So is WiFi Dangerous?
Well of course we'd say it isn't wouldn't we. But let's just look at this rationally.
Take the example of Vitamin A. It's a key component of our diets. Have too little and you're ill; have just the right amount and you're fine. Have too much and you die!! I've no idea what the lethal dose is - but to be sure it's many times greater than either the recommended amount or the safe limit.
Almost anything in the right amount confers a benefit to the user; whether this be food, water, sunlight or WiFi.
Let's look at the science and the psychology. The human race has been successful because we can take calculated risks but also have a healthy regard for the unknown. WiFi is no different - its relatively new; but fundamentally it made of the same stuff as sunlight; radio waves and heat (infra-red). In fact it’s also made of the same stuff that comes out of an electric light bulb.
History can always provide some illumination (no pun intended) on an issue. Below is a sign that was prominently displayed in almost every hotel room in New York at the beginning of the last century. People's fear of the new and the unknown is not new. And just like electric light in the 1900's most hotels are now installing WiFi.
So the initial healthy scepticism is fully understandable. But what about the facts?
WiFi creates an electromagnetic field in exactly the same as a light bulb does. However because WiFi is less powerful (about 20,000 times less powerful than a light bulb) and works at a lower frequency so it is inherently safer. Of course we can't "see" WiFi (our eyes have evolved to see light) but our computers and phones can.
So do we see "electrosensitives" railing against the evils of the electric light bulb. Of course we don't. They did 100 years ago; but then rationality kicked in.
Do we see the same people suggesting that Vitamin A should be banned because in large enough doses it dangerous?
Of course life is full of danger. Take the average school. It full of glass (a known killer); its covered in paint (full of toxic chemicals); the playground is made from tarmac (which can cause the most painful cuts and bruises); there are fluorescent lights everywhere (which creates exactly the same fields as WiFi).
Should these items be banned? Are these things dangerous? Well it all depends on your viewpoint. For the vast majority of us it is pretty clear - they are not.
And WiFi is no different.
WiFi creates an electromagnetic field in exactly the same as a light bulb does. However because WiFi is less powerful (about 20,000 times less powerful than a light bulb) and works at a lower frequency so it is inherently safer. Of course we can't "see" WiFi (our eyes have evolved to see light) but our computers and phones can.
So do we see "electrosensitives" railing against the evils of the electric light bulb. Of course we don't. They did 100 years ago; but then rationality kicked in.
Do we see the same people suggesting that Vitamin A should be banned because in large enough doses it dangerous?
Of course life is full of danger. Take the average school. It full of glass (a known killer); its covered in paint (full of toxic chemicals); the playground is made from tarmac (which can cause the most painful cuts and bruises); there are fluorescent lights everywhere (which creates exactly the same fields as WiFi).
Should these items be banned? Are these things dangerous? Well it all depends on your viewpoint. For the vast majority of us it is pretty clear - they are not.
And WiFi is no different.
1 Comments:
I saw a documentary on television recently suggesting that there may be as yet unknown and unquantified dangers in the use of WiFi in the home.
I was amazed - surely my wireless baby monitor and door bell work on the same principle? No one has ever suggested to me that they are hazardous to health or that they should be un-plugged at night.
In the case of the front door bell I would have no objection, but in the case of the baby monitor it would surely be somewhat counter productive!!?
Are people confusing WiFi emission with the fields caused by GSM which are of a different frequency - and which has now been at least strongly implicated in some health issue clusters?
I have been a user of the previous version of your software for some time and am now using the new (beta) tovo which is fantastic. The advantages of it and WiFi are obvious. I would not give them up lightly - and would certainly prefer WiFi over GSM on health safety grounds as well as those of cost.
I await scientific evidence and evaluation with interest - but feel that as a Mum of young children if WiFi does prove to be hazardous I will have to re-evaluate an awful lot of other devices in my home - most of which I have used far longer!
Post a Comment
<< Home