Is wi-fi dangerous?

[alecstilleyedye]

As I've already said, I don't think that analogy holds.



Undoubtedly. But if they don't want other people on their network - or not even on their network but listening to its traffic - then they should invest the time to learn about these things. If they are not prepared to do so, perhaps wifi is not for them?



I think that pragmatically that is exactly what you have to assume. Otherwise you would never be able to connect to any network without explicit authorisation, and no-one would be able to share their network if the wanted to. Why would anyone want that state of affairs? That you prefer to assume that people are ignorant rather than generous is saddening. Proper access control says "Authorised persons only!"; a lack of it implies that anyone may access the network. If someone does not want their network to be open, why on earth would they leave it open?



It is not a question of "technically challenged", it is a question of laziness or apathy. Securing a home wireless AP to a reasonable level is not rocket surgery. The law probably does not agree with me on this, but: I feel that if someone is going to administer a computer network they must be prepared to take on certain responsibilities, and to at least be familiar with the operation and configuration of the devices under their control. Any adverse consequences resulting their failure to do so must surely be caused, in part, by their own incompetence.

which was my initial (and only) point…

 

[domtyler]

Every home wireless router I have ever owned has come preconfigured with passwords and wep enabled.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

Every home wireless router I have ever owned has come preconfigured with passwords and wep enabled.

my netgear one didn't. fortunately i am technically savvy enough to sort that out. there are, however, plenty of people who will pay pc world and its ilk to install their network, and it's not stretching the bounds of reality to suggest that security may not be set up correctly, and that the installer never even raises the subject for fear of the call extending beyond the time allocated.

 

[Carwash]

The law probably does not agree with me on this... which was my initial (and only) point…

With that I was referring to everything following the colon - not my argument as a whole, but an aside. That's why I phrased and punctuated it as I did. I would have hoped that was clear.

 

[Carwash]

my netgear one didn't. fortunately i am technically savvy enough to sort that out. there are, however, plenty of people who will pay pc world and its ilk to install their network, and it's not stretching the bounds of reality to suggest that security may not be set up correctly, and that the installer never even raises the subject for fear of the call extending beyond the time allocated.

If they have been contracted to set up the hardware and software correctly then in this case the PC World -alikes are at fault for not at least raising the issue. Realistically, security should be the default, as Dom said. If you choose to alter that, it's your choice.

 

[CopperBrompton]

which is actually illegal, although how you'd detect and prove it after the fact, i'm not sure.

An admission in writing as freely offered here by the criminal concerned would probably do quite nicely. :-)

Ben

 

[alecstilleyedye]

An admission in writing as freely offered here by the criminal concerned would probably do quite nicely. :-)

Ben

 

[yello]

At the risk of derailing this derailed thread ....

Many, many things use microwave radiation, it is the intensity which really matters. It can be anything from high intensity coming out of a magnetron in a microwave oven to the very low intensity Cosmic Background radiation that is belting around the universe from every direction.

I was thinking that we're probably subject to all manner of radiation; some man made and some natural. Why pick on mobile phones or wi-fi as the only brain frying culprits? I would have thought you need pretty massive doses for there to be damage.

Though I would be interested in (a summary of) the studies performed by the Swedes.

The Swedes have done the most research in to this. The scientist involved had all the Wi-fi removed from his house based on his findings.

 

[JonoB]

If they have been contracted to set up the hardware and software correctly then in this case the PC World -alikes are at fault for not at least raising the issue. Realistically, security should be the default, as Dom said. If you choose to alter that, it's your choice.

... Þat byrjar hjólreiðir kunna, rúnar lesa ok skrifa. ...
- after Öl 34, Runsten Kyrka

Interesting signature. Do you speak Icelandic?

 

[jonesy]

HPA

For those who missed this link, this is to the website of the Health Protection Agency and the final conclusion on the page is:

On the basis of current evidence, the HPA does not consider there to be a problem with the safety of WLAN.

 

[marinyork]

At the risk of derailing this derailed thread ....




I was thinking that we're probably subject to all manner of radiation; some man made and some natural. Why pick on mobile phones or wi-fi as the only brain frying culprits? I would have thought you need pretty massive doses for there to be damage.

Though I would be interested in (a summary of) the studies performed by the Swedes.

Sorry I thought I made that clear but didn't want to influence you if you did go up and read. Microwaves and Wi-Fi use the same(ish as there's a bit of variation) frequency bands. There is plenty of information about the S and C bands or even 2.4 GHz and ISM band if you are interested. My Microwave probably has about 600 Watts that is converted into microwaves by the magnetron on full belt. On the other hand the microwave is shielded (the door may compromise this) and transmitters for mobile phones are somewhat further away and use less power. Another very important point is there are various ways of looking at it but EM radiation obeys an inverse square law. Anybody doubting this is invited to have a play round with some calculations on a course on Electro-Magnetism.

 

[yello]

Sorry I thought I made that clear

You did! I was remarking that my intuiton was in agreement!

 

[magnatom]

As I work with MRI scanners (now these output significantly more RF power (radio frequency) than microwaves!! ) I have to say I am somewhat unconcerned about wi-fi.

All of this reminds me of a product that clarins produced that their product could prevent the aging effects of 'artificial electromagnetic waves' (or RF).

I wrote this letter to Clarins:

[SIZE=-1]Dear Sir/madam

I am writing to you as a concerned Clinical Physicist in the UK. I work
with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners in a hospital, and I have
recently read some product information for one of your new products
which concerns me. Below I quote some the literature that you supply
with your product Clarins Expertise 3P.

'If electromagnetic waves can penetrate walls, imagine what they can do
to your skin. Today, electromagnetic waves generated by a host of modern
day electronic devices join a list of well known pollutants which can
damage skin. For the first time, Clarins Research reveals the link
between exposure to artificial electromagnetic waves and accelerated
skin aging.'

There is also the following text on one of your websites
(http://uk.clarins.com/main.cfm?prodID=826);

'An ultra-sheer screen mist containing a pioneering combination of plant
extracts capable of protecting the skin from the accelerated-ageing
effects of all indoor and outdoor air pollution but most significantly,
the effects of Artificial Electromagnetic Waves.'

This concerns me for a number of reasons. Firstly, MRI scanners use a
combination of strong magnetic fields and radio frequency
electromagnetic (RFEM) waves to produce clinical useful images which are
important for diagnosis of a number of medical conditions. If your
product, as you say in your literature, is capable of modulating the
effects or indeed the amplitude of these electromagnetic waves in the
human this is likely to have an effect on the signal from the MRI
scanner. This could result in poor diagnostic information, possibly
resulting in increased patient morbidity or mortality. Can you please
explain exactly what effects of RFEM waves this product blocks so that I
can assess the problem. It is possible that you would have to change
your product literature to reflect the issue with wearing it when going
for an MRI scan.

The other concern I have is for the effects of artificial
electromagnetic waves that you discuss in your literature. It is well
known in our field that by exposing a patient to large amounts of RFEM
waves over the course of a scan can lead to tissue heating and possible
patient burns. We avoid this by designing the scanning procedures in
such a way to limit the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of the RFEM waves
over the course of the scans.

However, in normal everyday life a person will not be exposed to RFEM
waves anywhere near to the levels that would result in significant
tissue heating. I am therefore concerned that you have information on a
new and otherwise unknown effect of RFEM which as your literature
suggests could lead to tissue damage/aging. Please could you pass me on
the relevant literature in your possession, as I am sure my colleagues
and I who work in areas where there are significantly raised RFEM waves
every day, would be keen to read this literature. In fact I am sure the
MRI community as a whole would be very keen to have information on the
aging effects of RFEM waves as we may be unintentionally aging both
ourself and our patients.

I look forward to your speedy reply so that I can write to the relevant
authorities and so that speedy corrective action can be taken. I will be
out of my office from tomorrow until Monday the 19th February.
Therefore, until this time e-mail is the best method for contacting me.[/SIZE]

Their reply was

Dear Sir,


Further to your mail dated February 14th, you will find here below, some information on our observations during our studies and the role of our product.
Ø We work on keratinocytes cell cultures.
Ø These cells have been irradiated at 900 MHz during 6 hours, at 2 W/kg.
Ø This treatment revealed : - Increase in free radicals
- Decrease of the mitotic index
- Modification of presence of some epidermis
(loricrine, β defensive involved in the cell differentiation)
All these researches and results will be published, around the end of March in a scientific magazine.
Obviously the product does not claim to “block” the electromagnetic waves, and by this very fact it cannot modulate the effect of the electromagnetic waves used in scanners.
What we do, and we demonstrate in our experiences in cells culture, is when we add active ingredients in the medium, we strongly limited the modifications of the parameters identified after exposure without active ingredients.
My opinion is that, to day, electromagnetic waves are in our environment, they are useful to our life. It is not our purpose to present them as diabolic, but our studies are serious enough to identify their role as an additive factor to the aging process (as is the sun exposure). By the way the possibility to reinforce the cells in front of this aggression seems something rather positive.

I hope that these information will answer your questions and stay at your disposal.
[FONT=&quot]Best regards.[/FONT]

Rrrrrright. So that provides conclusive proof for your publicity campaign.....mmmmmm

 

[atbman]

There's nothing to worry about. The electricity leaking out of sockets, without plugs in them, counteracts the effect of the wifi on the parents' brains. All they need to do to reverse the damage done (shown by their willingness to believe such tosh) is to make sure that there is at least one unplugged socket in each room used by their daughter.

 

[Bollo]

As an ex-registered radiation worker, I'd like to point out that the non-ionising radiation that Dr Magnatom works with is, and I mean this in a post-homophobic sense, a bit gay. He may produce higher resolution images, but antimatter imaging is sexier. Check out my high PET Sieverts!

Seriously, my neighbourhood was the focus for one of the most high-profile mobile phone mast protests of recent times. I turned up at the first meeting with the crazy notion that a neutral, scientific evidence-based approach might move the debate forward. I have NEVER been more wrong in my life. It was a f&*king lynch mob. I walked away. They actually campaigned to have the mast moved further away, which would mean that, because of local geography, it would have to be a higher powered mast, which would mean that they would receive ...... more dose. F F S!

In risk terms, Wifi and mobile masts pose a far lower danger than balloons, ponds, stairs and ..... errrrr......cars.