OMG!! Stop using your WiFi!!!!

Forums › Off topic › OMG!! Stop using your WiFi!!!!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

zenourn

271 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#960645 3-Jan-2014 12:46

Were any of these papers published in reputable journals with reputable peer reviewers?

They appear to be only published by the university without any peer review (i.e., http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/3953?mode=simple). They would never make it into any journal with reasonable standards for methodology and statistics.

Also, I think I have come across as too negative towards observational studies. In many cases they are the best you can do but care is always needed in their interpretation. Asserting any possible causal relationships requires including prior evidence and careful arguments.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#960680 3-Jan-2014 13:29

I found two but it was a basic search of just one publisher. Published in the Springer journal Natural Hazards

"A large number of studies have found significant correlations between Solar and Geomagnetic Activity (S-GMA) indexes and human health and biological effects for mainly high but also for low activity levels. These studies therefore support the proposal that S-GMA may be a natural hazard" (paper #1)

"The Schumann Resonance signal intensity is modulated and highly correlated with solar activity and the electron concentrations in the lowest layers of the ionosphere. The enhanced or weakened solar activity moves the level of the SR signal outside the normal homeostatic range and, through the Melatonin mechanism, causes health problems and enhanced death rates in large human populations" (paper #2)

As many studies have noted - publication in peer reviewed journals is not a guarantee of veracity. The reviewers are not named. Sometimes publication is undertaken to stimulate debate even where reviewers have strong reservations.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#960769 3-Jan-2014 15:33

zenourn:

Were any of these papers published in reputable journals with reputable peer reviewers?

They appear to be only published by the university without any peer review (i.e., http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/3953?mode=simple). They would never make it into any journal with reasonable standards for methodology and statistics.

So self-published then. For all we know they could be rejected submissions to journals or conferences.

zenourn

271 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#960825 3-Jan-2014 16:45

gzt: I found two but it was a basic search of just one publisher. Published in the Springer journal Natural Hazards

"A large number of studies have found significant correlations between Solar and Geomagnetic Activity (S-GMA) indexes and human health and biological effects for mainly high but also for low activity levels. These studies therefore support the proposal that S-GMA may be a natural hazard" (paper #1)

Thanks, I only checked the first few on the page and missed that some of the later ones where published.

Taking a look at the first published article (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1015637127504) there are serious statistical issues throughout. They are assuming measurements over time are independent which they are clearly not as shown in plots and thus all statistics are wrong. In Figure 8 it is shown how the SR signal highly correlated with a subject's reaction time tested over several days and claim a strong causal relationship (i.e., electromagnetic fields directly influence how the brain functions). However, the SR signal decreased linearly over the testing timeframe and there is also a learning effect that causes reaction times to decrease when tests are repeated each day. Thus a lurking variable of time causing the change in the SR signal, and also a reduction in reaction times.

Although my current beliefs are that WiFi is completely safe (I'd say only 1 in 100,000 chance that unsafe), I'm open to any evidence that convincingly shows otherwise. Given the studies so far my 3 young children don't have to worry about me banning WiFi yet.

MauriceWinn

141 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#960849 3-Jan-2014 17:02

The benefits of wifi and cellphones are enormous and the hazards are minuscule [as demonstrated by many studies looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack]. The risks are absurdly insignificant compared with all the other developmental harm that children inevitably suffer as they go from zygote to zeitgeist. For example, I have just had two squamous cell carcinomas removed from my chest. Time in sunlight is much worse than time in wifi and cellphone microwaves. One hour in the sun at the beach [in NZ where the sun is lethal] would be more hazardous [I guess] than a lifetime of using wifi and cellphones. Worse than the sun is dietary deficiency. Then there's all the psychological carnage from social problems.

<<Although my current beliefs are that WiFi is completely safe (I'd say only 1 in 100,000 chance that unsafe), I'm open to any evidence that convincingly shows otherwise. Given the studies so far my 3 young children don't have to worry about me banning WiFi yet.>>

Maurice Winn

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#960857 3-Jan-2014 17:21

Power, Frequency , Proximity, Propogation
Until you take all these factors into a randomly controlled trial you will never know.
Off the top of my head I would think a cellphone in a poor coverage area ,right by the ear, would cause infinitely more 'damage' than a router that is a meter away.

On a more concerning topic we live 8 light minutes away from a massive cancer causing anomaly that can causes earthquakes (coronal holes) and vaporise our oceans, and to make it worse, the Earths magnetic shields are measurably weakening over the last few years.
still, I'll read this guys research, in bed, via wifi. If I don't make it it was nice to know you all :)

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#960882 3-Jan-2014 17:39

It's worth mentioning that wifi and mobile phones/cellphones are not even in the same category when it comes to risk.

Cellphone power output is significantly higher than WiFi and a cellphone is held directly against the head. Similar for walkabout phones. Reputable studies show some tiny risk for very heavy cellphone users and other reputable studies show no risk at all. Contrast that to WiFi - I'm not aware of any reputable study showing humans at risk from WiFi.

There are so many variables in WiFi use it might be easier to gain data from heavy users of bluetooth headsets. Power output is even lower there but are used in close proximity to the head.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

zenourn

271 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#960899 3-Jan-2014 18:45

gzt: It's worth mentioning that wifi and mobile phones/cellphones are not even in the same category when it comes to risk.

Cellphone power output is significantly higher than WiFi and a cellphone is held directly against the head. Similar for walkabout phones. Reputable studies show some tiny risk for very heavy cellphone users and other reputable studies show no risk at all.

To quantify the increased risk a reasonable meta analysis is provided by http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/27/33/5565.full

The incidence in brain cancer for people over 20 is ~30 per 100,000 people per year of which ~10 are malignant and ~20 are benign. Using the results of the meta analysis high cellphone use gives an odd-ratio of 1.15 [0.78 to 1.68] for malignant tumors (i.e., changes the rate to 8 to 17 per 100,000) and 1.33 [1.11 to 1.58] for benign tumors (i.e., changes the rate to 22 to 32 per 100,000).

So can be reasonably confident that high cellphone use increases benign brain tumors, and less confidence that it increases malignant tumors. A a comparison the incidence of death on the roads is ~5 per 100,000 per year.

Reanalyse

381 posts

Ultimate Geek

#960901 3-Jan-2014 18:49

One other good check would be to look at the heath of those who have spent a life in non-ionising RF fields of magnitudes far greater than those for WIFI/Cellsites - technicians that have worked fixing radars or broadcast RF equipment at transmitters. The RF fields in those environments are enough to make a florescent tube glow without any connections. If there is any likely brain tumor risk surely these people with extreme exposure worldwide would show a trend of this ?
Likewise for power lines causing cancer - do line mechanics have a higher incidence of the cancers these RF field are said to cause ?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#960942 3-Jan-2014 21:55

KiwiNZ:
joker97: Everybody dies.

Whether it's 2Ghz photons or radiation from flying or uv rays in the light or lack of vit d from lack of light causing osteoporotic fractures.

Or breathing toxic exhaust fumes or lack of exercise from playing xbox or catching disease from the unvaccinated our from a fatal allergic reaction from a vaccine.

Or cancer from a ct scan radiation to diagnose a fracture or a blood transfusion to save a life. Or eating too much barbeque, chips, out swallowing too much fluoride.

If someone doesn't want to die don't live.

With respect, that is a silly statement. It doesn't take much grey matter exercising to determine that people are concerned about premature death.

Extrapolating your thoughts, the people that were concerned about the risks associated with asbestos, smoking, thalidomide, petroleum lead, benzine.... Were being irrational.

Sorry what i meant to say was if they are worried about wifi they should not feed kids chips sausages bbq pies passive smoking unprotected sex (before the days of the hpv vaccine) alcohol ct scans running around in the sun ... These things cause cancer at a far higher rate i reckon ... But i don't have any numbers to back these up

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#961551 5-Jan-2014 15:57

It seems that the school may have considered the wifi network had not significantly improved education of the students, making the decision to remove the wifi far easier.

I also suspect that such a decision had been taken before their SNUP project, so opting to go without wireless gave them funding for more cabled connections. If they had gone for wireless, they would have been funded for only 2 ethernet locations. Without wireless, they get an outlet above the whiteboard plus 2 other locations so they can put their APs back in later if they choose. Some junior schools who went for the wifi option in their SNUP upgrade have had to choose between keeping classroom computers or having a phone at the teachers desk.

Time to find a new industry!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5