba.
I personally avoid wi-fi at home. Not because it's harmful, but because it's so damn slow and unreliable compared to a wired connection.
I recently had cause to set up some Cisco WLAN base stations and I was staging them on my desk. My work partner complained (gently) that he was starting to get a headache from them. He looked rather surprised when I told him that the radios were currently disabled and not transmitting *any* signal.
Just to dick with him, I put one under the desk and enabled the radios. He noticed nothing.
Conversely, when I did have the radios on while they were on my desk about 60 cms away from me, I experienced a slightly dry mouth and pressure behind my eyes. I put this down again to a purely psychosomatic response.
I don't know about Wi-Fi sensitivity, but I can tell you that I can actually FEEL WI-MAX and it gives me some similar symptoms. I think that certain types of transmissions might mess with some people more than others. Can anyone say "Class Action Lawsuit"?
What the next article going to be?
"The pope outed as Catholic"?
But wifi nausea is claimed to be more or less instantaneuos, so the testing is valid.
The equivalent blind test for your friend would be to feed him either all aluminium tainted food or all 'clean' food over a series of 2 days periods , and asking him how he felt at the end of each period.
But as Nick says, it's just another PR stunt for/from the luddite crowd.
I've a friend who is allergic to aluminium in that eating food prepared in it makes him feel nauseous.
He can't tell in a blind test which food is cooked in aluminium pots but does feel ill up to a day or two later. This is an accepted condition.
So the research in the article seems rather poor. I'm not saying the condition exists (contrary to your implication the signal strength of a WiFi base station is stronger the nearer you get) but that the research doesn't prove it doesn't exist nor does your comment about signals appear particularly relevant.
Having said all of that, on balance it does sound a bit far fetched though doesn't it :-) Good excuse for a day of if you've already had pig flu!