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?"
Wardriving the area (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More tags (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.energyfields.org/ [energyfields.org]
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a hoax [gelfmagazine.com], written six years ago, and Slashdot editors were suckered by it, as they have been many times before.
NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY (Score:4, Interesting)
Jeez, I wish people who have no earthly clue what they're talking about would refrain from posting.
Re:You gotta give him at least SOME credit (Score:2, Interesting)
What? If he's waiting for 100% certainty about any potential carcinogen, then he doesn't understand health research. I, personally, feel some reassurance when the WHO does an international review on something and say that there is not much concern.
The sad thing is that he's a zoologist, so I would have expected better understanding from him.
Re:Why not post the university in the summary? (Score:4, Interesting)
but I do love that this issue has reached slashdot!
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if it could be something about the audio compression that's bothering you rather than the RF. Some people have similar reactions to things like monitor flicker etc.
power difference (Score:3, Interesting)
For the curious, the actual fcc guidelines on permissible RF exposure are here [fcc.gov]. They seem to be saying that at 2.4 Ghz it's OK to subject a random bystander to 1 milliwatt per square centimeter averaged over 30 minutes, or to subject yourself to 5mW/cm^2 averaged over 6 minutes.
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wi-Fi and cellular signals get absorbed by the ground and by objects in the vicinity. As a result the power dropoff is faster than inverse square. An accurate mathematical model is complicated, but inverse cube is not absurd as an approximation.
He may have a point.. this from Wikipedia.. (Score:3, Interesting)
People in my office have raised concerns over Wifi and health and I was unable to find anything useful which explained the issues and where the 'generally safe watermark' is if there is such a thing, I would still like to see this issue advanced by someone clear on specifics of emmision levels and related health/scientific research.
Wikipedia's page Wireless electronic devices and health [wikipedia.org] stated the following: Anyone else want to quote some sources which may shed further light..
i wonder when he will ban microwave owens (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:"The jury's out on this" (Score:1, Interesting)
Ever stop to check who pays the bills for those two studies that counter every study showing a problem?
DNA damage from 2.4 GHz radiation at athermal levels would require a form of matter-energy interaction that is currently unknown to physics.
Your model is naive. 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. Radiation does not have to cook an organism to harm it. It simply has to cause it to malfunction.
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:1, Interesting)
Now, this was years and years ago, when these were huge machines, and they took a lot of power. Some people are a lot more sensitive to these things, but sensitive enough to be bothered by a modern cellphone is doubtful.
Re:And when linked with actual research. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Cancer is caused by defects in DNA. Defects could come from two possibilities when dealing with EM radiation. #1 is ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is produced in the following ways (the yes/no in parenthesis is whether or not a cell phone has this): Extreme heat (no), radioactive decay (no), nuclear fusion (no), nuclear fission (no), accelerated particles (no). That's it. So, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY, that ionizing radiation is the cause.
That leaves only thermal radiation as a possibility for causing DNA defects. This is impossible as well because there's not enough heat produced from the EM emissions of these devices to raise A SINGLE CELL 1 degree centigrade.
So unless you think cell phones and wireless ethernet devices produce some, as yet, undetected force of nature, that interacts with living cells, I think YOU'RE the one that needs to do some critical thinking and extract some wisdom from the real world.
Re:Holy ignorant Slashdotters! (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the university is covering something up. (Score:2, Interesting)
The students are going to get screwed one way or another, that's for sure.