(Yeah, I noticed the source, but all the studies have come up the same way and they had a decent summarization of the issues, so why not?)
The research is uniformly negative. Additionally, there is no plausible physical mechanism that might cause damage. New evidence can always change the most likely outcome, but right now the evidence is so overwhelming that it's not worth pursuing this research any further over other things more likely to produce some sort of interesting result, and the onus is firmly on those who claim it's harmful to prove it.
(Incidentally, that's been done too, a blind test of people claiming to be sensitive to WiFi, in a room with a WiFi device rigged to have blinkenlights independent of the actual WiFi signal. Complainants failed to identify when the signal was on.)
Sorry, but if you consider a single research paper cited (and sponsored by Wi-Fi Alliance) as a conclusive evidence that Wi-Fi poses no health risk... you're bound for extinction.
The paper doesn't even touch biological effects of EM radiation! It merely states that most APs operate at power levels "below the internationally-recognized RF safety guidelines".
It contains metareferences to numerous studies, which somehow I doubt were all funded by the wifi group.
If I had ever seen a study that led in any plausible way to the conclusion that it was dangerous, I might start caring about the source, but right now it just isn't an issue. The studies have been done. They have all come up negative. It's time to stop calling for studies in the vain hope that they will prove something that isn't true. If Wifi is dangerous, pack it in, you've only got minutes to live, because you won't believe how dangerous all the bacteria living inside you at this very moment are.
Or do you have some actual study that shows... anything? Anything at all? Or anybody proposing even a faintly plausible mechanism for damage?
Comments
"For our own survival we need more and better research in those issues,"
Knee-jerk calling for more research is just a way of cloaking ignorance in a lab coat. The research has been done: http://www.wi-fi.org/files/wfa_wi-fi_health_faq.pdf
(Yeah, I noticed the source, but all the studies have come up the same way and they had a decent summarization of the issues, so why not?)
The research is uniformly negative. Additionally, there is no plausible physical mechanism that might cause damage. New evidence can always change the most likely outcome, but right now the evidence is so overwhelming that it's not worth pursuing this research any further over other things more likely to produce some sort of interesting result, and the onus is firmly on those who claim it's harmful to prove it.
(Incidentally, that's been done too, a blind test of people claiming to be sensitive to WiFi, in a room with a WiFi device rigged to have blinkenlights independent of the actual WiFi signal. Complainants failed to identify when the signal was on.)
Sorry, but if you consider a single research paper cited (and sponsored by Wi-Fi Alliance) as a conclusive evidence that Wi-Fi poses no health risk... you're bound for extinction.
The paper doesn't even touch biological effects of EM radiation! It merely states that most APs operate at power levels "below the internationally-recognized RF safety guidelines".
This is exactly what I was talking about.
It contains metareferences to numerous studies, which somehow I doubt were all funded by the wifi group.
If I had ever seen a study that led in any plausible way to the conclusion that it was dangerous, I might start caring about the source, but right now it just isn't an issue. The studies have been done. They have all come up negative. It's time to stop calling for studies in the vain hope that they will prove something that isn't true. If Wifi is dangerous, pack it in, you've only got minutes to live, because you won't believe how dangerous all the bacteria living inside you at this very moment are.
Or do you have some actual study that shows... anything? Anything at all? Or anybody proposing even a faintly plausible mechanism for damage?