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?"
Should I Be (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Should I Be (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Should I Be (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Should I Be (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Should I Be (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Should I Be (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Should I Be (Score:3, Funny)
Hell yes I'm worried (Score:4, 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.
Noisiest spectrum evar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Better ban cordless phones, too, and everything else that uses 2.4 Ghz.
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.
Re:Planck's constant = 6.626068 x 10-34 m2 kg/S (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Joule seconds (Score:3, Informative)
They are equivalent:
Joule -> kg m^2 / s^2
Plank's constant = h
Frequency of EM radiation = f -> 1/s
photon energy (Joules) = h * f
Since the unit of f is Hz or 1/s, Plank's constant can be represented with the units J*s or equivalently kg m^2 / s.
QED
Re:Noisiest spectrum evar. (Score:3, Funny)
It's common practice for parents to put a source of this dangerous energy in their children's bedrooms so that they
What about cell phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:4, Funny)
And would this be when your mom calls to ask you what you plan to do with your life?
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.
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:2)
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,57488,0
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:3, Informative)
I also questioned the numbers since I remember that right when cell phone popularity started growing dramatically, there was a statement (in the manual of my Motorola flip phone) about the limits on maximum emission levels being raised recently. That was back in the early 90s.
Anyhow, I think the number this guy quotes correlates to SAR which this list [cnet.com] claims goes pretty close to the 1.6 Watts SAR maximum level mentioned in the page you link to.
btw, that list is the h
power difference (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:What about cell phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
More tags (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More tags (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.energyfields.org/ [energyfields.org]
DIfference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems a little far-fetched.
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.
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.
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:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY (Score:5, Funny)
Can we still moderate?
Re:NO, 2.4 GHZ IS NOT THE FREQUENCY (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DIfference? (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Other things to ban at University: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Other things to ban at University: (Score:2)
Re:You forgot the most toxic element... (Score:2)
Darn. I was hoping you were going to say aspertame/splenda.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
He says... (Score:2, Funny)
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.
ah, yes, my alma mater. (Score:5, Funny)
Why not post the university in the summary? (Score:2)
Having gone to university in Ontario, it wouldn't surprise me if this were based on a study from Lakehead's engineering department (if they have one).
Re:Why not post the university in the summary? (Score:2)
Re:Why not post the university in the summary? (Score:4, Interesting)
but I do love that this issue has reached slashdot!
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
Re:Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD (Score:2)
Re:Post the name of this University! LAKEHEAD (Score:2)
Ban only the machines that have an electrically operated access door at the height about 30" from the ground. All other machines are safe.
"The jury's out on this" (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him (Score:2)
Re:Well fuck, let's hope nobody lets slip to him (Score:3, Informative)
"well that's ok, because the study was about Electromagnetic fields, not magnetic
fields, which are two different things. As far as I am aware, there is absolutely nodanger to humans from a magnetic field."
[/quote]
Wrong. All Electric and Magnetic Fields are the same thing. They are components of the same EM field Tensor.
F_mu_nu=del_mu(A^nu)-del_nu(A^mu)
Where A is the 4-vector Potential (ie the scalar potential & the regular magnetic vector potential).
All quantities here are 4-vector
is there a scientist in the house? (Score:3, Funny)
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 extr
Brought to you by... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Brought to you by... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Brought to you by... (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Too big? (Score:2)
Re:Too big? (Score:2)
Thats too big to have any kind of effect on the brain.
I think some brains are capable of malfunctioning all on their own.
What is he, crazy? (Score:4, Funny)
Hasn't he ever heard of magnetic therapy? [magnetsandhealth.com]
Better ban cell phones (Score:2)
Wardriving the area (Score:3, Interesting)
That explains a lot of things. (Score:2)
We all know this is really about cheating, distractions, porn, and piracy though. It has nothing to do with brain tumors, most likely. If it does... why are these people running a university, again?
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!
He does have an argument here (Score:2)
neutrinos (Score:2)
The sad thing is... (Score:2)
"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."
Possible link? (Score:5, Funny)
No shit, Maxwell!
Re:Possible link? (Score:2)
Re:Possible link? (Score:3)
Perhaps this could be a reason..... (Score:2)
Speaking of brain tumors... (Score:2)
Does this guy go outside? (Score:2)
Easy solution (Score:2)
Easy solution: tinfoil hats. Keeps those nasty EM waves out and presto, no brain tumors.
Cordless phones too (Score:2)
I know, let's return to the good old days of yore, circa 1830. Then we will be safe!
He's a Bafoon, but he's got half a point (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
So the point being, the frequency is irrelevant, it's all to do with the magnetic and electric fields. When one or both of these are far in excess of ambient, they cause problems.
The new-age movement goes further to infer that all electrical devices give off 'bad vibes' in the form of positive ions (which make you feel tired, depressed etc). Clearly, transmitting devices are designed to propagate a signal, so it follows that they create more of these ions. Again, there's some science behind this, although arguable.
It looks like this guy is a bit misguided, but looking out for such things. For it to be any use at all, he'd have to ban phones, high current cables, and most of the engineering department, oh, not to mention around about every computer on campus.
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..
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.
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
To the ignorants here: Microwaves are unhealthy (Score:4, Informative)
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
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.
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
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:Not an incredibly bad idea (Score:3, Funny)
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:Not an incredibly bad idea (Score:2)
Re:Not an incredibly bad idea (Score:2)
What makes you think we haven't? This guy apparently sat way too close to the TV as a kid and managed to become President against all odds but now we're reading about the long-term effects on Slashdot.
Re:Not an incredibly bad idea (Score:2)
Yeah, and there's absolutly no danger in stringing cat5 all over the place.
Re:Laptop in the sunset (Score:2)
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
Re:I don't doubt it (Score:2)
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),