Skip to main content

The radiation bogeyman

Every now and then, Swindon, for all its negative connotations does something that makes it interesting. We had the Mondex (electronic cash) trial here. Swindon proudly decided to get rid of speed cameras, to cheers from Top Gear. And now Swindon has announced that there will soon be public WiFi available throughout the borough (thanks to Paul Tuck for bringing this to my attention).

I'm going in to Radio Wiltshire this morning to discuss this - because there has been some talk (I was told by an organization called Powerwatch, though I haven't seen it) of Swindon's action putting us at risk. Because of the 'radiation' from the WiFi transmitters.

This is what I describe in Ecologic as a bogeyman, where fear of something nasty that doesn't really exist gets people in a panic. And one of the classic ways of inciting a bogeyman is to use terms like 'radiation' - which sounds scary. Technically WiFi is radiation - electromagnetic radiation - just as is the light from the Sun, or a TV broadcast. A much more neutral term for WiFi is radio waves - but 'radiation' is used to scare us.

The fact is that there have been over 30 controlled trials of the impact of WiFi and phone masts, none of which has come up with positive results that should make us worry. There are a few trials that do claim to show that such transmissions cause headaches and other unpleasant feelings - but they are mostly subjective questionnaires, and don't have any kind of double blind control to ensure that the trial is producing actual data, rather than what people believe.

Let's face it, statistically people are going to have headaches around WiFi. I often have a headache in the kitchen - does this mean kitchens are bad for you?

Even if there is some small risk attached to WiFi - and there is no evidence there is - we need to get it in proportion. For example, if we were talking about a technology that killed over a million people a year, then, yes, I would be worried. Such a technology does exist - and you probably use it - but it's not WiFi. It's the car (or, at least, road transport).

So I, for one, am cheering this move by Swindon Council. Good on you, guys.

Comments

  1. Hi
    If you are interested in science, you will find plenty of scientific research evidence for the adverse effects of pulsed microwave radiation from wifi, phone masts, etc
    A large body of evidence is posted on various web site run by concerned citizens and scientists actually doing the research in this area of biophysics.
    TO read the evidence is the only way that you can see the evidence is being ignored by the industry and governments.
    http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsum.php
    This review of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers found strong indications for the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology.

    http://www.mastsanity.org/wi-fi.html

    http://www.bmu.de/strahlenschutz/parl_vorgaenge/doc/39709.php

    http://www.pressetext.at/pte.mc?pte=070801025
    German Government warns against WLAN-use

    Berlin (pte/01.08.2007/13:05) - The German Government [Bundesregierung] recommends that the use of WLAN in the workplace or at home should be avoided, if possible. In order to reduce personal radiation exposure, it is better to remain with conventional cable-connected networks
    http://www.mastsanity.org/wi-fi/german-governent-warns-against-wi-fi-use.html

    www.wifiinschools.org.uk
    www.wiredchild.org

    In the microwave spectrum the radiation levels are now trillions of times higher than the natural background levels. They carry a 'pulse' or data at low frequency which interferes with our heart and brain rhythms and cell communication system

    Please take time to read the evidence
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't like comments with so many links, but in the interest of fair discussion, I will won't delete this one.

    I'm afraid most of this doesn't hold up. All the real evidence is that there is no cause for concern. But I accept that many people are worried, as this comment makes clear.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope