University Bans wi-fi as Health Concern

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?"

Should I Be

[NerdENerd (660369)]

I have a wifi router under my couch, hope my nuts are OK!

Re:Should I Be

[jrockway (229604)]

That's how Darwin keeps the human race around.

Re:Should I Be

[Jozer99 (693146)]

In other news, a Canadian University has banned music, idleness, and electricity. "All embellishments to life are the work of the devil. Good living comes through hard work in the fields, and beatings for impure thoughs. Plus, a little yellow fever never hurt anyone too bad." said a school recruitment official.

Re:Should I Be

[b0r0din (304712)]

And here I thought the Trinity was drinking, drugs, and premarital sex.

Re:Should I Be

[galen (24777)]

You keep your nuts under the couch? How odd.

Re:Should I Be

[darth_linux (778182)]

he's prob married.

Hell yes I'm worried

[Benwick (203287)]

But it's not like all those other electro-magnetic waves just hit the walls of the campus and stop dead in their, uh, tracks...

Re:Hell yes I'm worried

[SEWilco (27983)]

If he's worried about electromagnetic waves he should ban electrical use on campus, magnets, and wave a compass around all steel desks and filing cabinets.. then have them degaussed (someplace else, of course, to keep the evil degaussing waves away).

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.

Noisiest spectrum evar.

[LackThereof (916566)]

WTF?

Better ban cordless phones, too, and everything else that uses 2.4 Ghz.

Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

"... president Fred Gilbert won't allow it until he's satisfied EMF (electric and magnetic fields) exposure doesn't pose a health risk, particularly to young people."

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.

What about cell phones?

[Chalex (71702)]

Have they also banned cell phones? Because students tend to hold those next to their heads instead of on their lap. Since the power drops off as 1/r^3 (roughly), the distance between your brain and the antenna is a big deal.

Re:What about cell phones?

[DrEldarion (114072)]

See, now we have to pan wireless keyboards and mice... oh, and cordless phones, too - those operate on the same bandwidth as wireless networks, so obviously they're a HUGE problem. Seriously, this is just being afraid of new technology. I guarantee you this guy never thought about all the wireless stuff being used CONSTANTLY by people on campus.

Re:What about cell phones?

[Raindance (680694)]

You're absolutely right.

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.

Re:What about cell phones?

[Quirk (36086)]

... I get a terrible headache that lasts for hours if I talk even 30 seconds on a cell phone.

And would this be when your mom calls to ask you what you plan to do with your life?

Re:What about cell phones?

[nmos (25822)]

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.

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.

Re:What about cell phones?

[canajin56 (660655)]

There is a widely discussed problem called electrosensitivity, or ES. Thousands of people suffer from it. However, searching the internet, I can find no articles on it other than conspiracy sites that claim that millions of people are affected, and the government and medical industries keep it secret because they love their cellphones. In fact, while these website site all of these journal papers and conferences on the subject, there references appear to be completely fabricated to make them seem plausable. The only actual scientific articles have asserted that such a syndrome does not exist. Several groups in the UK and the USA have conducted double blind tests in which sufferers are secretly exposed to EMR of frequencies like that they claim cause their symptoms (Monitors, cell phones, etc), and they did not react. On the other hand, when exposed to a radio device they are told is active, but which is nothing more than a box with a light, they react immediatly. These studies are dismissed by the ES campaign groups, who declare they are secretly funded by the cellphone companies. Some even declare that all scientiests are against them because scientists love computers and other electronic gadgets, and all scientists will forever bury the mounds of evidence.

Re:What about cell phones?

[Raindance (680694)]

I can't speak to this ES phenomenon, nor your anecdotal argument, but it was documented in 2003 - and hasn't been successfully challenged by any new research, to my knowledge - that cell phone radiation seriously injures the blood brain barrier in rats. This was found to be the case for radiation levels similar to those found in modern cell phones.

http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,57488,00 .html [wired.com]

Re:What about cell phones?

[non-poster (529123)]

cell phones often get above 1 Watt of output.

False!

Maybe old analog phones. Modern digital phones are rated at a maximum output of 200 milliwatts. I've read that the typical output is somewhere between 1 milliwatt and 5 milliwatts. I've studied more about CDMA phones than other technologies, and I think they adjust the output power every 40 milliseconds, based on the signal strength of the receiver (tower).

What's the typical power output of a cordless phone in the house? I'm guessing it's more than

Re:What about cell phones?

[Raindance (680694)]

I'd suggest taking a look at CNET's cell phone radiation chart [cnet.com]. Updated Feb 22, 2006.

Re:What about cell phones?

[1u3hr (530656)]

I believe not too long ago, Slashdot had an article concerning the cooking of an egg situated between two cell phones.

That's a hoax [gelfmagazine.com], written six years ago, and Slashdot editors were suckered by it, as they have been many times before.

Ivermee, a 60-year old archiver in a law firm in South Hampton, has written almost all of the pieces on the Wymsey site, including the egg article, which he wrote back in 2000. In the piece, he outlines eight ridiculous steps for hard boiling an egg using the transmissions of two cellphones pointed at each other with the egg in between.

"I really underestimated how many people would take it seriously," he tells Gelf over email. "No other page on the site has grabbed people's attention and ire button as much as this one. What seems to be happening is that it 'travels' from blog to blog, forum to forum. It was big in Australia last year and seems to be big in the US right now."

power difference

[j1m+5n0w (749199)]

Most wireless cards are about 35 milliwatts. Cell phones usually on a somewhat nearby frequency and, I believe, somewhere between 200-600 milliwatts (someone please correct me if that's wrong) and right next to your head. (As others have pointed out that radio follows the inverse square law, not inverse cube.) Also, the duty cycle is probably less for most wireless applications; if you're just surfing the net, the connection is idle most of the time, and is therefore the wireless card is not transmitting

Re:What about cell phones?

[chriswaclawik (859112)]

Quick lesson: EM field from a point source: 1/r^2 strength EM field from a line/wire (theoretically infinite): 1/r strenth EM field from a plate (theoretically infinite): constant strength The derivations involve many repulsions and attractions of charges as you integrate along an entire line or plane. This is stuff you should know after learning multivariable calculus.

Re:What about cell phones?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358)]

Inverse square is for free space with no absorption, in which case you can derive it from conservation of energy and simple geometry.

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.

More tags

[MeanMF (631837)]

[+] Tinfoil, helmet

DIfference?

[Kickboy12 (913888)]

How's wifi different than any other radio signal? Sure, it's a different frequency and bandwidth, but radio waves are passing through us all the time. Are they gonna ban radio stations now cause it might be cancerous?

Seems a little far-fetched.

Re:DIfference?

[lahvak (69490)]

How's wifi different than any other radio signal?

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.

NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY

[by Anonymous Coward]

... at which water molecules resonate. Microwave ovens use 2.4 GHz because that's where the FCC said they could go. It has absolutely nothing to do with water-molecule resonance or any other bogosity.

Jeez, I wish people who have no earthly clue what they're talking about would refrain from posting.

Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY

[Karma Farmer (595141)]

Jeez, I wish people who have no earthly clue what they're talking about would refrain from posting.

Can we still moderate?

Re:DIfference?

[putaro (235078)]

Your analogy is retarded and refutes itself. Radio frequencies and visible light are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum and are carried by photons. Visible light is a *HIGHER* frequency than microwave radiation. Therefore by your reasoning visible light is more dangerous than microwaves.

Re:DIfference?

[austad (22163)]

Your analogy makes no sense. A lightbulb emits light from the UV to the IR range, and a laser emits a specific frequency which could fall anywhere in there. IR is less dense (wavelength-wise), but it will still burn you. I don't understand where you are coming from here. A laser is powerful at lower wattages than a lightbulb because of its focused directional beam, which you mention, but then go on to argue that higher frequencies are more directional, which they may be, but have you ever seen the radiation map things for a 2.4ghz antenna?

Anyway, it's in the millwatt range, and people aren't putting their heads or their crotches on the access point and nothing is going to happen. This guy that banned wifi is a complete idiot.

Other things to ban at University:

[EraseEraseMe (167638)]

Carcinogenic inks in the paper
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Vending Machines
Money
Pesticides on the grass
Asphalt roads
Air Conditioning
Natural Gas heating

Re:Other things to ban at University:

[binarybum (468664)]

wow, I hope you're not Canadian. I think proposing to ban alcohol is considered treason there.

Oh, for crap's sake.

[jcr (53032)]

I don't know of ANY wi-fi product that even radiates half a watt. What a pack of blithering luddites.

-jcr

ah, yes, my alma mater.

[macsox (236590)]

When I graduated from the University of Tinfoilhats, Ottawa campus, in 2001 with my degree in Paranoia Studies, I thought my hallowed school would never make the mainstream media. And, more importantly, that I wouldn't know if it was, because paying attention to the mainstream media allows the brain worms to eat your thoughts.

Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD

[xtal (49134)]

I've read the article, and this, I hope, is a joke.


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

"The jury's out on this"

[by Anonymous Coward]

Gee, where have we all been hearing THAT phrase lately?

Fact: Nobody has ever demonstrated in a repeatable, peer-reviewed, properly-controlled study that low-level RF radiation at nonionizing wavelengths has any biological effect whatsoever. For every study that shows correlated effects, two more show none at all.

Fact: WiFi adapters, even the gray-market 100 mW jobs you buy on eBay, transmit 1/10 to 1/100 the power of a cell phone.

Fact: Your microwave oven leaks more 2.4-GHz energy than your WiFi card emits intentionally. For best results, cut a 1" slit in package wrapper and rotate dish after 2 minutes on HIGH.

Fact: DNA damage from 2.4 GHz radiation at athermal levels would require a form of matter-energy interaction that is currently unknown to physics. There's a guaranteed Nobel Prize for anyone who can document such an interaction, because as far as anyone knows, we pretty have all the fundamental interactions covered at this point. Get cracking!

(Probable) fact: This joker has some sort of financial interest in a local commercial ISP whose business would be threatened by a campus-wide network. Nobody that stupid runs a university... but conflicts of interest aren't exactly unheard-of in that line of work, are they?

Ban Girls

[Dante Shamest (813622)]

Ban Girls! They're too distracting. Like this one, she's

Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him

[mcc (14761)]

that the earth is one giant magnetic field

Brought to you by...

[coolgeek (140561)]

The very same university that banned masturbation because of concerns over loss of sight.

Re:Brought to you by...

[feagle814 (640886)]

I don't remember seeing that.

Re:Brought to you by...

[cerberusss (660701)]

The very same university that banned masturbation because of concerns over loss of sight.

Everybody keeps saying that, but *bumps into table* do they bring proof *spills coffee* of this myth? *smashes toe into doorstep* Nope, not a bit! Now where are my glasses?

What is he, crazy?

[l3prador (700532)]

What is he, crazy?

Hasn't he ever heard of magnetic therapy? [magnetsandhealth.com]

Wardriving the area

[drewzhrodague (606182)]

Has anyone wardriven that area? I betcha there would be far more signals from access-points and wireless cards than they could possibly keep all turned off. Policing that environment would not be a fun job: "Yes, I know it's cool and useful and makes, but we can't have that here."

most stupid ban

[beast6228 (472737)]

This is the most stupid ban I've seen in a long time.

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!

"jury's out"? Who said there's equal evidence?

[SuperBanana (662181)]

"the jury's out on this one, I'm not going to put in place what is potential chronic exposure for our students"

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."

Possible link?

[TeknoHog (164938)]

the university President sees a possible link between electric and magnetic fields

No shit, Maxwell!

To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy

[Qbertino (265505)]

I see a lot of wannabees rant about this university being run by unscientify crackpots. And that the sun and radio and tv is more radiation blah blah ...
I've got news for you: Microwaves damage health. Period.
The debate is at which intensity do they start doing that.
I generally turn my Wifi of if I'm not using it and have stopped carrying my cellphone close to my body, since it's on all day. I turn it off at night. I also hold it away from my head when I make a call until the cell handshake is over and the remote connect is there. My Siemens M35 even has a beep to indicate when the connect is there. Smart people the Siemens engineers, aren't they?
Handshake you ask? That's the high-power meep-meep-meep you hear in nearby active FM radios just before you make or recieve a call. It's what establishes the conection to the cell network for communication. I even know a woman who can sense the cellphone handshake (she has e-magnetic field sensetivity) from meters away and has the habbit of anouncing cellphone calls seconds before a phone rings. Fun to watch with unsuspecting others near by :-) . Her life isn't that fun though. When her neighbor above leaves his 20" CRT on she can't sleep. She's got other trouble with that aswell and people often don't believe her and think she's crazy.
On it goes:
My father was a high profile radar electronics engineer - with Military (Nato, Cruise Missile), Airbus, Nasa/Grumman Aircraft (Lunar Module, Space Shuttle, etc) and some others. He forbid us to have a Microwave oven (they ALL leak Microwaves) and steared clear and went the other way whenever we got to close to a radar bubble when going hiking.
There are people who've had terminal brain tumors due to intense cellphone usage and I work with doctors (medical IT) who keep all equipment far away and well cased according to TCO.

Bottom line:
Don't think it's not unhealthy just because most people don't care. A little common sense and forsight is needed when handling technology. You don't get universal flawless wireless conectivity without a tradeoff. Anyone who believes that is a crackpot himself.

Re:Not an incredibly bad idea

[Eivind (15695)]

There's a possibility that anything could be dangerous. There are a lot of studies on the effects of electromagnetic radiation. Not *one* ha shwon any harmful effects at the levels we're here talking of. (indeed not one has shown harmfule effects at a level 100 times higher than the one we're here talking of.

If we are to ban everything that is "possibly" dangerous, then we need to ban everything. Literally.

Re:Not an incredibly bad idea

[cgenman (325138)]

If we are to ban everything that is "possibly" dangerous, then we need to ban everything. Literally.

Are you making a suggestion?

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa looks frustrated, then shruggs and takes his money]

Re:Why not post the university in the summary?

[nidx (583973)]

I actually GO to Lakeheadu University (5th year comp-sci) and from what I understand this decision is because of our University President. Our school paper did an article about this issue earlier this year and if I remember correctly his reasons for the ban were "the unknown effects on developing brains" which I belive was related to his field of study. IMO it's all ignorant BS.

but I do love that this issue has reached slashdot!