University Bans wi-fi as Health Concern 693
BaltikaTroika writes "A Canadian university has banned wi-fi, since the university President sees a possible link between electric and magnetic fields and brain tumors. According to the head of the university, "the jury's out on this one, I'm not going to put in place what is potential chronic exposure for our students." Is anybody outside of this university's administration concerned about this?"
Hell yes I'm worried (Score:4, Insightful)
Noisiest spectrum evar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Better ban cordless phones, too, and everything else that uses 2.4 Ghz.
What about cell phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
More tags (Score:4, Insightful)
DIfference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems a little far-fetched.
Other things to ban at University: (Score:5, Insightful)
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Vending Machines
Money
Pesticides on the grass
Asphalt roads
Air Conditioning
Natural Gas heating
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
What about TV? (Score:1, Insightful)
Americans and Brits aren't so paranoid (Score:2, Insightful)
What? This thread is going to be stupid Canadian jokes, stupid American jokes, and some dufus trying to prove how smart he is by showing some fucking thing about ionizing radiation.
We ought to send those guys some aluminum foil hats.
Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many benefits to studying at Lakehead University. Ubiquitous wireless Internet access, however, isn't one of them.
I'm sure living in a grass hut is nice and all, and yes, everything (might) cause cancer.
This place deserves what's about to happen. I hope, maybe, that something was taken out of context. Maybe. Otherwise I don't even know where to start.
100% safe? NOTHING is 100% safe. Nothing is even 100% certain in science, except maybe that you will fail dynamics if you don't do your homework.. heh
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
And aside from this proximity issue, cell phones often get above 1 Watt of output. Wifi devices tend to be between 20 and 100 miliwatts.
Anecdotally, I get a terrible headache that lasts for hours if I talk even 30 seconds on a cell phone. I'm probably not typical, but I'm certain cell phones aren't as harmless as most folks (and regulatory agencies) think.
most stupid ban (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the high frequencies that wireless networks use can be dangerous to cells,since higher frequencies and radio waves are more dense. but basically the whole spectrum can cause damage as well. As we speak now, there are radio waves passing through our bodies. These come from television, amateur radio, broadcast radio, public service radio, cell phones and other wireless services.
Wireless networks are generally low power and you would have to be sitting directly near your antenna before you would be affected. A cell phone will probably fry your brain faster, since it's right next to your head.
An amateur radio operator told you that!
Re:Not an incredibly bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
If we are to ban everything that is "possibly" dangerous, then we need to ban everything. Literally.
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:1, Insightful)
"jury's out"? Who said there's equal evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the jury isn't "out on this one". That would imply there is evidence that WiFi causes any sort of health consequences- and further, that it is equal to evidence it does not. That's simply not the case.
People have been looking for this supposed cancer/mind-ray/whatever link to cell phones and other wireless devices. They still haven't found it. That doesn't say "the jury is out"- it says "research conducted thusfar has found no evidence."
It's like doing a study on whether there are little green moon men. Twenty research projects are conducted, scouring the moon with telescopes and satellites, and researchers say, "well, we haven't seen any green moon men." Then some nutjob comes along and says that "the jury is out on whether there are little green men on the moon!", simply because the researchers (like proper scientists) guardedly said "we didn't see any moon men", not "there are no moon men."
Re:DIfference? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also the amount of waves you send is important as well as the frequency. WiMAX, for example, operates in the same band as a technology generated by the military to incapacitate enemy troops(!), but it couldn't be harmful because it's not aimed in any direction in large enough amounts to have any noticeable effect.
But yeah, banning wifi for health concerns is bogus. I'd expect this from a scare tactics journalist but not from the head of a university.
Re:Should I Be (Score:0, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hell yes I'm worried (Score:5, Insightful)
And, of course, inspect all staff for magic magnetic bracelets and fire those wearing them. Except those working in the school's Department of Magick.
If I was interviewing him, to cover all bases (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure what the situation is in that school, but I remember one school in the US (SJSU) where the phone system on campus, including dorms, was owned by the school. Your telephone bill came not from AT&T or MCI, but by SJSU. In another case, in a university in London many years ago, the regular BT payphones in halls (dorms) were replaced by some other company's boxes, presumably under some contract where the school got some (legal) kickback for the exclusive contract.
Such a setup would make for some suspicious conflicts of interest now that WiFi phones are available, including ones that use Skype.
I'm not saying there's anything other than innocent Luddism going on here, but it's worth a look under the carpet just in case.
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DIfference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's a powerful new technology. I'm not kidding here. This is how non-techs actually think about these things.
Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S (Score:5, Insightful)
The article makes it obvious he was trying to be a big hero at a town hall meeting. In actuality, he knows nothing about electromagnetism, but is not afraid to pretend that he does. We see a lot of that in recent years, as people pretend to know more about computers than they do.
Anyone worried about radio waves causing cancer can try to make that theory work. There is a huge barrier, however, in the form of a very very small number: Planck's Constant [britannica.com]. Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg/S. It's that 10**-34 that makes it difficult for low-energy electromagetism like wireless transmissions to interact with chemical reactions. Thirty-four zeros is a LOT of zeros after the decimal point.
Off topic: I've linked to the Encyclopedia Britannica above because the article about Planck's constant is very short. The article in Wikipedia is long. I've frequently seen the Encyclopedia Britannica be misleading because of the severe limitation placed on size of the articles due to paper costs. Wikipedia does not have that problem.
--
Cheney: Killing small animals and Iraqis for fun and profit.
Let's do the math (Score:3, Insightful)
Assume: Sunlight is electromagnetic radiation too.
Full sunshine hits you with about 1000 watts per square meter.
Assume: Your body has one square meter of frontal surface area (John Belushi, not Kate Moss).
So on a sunny day you're getting hit with 1000 watts of electromagnetic radiation, heating you up considerably. Much as if you were in a restaurant-strength microwave oven.
Assume: I'm too lazy to look up the exact power, so let's assume a Wi-Fi antenna puts out one whole watt (greatly exaggerated).
Also assume you're standing three feet from the antenna.
A rough guess: your body is going to intercept about 1/40th of the emitted radiation.
So we have on the one hand, sunlight at 1000 watts, and wi-fi at 1/40th of a watt, a difference in intensity of 25,000 times.
And while exposure to sunlight for like 10 years will eventually cause wrinkles and skin cancer, very few students or staff stay in school for the proportionally requisite 250,000 years, three feet from a hot-spot antenna.
More likely you'll die of terminal boredom.
Re:DIfference? (Score:4, Insightful)
It costs the college money to implement, they don't have the money, so they are looking for any excuse so they won't look bad for not having it.
Well it is at Lakehead (Score:3, Insightful)
The way I figure at least these people will get a little education, better than not attending a university at all, so let Lakehead have its coffee.
cheers
Holy ignorant Slashdotters! (Score:3, Insightful)
The posts here read like a grassrooting effort by some telco, except it's probably just a bunch of ignorant geeks who believe whatever they're told by big multinationals and their own beloved government. Oh, it hurts to read this site somedays. . !
There have been a lot of studies by reputable researchers which suggest that low power EM has numerous detrimental effects on the nervous system which have nothing to do with ionizion and cell destruction due to microwave heating. There are other mechanics [geocities.com] at work.
Yes, I've met hysterical protesters who have used super-soakers to shoot magic indian water at cell towers. They do look silly. --As do hoards of poorly informed parents with bad research and high emotions.
But even sillier are people who cannot make the distinction between a valid concern and an emotional protester with a squirt gun. Think: What if somebody came along jumping up and down with a goofy hat and spittle flying from his mouth insisting that the Earth orbits around the Sun? Would you be so disgusted and put off that you would instantly flee into the welcoming arms of the alternate corporate/government sales pitch for a Flat Earth? You might think you wouldn't be fooled, but the evidence of every day public behavior strongly suggests otherwise. A good example is the current war in Iraq; a lot of people here bought that pack of lies when the government came selling them. Indeed, most people garner most of their knowledge from television, and television has a vested interest in misleading us.
Honestly. A little critical thinking from all the so-called skeptics is in order here, I think.
-FL
A poem of sorts... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, don't forget the occasional lightening storm, or solar flare (or the "northern lights") but the wifi has got to go?
Not to mention the municipal wireless network (used by police, fire, and more) brodcasting at at more than 1 watt, but the wifi has got to go?
And least we forget... The HUGE head of Mr. Gilbert, which is now creating it's own electromagnetic poles, but the wifi has got to go?
It's very hard to understand how this guy made it to the position he's in. I can't imagine a guy (who probably stands infront of the microwave at home (900Watts or more)) saying I won't allow wifi unless you can prove it doesn't hurt anyone. That's like going into surgery and coming out telling the doctor, I don't trust medications, and won't be using anything you prescribe. But anaesthesia, that doesn't count.
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"The jury's out on this" (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an ad hominem attack. If you have a scientific basis for your objection, I would really love to read it.
"Subthermal levels of radiation can still affect the biological function of polar molecules, which can in turn can cause carcinogenic compounds to end up where they don't belong"
Where is it that these carcinogenic compounds DO belong, exactly? You're waving your hands.
"Radiation does not have to cook an organism to harm it. It simply has to cause it to malfunction."
Now demonstrate that the radiation from wifi repeaters is more harmful than, for instance, exposure to the Sun.
Double-whammy for Lakehead (Score:2, Insightful)
This comes as the British Columbia Institute of Technology, or BCIT [www.bcit.ca], is about to introduce its own Mechanical Engineering degree for those who have completed the two-year Mecanical Design diploma. Previously, the only way for a Mechanical Technology graduate at BCIT to finish his Engineering degree in two years was to transfer to Lakehead.
Let's look at the pros and cons of finishing your degree at Lakehead as compared to BCIT:
Pros:
Cons:
Anyone else see a slight enrolment falloff coming?
Parent makes a _very_ good point. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a better response would be "No, they are the same thing. The proof is extremely boring, but maybe this example/anecdote/etc. will make it clear." Use a thought experiment if you can; don't give a full treatment unless you know you're talking to someone that should have a background that will allow them to understand what you're saying. Failure to do so makes scientists look arrogant and detached from reality, and the last thing any scientist needs these days is to be dehumanized.