backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by maus73.. on Jan 6 at 3:15 PM

Evidence is inconclusive as to whether radio waves can adversely affect the health or mental state of humans

Self-described "technological lepers", i.e. Wi-Fi-fearing populations around the world, scored a win this week when a school district Manawatu, New Zealand bowed to the criticism of two fathers and agreed to cut off wireless internet access to assuage their unproven fears.
 
I. A Win Against Wireless
 
Manawatu is a relatively rural district on the Northern Island of New Zealand and is home to about 27,900 residents.  A city page brags:

The Manawatu is heartland New Zealand. A landscape that sweeps from the sea to the Tararua Ranges, it offers an exciting range of adventure activities.

Choose from rafting, kayaking, blokarting, horse trekking, mountain biking, rock climbing and a host of other activities.

If you want to experience country life, it’s all around you. Go to a real stock auction. This is where the farmers buy and sell their farm animals, gathering around pens as the auctioneer rattles off bids. Stock auctions are one of New Zealand’s oldest traditions, dating back to the 1880s.

Or you could find a farmstay and meet farmers whose families have been on the land for generations.

There's a great diversity of attractions in Manawatu, New Zealand. In the vibrant student city of Palmerston North you can explore the world’s first museum devoted to rugby. If you’re a garden lover there are some fabulous public and private gardens to see, including one of the top rose gardens in the world. And a little way down the road around Horowhenua you’ll find such quirky attractions as an owl park, a farm devoted to Clydesdales and a fully operational Dutch windmill.

Like many districts in the U.S., Manawatu is home to some residents that fear wireless signals can cause cancer.  These people say that electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure (i.e. non-ionizing radiation) is dangerous to the human body, just like ionizing radiation from radioactive isotopes.


But unlike many futile fights waged elsewhere, in this sleepy New Zealand town it was the Wi-Fi fearing residents who scored the big win.
 
II. Did an iPod Kill a 10-Year-Old?
 
Damon Wyman and David Bird battled the Te Horo Schools in the Kapiti Coast district over their use of Wi-Fi networks to promote education.  Mr. Wyman's son Ethan Wyman was tragically diagnosed with a brain tumor, which led to his death in Aug. 2012.  He was only ten years old.  The death came roughly a year after his diagnosis, and roughly a year and four months after the cancer developed, according to his doctors.
 
The father blames Apple, Inc. (AAPL) for his son's illness.  He claims the cancer was caused by an iPod his son received as a gift.
 
He notes his siblings did not have cancer, which he reasons is because they did not have Wi-Fi equipped iPods.  He comments, "The only difference was, Ethan had an iPod."

Mr. Wyman claims his views are backed by the medical community (more on that later).  He tells a local paper, "We've been inundated from health professionals from all around the world, and so have the board, all expressing their concern with Wi-Fi, and advocated for it to be removed from our school."

Despite heavy criticism, he's mounted a campaign, with Mr. Bird, an effort that eventually gave him a partial victory.



The school district surveyed parents and found modest support for removal among parents of Junior grade students, a group of students which Ethan Wyman is part of.  But among seniors it found parents nearly unanimously opposed.

WiFi
The Junior Te Horo school has gone "Wi-Fi Free". [Image Source: NBR]

So the local school board resolved to replace the network at the junior school with Ethernet and keep the Wi-Fi for the senior class.  The school board insists the junior school removal is just respecting parental wishes, not a gesture supporting the notion that Wi-Fi is unsafe.  It comments:

We have sourced information from the [New Zealand] Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and other submissions.  Based on this information the board believes that Wi-Fi does not pose a health risk to staff or students.

The issue remains contentious, with neither side fully happy with the outcome.

II. Wi-Fi/Cell Phone Illness -- Real or Imagined?

EHS is not be a recognized illness in the United States, but there's plenty of debate surrounding the matter.

The U.S. Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), the industry trade group that represents phonemakers and their wireless carrier partners, has said that scientific evidence shows that 
wireless devices do not pose a public health risk or cause adverse effects because of the limits established by the government. 

tinfoil
Are EMF fears tin-foil hat material or a real medical issue?  The medical community is unsure.
[Image Source: Barrett]

The World Health Organization (WHO) agreed, saying that "EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem." However, WHO does recognize that the symptoms are genuine and even labeled cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogenic hazard back in May.
 
On the other hand, research from scientists at Louisiana State University showed that EHS could be caused by low-frequency electromagnetic fields. They made this claim after testing it on a 35-year-old physician who had diagnosed herself with EHS. They seated her in a wooden chair while applying voltage to metal plates for 90-second pulses to produce a series of magnetic fields. After each exposure, she was asked to describe her symptoms. Some of the exposures were fake, where no voltage was applied. But the physician was unaware when there were real exposures and fake ones. 

Dr. Andrew MarinoDr. Andrew Marino, LSU [Image Source: LSU]

The physician described headaches and muscle twitching during real exposures and no symptoms during fake exposures.  These results were covered in a peer-reviewed paper [PDF] published in 2011 in the International Journal of Neuroscience.
 
"The study provides direct evidence that linking human symptoms with environmental factors, in this case EMF," said Dr. Andrew Marino, who led the study. "It's a watershed in that regard. There have been no previous studies that scientifically assess whether electromagnetic fields in the environment could produce human symptoms. And the symptoms matter because they are the first steps that show how EMFs produce human disease."
 
Dr. Marino reviewed the results of his studies, which have been covered in recent books and peer-reviewed journal articles in an August 2013 letter to the editor, published in the International Journal of Neuroscience.  There's a firestorm of controversy around Dr. Marino's conclusions from the study, but most at least praise him for approaching the topic more scientifically than other academics who believed in the disease.
 
Still, other professors such as physics professor Bob Park from the University of Maryland, say Wi-Fi is too weak to cause any changes in the body that people who claim to have EHS describe.
 
"The bigger problem that we face is that our society, driven by technological change, people have very little education," said Park. "There are lots of things people need to learn and they're not learning it. The thing that's going to kill them is ignorance."
 
Currently, Sweden is the only country that recognizes EHS as a real syndrome.
 
III. Wi-Fi -- Even Less Worrisome
 
A final note -- evens if cell phone EMF "disorders" are one day recognized and confirmed by the mainstream medical community, Wi-Fi "illnesses" will likely remain much more controversial. 
 
Cell phone towers operate over relatively long distances, so they broadcast at a much higher power.  By contrast Wi-Fi access points typically broadcast over only hundreds of feet, requiring much less power. 


A typical LTE tower has a peak power of 48 dBm (63 watts), which is about 30 times as powerful as outdoor Wi-Fi signal boosters (outside of specialty units) which operate at around 26 dBm (2 watts).  Indoor Wi-Fi access points tend to operate a hundredth of the power of a cell phone base station or less.
 
So if LTE towers are moderately harmful, it still remains unlikely Wi-Fi can lead to any serious health effects.
 
Indeed a peer-reviewed study published in a 2010 edition of the Physics in Medicine and Biology journal confirms this back-of-the-napkin math.  The authors write:

…the highest localized SAR (specific energy absorption rate) value in the head was calculated as 5.7 mW kg−1. This represents less than 1% of the SAR previously calculated in the head for a typical mobile phone exposure condition.

So basically researchers believe that whatever the effects of cell phones on the human body, Wi-Fi chips and access points have about a hundredth of the effect.
 
But then again another peer-reviewed study published in the Oct. 2012 edition of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research suggest Wi-Fi illness fears, even if unfounded may indeed cause real disease.

Media reports about the adverse effects of supposedly hazardous substances can increase the likelihood of experiencing symptoms following sham exposure and developing an apparent sensitivity to it. Greater engagement between journalists and scientists is required to counter these negative effects.

It's unclear if that happen in Ethan Wyman's case, but it clear that fearing faking illness can make you actually sick.

Sources: NBR [1], [2], TVNZ



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By TheEinstein on 12/31/2013 5:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
A bunch in Africa were worried about a Cellular Tower and protested. On the day it was supposed to go live a lot started complaining about various symptoms including Nausea, vomiting, hives, dizziness, and more.

However the tower was never plugged in due to the public outcry.

Another example had some Liberals in the United States seeking a disability claim for wifi, where they claimed they suffered allergic reactions to wifi and could detect where it was in use. They were shocked when a company being called on the rug on it used wifi transmitters inside the Court House along all paths leading to the Court-Room and video feeds of the claimants as they walked through the building.

No one suffered a single symptom or made a single complaint .

After examining large amounts of data regarding cancer and cellular use leading scientists declared there is no actual correlation. Sadly the truth is that children can get cancer, and can die. It is sad, but it happens all the time.




RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By Reflex on 12/31/2013 7:35:49 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see why you tossed 'liberals' in there. I've met plenty of 'conservative' nuts on these topics. Bring up nuclear power and the left(plus coal state conservatives) go nuts. Bring up evolution and climate change and the right goes nuts. Both parties deny basic science when it is inconvenient to their vested interests or beliefs. Its sad and pathetic.

My younger sisters are both right wing god fearing Ron Paul nuts. They also refuse to vaccinate their children and their pastors are completely supportive of that child abuse.

People confuse literacy with education. Most of the west is literate. A substantially smaller portion are educated, especially on science.


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By StormyKnight on 12/31/2013 11:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They also refuse to vaccinate their children and their pastors are completely supportive of that child abuse.

How exactly is that child abuse?


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By Camikazi on 1/1/2014 12:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Having children die from diseases that are 100% preventable with a vaccination is child abuse. If an adult wants to forego those treatments then that is fine but forcing children to possibly die because of your belief is child abuse.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/1/2014 1:29:10 PM , Rating: 3
Okay fine. Time to arrest the parents of all fat kids for child abuse then. Obesity has several times the mortality rates than any of those vaccinations prevent. When is the last time someone even got polio again?

Calling this a slippery slope is an understatement to say the least.


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By nafhan on 1/2/2014 12:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
The big difference between obesity and anti-vaxers is the possible effect on others. Vaccines have varying levels of efficacy per person, and by immunizing everyone we can keep the people safe for whom vaccines don't work as well (see: heard immunity). You start getting a large enough group of non-immunized people, and even those who are doing their best to take care of their kids may be impacted. Obesity generally just effects the unfortunate children of the family making poor decisions.

A quick Googling shows news stories of parents getting in trouble for both obesity and failing to immunize. So, depending on the degree of obesity and location, either one may be abuse. I'm not a huge fan of government intervention, but in this specific case, I'd say vaccinate your children and feed them well. There's no good reason NOT to do those things regardless of how they're defined.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/2014 12:56:35 PM , Rating: 3
Calling it child abuse is just baiting and insulting. You guys bring up good points, but you need to see the forest for the trees.

I would also like to see some unbiased figures for exactly how at risk a non-imunized child in America is. I'm thinking it's marginal.

I find the concept of using the police state to punish parents who have different beliefs entirely anti-Constitutional and against everything this nation stands for. You cannot simply label something "abuse" arbitrarily and demand action.


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By nafhan on 1/2/2014 3:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Calling it child abuse is just baiting and insulting. You guys bring up good points, but you need to see the forest for the trees.
I agree with that, which is why I suggested a legal definition and precedent.
quote:
I would also like to see some unbiased figures for exactly how at risk a non-imunized child in America is. I'm thinking it's marginal.
It's marginal because most people are vaccinated. That's the whole point. The risk goes up exponentially with the number of people who are not vaccinated. On top of that, being part of an anti-vaccine community also increases risks, which would be hard to show with something like a national average. Please look at the wikipedia article for Polio. The only thing from keeping tens of thousands of children per year from being permanently disfigured is vaccinations. That disease is not eliminated and will come back if people stop getting vaccinated. On the other hand, in favor of not vaccinating, we do have the good word of some reality show celebrities.
quote:
I find the concept of using the police state to punish parents who have different beliefs entirely anti-Constitutional and against everything this nation stands for. You cannot simply label something "abuse" arbitrarily and demand action.
I think I agree with your general thought here, but at the same time, this is an extremely broad statement. There's a lot of things a parent might believe (and do) that ARE a problem and are rightfully dealt with by society.


By maugrimtr on 1/3/2014 9:41:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would also like to see some unbiased figures for exactly how at risk a non-imunized child in America is. I'm thinking it's marginal.


Measles, rubella, polio, smallpox, mumps, HPV and chicken pox. They all have something in common. They can and do kill children and adults.

If you do not vaccinate a child, you are taking a gun, pointing it at their head, and pulling the trigger. Why? Because you're making a conscious choice not to protect them against an easily preventable set of potentially deadly viruses with known fatality rates.

Vaccinations have been a driving force behind the largest decrease in child (<5 yrs) mortality rates since antibiotics. Do you know what the main causes of child deaths are across the world? See if you spot an old friend in the list...

1. Respiratory Infections
2. Diarrhea
3. Measles <---------------------THAT ONE!
4. Malaria
5. Malnutrition

I got measles the old way because the vaccination was not available at the time. And that is the only logical reason for any child to get measles in 2014.


By cruisin3style on 1/2/2014 11:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand your argument. Or what I mean is, how can you compare obesity to the mortality rate of something that has been vaccinated against...obviously obesity is going to be the much bigger killer

That is like comparing how many total times any Honda Civic was serviced in 2013 versus how many total times any Volkswagen Corrado was serviced in 2013, because there are probably a billion Civics on the road but not too many Corrados left out there


By StormyKnight on 1/2/2014 4:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
I am dying (no pun intended) to see some numbers. How many unvaccinated/undervaccinated children have died in the United States in the last 5-10 years? Sources that are verifiable and aren't funded by big Pharma please.


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By Martin_B on 1/2/2014 9:16:19 AM , Rating: 2
This is not in the US but in the Netherlands, a country with about 1/100th the population of the US. There was an outbreak of measles in unvaccinated people in the "bible belt" just last year, killing several people (one reported here: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/10/meas... If you have even a small understanding of how the human immune system works, you would know why vaccination saves lives and why not vaccination your kids against lethal diseases should be considered a crime.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/2014 2:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
The fatality rate of measles in first world nations is like .3%. Ridiculously treatable and non-fatal. The fact that you had "several" die from a single outbreak on such a tiny scale speaks more of your culture and health care industry than it does about vaccinations.

quote:
not vaccination your kids against lethal diseases should be considered a crime.


If we go down that road, I would be very curious to see what also ends up being a "crime" in your book.

quote:
If you have even a small understanding of how the human immune system works


You can save the speech. Nobody here is doubting the obvious benefits of immunization. That's not the point. My only issue is the labeling of parents as child abusers for making health care choices for their children we may not agree with.


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/14, Rating: -1
RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By Paj on 1/2/2014 5:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're not responsible for society as a whole or a "herd" of people. When you subjugate the individual for the whole, a great travesty has occurred.


So by this logic, any notion of law and order must therefore be meaningless, as it compromises individual desires for the benefit of the whole. By this logic, anarchy is the desired outcome.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/2014 5:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Uh no, nice try.


By StormyKnight on 1/2/2014 11:02:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Oh it is absolutely child abuse.

Prove it. Don't give an opinion. Prove that is child abuse. Show where there is legal recourse.


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By Reclaimer77 on 1/1/14, Rating: -1
RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By tim851 on 1/1/2014 5:43:30 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
So wait. When it comes to abortion it's all "my body my choice" and that's all good. But it's child abuse for parents to make decisions on child vaccinations?

Yes. Because your child is not "your body". One would think this is obvious.

quote:
I may not agree with that decision, but it's clearly theirs to make.

Is it? What else? Can they decide not to get chemotherapy for their cancer-ridden kids? Can they decide to only raise them on tomatoes and water?

Children are not the possession of their parents, they are subjects of care. Neglecting a child can be a criminal offense.

quote:
And I would just hate for your sisters to think you're telling a bunch of strangers on the Internet they "abuse" their children.

He's doing it anonymously. You don't know him or his sisters. So what the heck are you on about?


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By Reclaimer77 on 1/1/14, Rating: -1
RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By nafhan on 1/2/2014 12:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of them are for things that are completely wiped out.
I wanted to point out that you're wrong. In cases where this is true (i.e. smallpox), vaccines are no longer generally administered.

The very fact that this is a movement underscores the illogical thought behind it. If you believed that avoiding vaccinations was important and you are selfish enough to put others at risk, why would you encourage others to do the same, thereby increasing the risk for your own kid?

The way I see it is: people don't understand risks very well so they don't vaccinate their kids, and they encourage others to do the same so they can feel better about their decision. Using herd thinking to lower herd immunity; kind of funny.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/2014 2:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
Again, just stop. I'm not arguing AGAINST immunizations!!!

I'm arguing that parents making health care choices for their kids we may not agree with cannot simply be called "child abuse". That's ridiculous.

quote:
The very fact that this is a movement


It's not a movement, not really. A stupidly tiny portion of the population is not immunized, the rest are.

You guys are making this out to be a pandemic-level threat...


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By nafhan on 1/2/2014 3:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not arguing AGAINST immunizations
Yeah, but "presenting erroneous information in favor of not immunizing" is a little wordy.
quote:
You guys are making this out to be a pandemic-level threat...
No... but if enough people avoid immunizations, it could be! That's the truth. Stop spreading bad information that potentially endangers childrens' lives.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/2014 3:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No... but if enough people avoid immunizations, it could be!


So call parents "abusers" and throw them in jail because of what COULD happen if thousands or millions more parents do the same thing?

I mean..do you see what's wrong with that?


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By nafhan on 1/2/2014 4:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So call parents "abusers" and throw them in jail because of what COULD happen if thousands or millions more parents do the same thing?
I'm not sure what your motive could be, but you're misrepresenting the conversation. I don't think anyone here really suggested that as a wholesale solution to the problem (I certainly didn't).

As far as the vaccination thing goes, I think that can be summed up with a George Carlin quote: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."


By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/2014 5:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think anyone here really suggested that as a wholesale solution to the problem


Are you reading? People are saying it's "child abuse"! What do we do with child abusers? Throw them in jail.

quote:
I think that can be summed up with a George Carlin quote: "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."


I agree. However people still have the right to do "stupid" things.


RE: Some examples of the falseness of this crap
By nafhan on 1/2/2014 5:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I said. You were adding the jail part.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/2014 8:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
But how can you call it "abuse" when, at best, you are potentially increasing your child's risk to something? You are not actively doing anything harmful to your kid.

I think it would be more accurate to call that "neglect" if anything. But I guess "child abuse" is more dramatic...


By nafhan on 1/2/2014 9:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
OK, don't neglect your children; get them vaccinated.

And, again, the definition of child abuse wasn't really the point of this conversation.


By JediJeb on 1/3/2014 1:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes. Because your child is not "your body". One would think this is obvious.


Well while it is inside the mother's body the child and mother are essentially one.

Mothers can be charged with child abuse if they use drugs or alcohol during pregnancy and the child was harmed because of it, so wouldn't killing it before it is born also be considered harming the child? Drunk drivers have been charged with double homicide before because they killed a mother and her unborn child, yet a mother who decides to kill the unborn child is not, is that a double standard being applied?

Just wondering because even society and the legal system seem to be conflicted on how to handle such things.


By abzillah on 1/1/2014 3:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
If I were the principal of a school, I would turn the wi-fi and any other cellular signal off to the school. Not because of cancer fears, but to keep the kids from bringing distractions to school.


By marvdmartian on 1/2/2014 9:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
Today's science is simply a matter of how we currently understand the world around us. In time, I'm sure we'll discover that some scientific "facts" we know today were really not true.

Just because we haven't disproved a scientific "fact" yet doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. It's simple accepted at this time. Such "facts" include the theories of evolution and climate change.

Hell, even now, scientists are saying that Einsteins theories may not hold true. We simply cannot disprove some of the assumptions he made right now....but if we ever do, it could throw out some of his theories we currently regard as factual.


By phxfreddy on 1/2/2014 6:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
It is by an large the left that has the Luddite opinions.

Witness global warming religion of anti technology. WIFI, nuclear etc.

The list is endless.


By Flunk on 1/2/2014 4:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't understand why they're picking Wi-Fi and not cell phones, FM radio, AM radio, TV signals, Bluetooth, cordless phones, Microwaves and anything else I'm forgetting today. There is just as much evidence that all of those are dangerous!

It's positively asinine to pick out and disable one technology that's practically the same as many others. Is the idea that only radio waves you're thinking about this week can harm you?


By JediJeb on 1/3/2014 1:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
While there is a lot of false fears, there is also some reasons for concern.

Workers who did some of the initial installations on the early warning radar systems ended up with cancer because they found that if they stood in front of the antenna they would be warm(this was in Alaska so it was a good thing, so they thought). These people eventually ended up with cancer. Also there has been a supposed link between police officers who use speed radar and cancer. Seems some would lay the radar gun in their laps while it was still transmitting and some ended up with testicular cancer.

These radar, along with cellphone and wifi operate in the 800mhz through 2.5ghz frequency range though modern speed radars use K and X bands which are in the 8-40ghz range. These are all considered non-ionizing but still have some evidence of being linked to cancer. UV radiation is also considered non-ionizing but is known to cause skin cancer. Therefore the blanket statement that because these are all non-ionizing they can't cause cancer does not ring true in totality. Another argument is that the power is so low it can not cause any problems, but then again there are studies concerning contamination of our water supplies with trace levels of prescription drugs may cause health problems even at those extremely low doses. More studies have been conducted on the hazards of short term high doses of things than on long term, lifetime exposure to very low doses.

Has anyone ever done a study on what low dose exposure to microwave energy does to the human body? I am talking about levels equivalent to what we now are exposed to with satellite transmissions along with weather and air traffic radar signals and such. No study has shown that exposures of a year or less cause problems but what about 30-50 year exposure times? Also consider if it were to be proven as fact that 30 years of exposure to such things can cause cancer, what would that do to our current way of living? Could we today live without weather radar, or air traffic control radar, or satellite communications, or cell phones and wifi? Tobacco and alcohol are both known to cause health problems when you are exposed to them for long periods of time, yet it is impossible to take them out of society right now. How much more of a problem would it be to remove such modern conveniences as electronics if they are ever proven to be a health risk?


So what else is new?
By Dorkyman on 12/31/2013 6:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
People will believe anything. Here in Portland, Oregon, people are adamantly opposed to putting fluoride in the water supply. Only big city in the USA to not do so. Cavities in kids run about 50% higher as a result but don't try to argue that point with a Portlander--it's a religion to them.

Great book I just finished: "Do You Believe in Magic" by Paul Offit MD. Talks about Alternative Medicine and also the very real and measurable placebo effect. Shows that if you THINK something is going to help you (or hurt you), it probably will, even if there is no logical connection.




RE: So what else is new?
By StormyKnight on 12/31/2013 11:53:29 PM , Rating: 1
If cyanide had some positive alleged health benefit, would you take it everyday if the dose wasn't enough to kill you?


RE: So what else is new?
By thequoth on 1/1/2014 3:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If cyanide had some positive alleged health benefit, would you take it everyday if the dose wasn't enough to kill you?


Maybe.

I ingest beta-carotene... but in high doses it is toxic! Using good judgement and being moderate is usually a good idea when in these types of discussions. One extreme or another is just that, extreme.


RE: So what else is new?
By tim851 on 1/1/2014 5:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If cyanide had some positive alleged health benefit, would you take it everyday if the dose wasn't enough to kill you?

You are aware that ANYTHING can kill you if the dosis is high enough?

Including water and oxygen.


RE: So what else is new?
By BansheeX on 1/1/2014 6:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
You should research this one a little more before lumping it in with bigfoot and the moon landing hoax.

1. There are plenty of examples of unfluoridated communities having less cavities per capita than fluoridated ones nearby.
2. Its purported benefit is in TOPICAL use, that's why they put warning labels on toothpaste. Yet we ingest those quantities from water anyway. Contradictory much?
3. Dental fluorosis is a rampant, nasty side effect of too much fluoride. Google some photos, you've probably seen people with it or may even have it yourself.
4. Plenty of reputable dentists have come to realize these things and reversed their advocacy.

All in all, it's a lazy attempt to solve a problem that has more to do with hygiene and diet. There is no solid scientific data on its efficacy and the only placebo going on is people who think it does a damn thing besides cause increasing degrees of bone and tooth fluorosis.


Drawing conclusions
By r. on 1/3/2014 10:04:37 AM , Rating: 2

You write:

-----

Indeed a peer-reviewed study published in a 2010 edition of the Physics in Medicine and Biology journal confirms this back-of-the-napkin math.  The authors:

…the highest localized SAR (specific energy absorption rate) value in the head was calculated as 5.7 mW kg-1. This represents less than 1% of the SAR previously calculated in the head for a typical mobile phone exposure condition.

-----
Then you write:
------

So basically researchers believe that whatever the effects of cell phones on the human body, Wi-Fi chips and access points have about a hundredth of the effect.

------

But really you are putting words into researchers mouths and assuming a linear relationship. You should leave the research as it is and not try to paraphrase something you don't understand.




RE: Drawing conclusions
By r. on 1/3/2014 10:42:04 AM , Rating: 2
P.S. Sorry if I was too harsh in my comment. I would edit it if I could.


Exploding Head
By boobo on 12/31/2013 8:06:17 PM , Rating: 3
Since the article started talking about EHS without saying what that meant, I searched for it and the first link (after a bunch of schools) was about Exploding Head Syndrome... and I was like, "whaa?!" but then I found the disambiguation link.




MilliWatts.
By drycrust3 on 1/1/2014 1:59:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
26 dBm (2 watts)

No ... It's based on Log to the base 10, and then multiplied by 10, so in this case think of it as 2.6, meaning somewhere in it is 10 to the power of 2, i.e. a multiple of 100. The antilog of 0.6 is approximately 4, so here we have 400 something. The "m" bit means relative to 1 milliWatt, so 26 dBm is 400 mW.
2 watts is 33dBm.




This will hurt
By lowsidex2 on 1/1/2014 6:19:35 AM , Rating: 3
CGP grey sums it up in his video 'This video will hurt'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2hO4_UEe-4&feature...




Uhhh if Cancer Worked Like That
By Reclaimer77 on 12/31/2013 5:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
Your son would have skin cancer too, cause I'm pretty sure he's been outside at some point.

The ignorance on display there is just...stunning.




By drycrust3 on 1/1/2014 3:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They seated her in a wooden chair while applying voltage to metal plates for 90-second pulses to produce a series of magnetic fields...The physician described headaches and muscle twitching during real exposures and no symptoms during fake exposures.

Way to go! Doesn't it sound exactly like the muscle twitching symptoms the doctor suffered are exactly the same those one gets when you give yourself (or someone else) an electric shock.
90 Second shocks too, I'm not surprised she had got headaches. I'm surprised she didn't get anything more serious, like a heart attack.
As far as I can tell the mention of magnetic fields isn't really relevant here.
quote:
"The study provides direct evidence that linking human symptoms with environmental factors, in this case EMF," said Dr. Andrew Marino, who led the study. "It's a watershed in that regard. There have been no previous studies that scientifically assess whether electromagnetic fields in the environment could produce human symptoms.

Ummm ... people have been giving themselves electric shocks for about 200 years.




Wattage is Off
By deltaend on 1/2/2014 3:07:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
which operate at around 26 dBm (2 watts)


1 Watt is about the hottest I have seen a non-amplified AP and I believe that with most antennas that this actually is more powerful than the FCC allows by law (unless you have an amateur radio operator's license.) See http://www.air802.com/files/FCC-Rules-and-Regulati... for details on that.

On top of this, 2 Watts !== 26 dBm, it == 33.01 dBm . No matter what antenna it is combined with, it will never even equal the EIRP dBm of 26, unless that antenna is completely broken or unsuited for the task.




In relation with this..
By ie5x on 1/2/2014 7:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
Like many districts in the U.S
By maus73 on 1/6/2014 3:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
Manawatu is not in the US. The sentence Sloppy writing.




Signing Off 2013 in a Rush
By WhatKaniSay on 12/31/13, Rating: -1
RE: Signing Off 2013 in a Rush
By JDHammer on 1/2/2014 12:58:37 PM , Rating: 1
its fine as it is and needs no correction.

so ...............


By WhatKaniSay on 1/3/2014 12:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
its fine as it is and needs no correction. -by JDHammer


If the original sentence was correct as you claim, then Why did DT/Jason changed it ...... from "diagnosed by" -to now read- "diagnosed with"?

Only on fanboyz infested DT will one get rated down for pointing out obvious grammatical error.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki