/Big Mouth/ Let's ban broadband
06/04/2007 | Filed under Discover > Big Mouth
Evil Wi-Fi, as it’s now commonly known, is but a poor scapegoat for people’s latent fears about technology in general. But what does any of this have to do with Carol Vorderman?
Broadband could be messing with our genetic makeup with terrifying consequences. Men will grow breasts. Women will grow a third leg and become strange, tripod-like creatures with huge teeth. Hamsters will become feral, and children will lose the power of speech and communicate using only clicks, goose-like honking and the Moonwalk. That means we need to ban broadband, and we need to ban it now.
I know what you’re thinking: where’s the evidence of these ill effects? And that’s a very good question, to which I’d reply: well, where’s the evidence that broadband doesn’t cause these effects? What will you say when your husband’s chest is bigger than Jordan’s, or when your wife becomes a toothy tripod, or when Hammy the hamster is wanted in six counties for serial killing?
I am, of course, talking bollocks. But I’m not the only one. As I write this, two UK schools have just banned Wi-Fiafter pressure from concerned parents. Those parents are undoubtedly well-meaning, but they’re also idiots.
To date, there’s no evidence that Wi-Fihas any adverse affects: the science shows that Wi-Fiis as dangerous as a potato, and not an angry potato. Ah, the campaigners argue, but can you prove that Wi-Fiisn’t dangerous? Well, no, I can’t. But I can’t prove that Carol Vorderman isn’t an evil lizard from the planet Zorg either. Should we have a public execution just to be on the safe side? Actually, don’t answer that one.
As ever, I blame the internet. Online, you’ll find stacks of sites warning you about Wi-Fi. They mean well, but they’re twisting science: “there’s no evidence that this is dangerous” becomes “there’s no evidence to prove that this is safe”. And parents read this stuff, and they don’t realise that science can’t prove a negative. So while scientists can prove that Carol Vorderman’s DNA looks like any other human’s, they can’t prove that when nobody’s looking, she doesn’t transform into a screaming bat-like creature that feasts on cows and scrawls swearwords on primary school windows. The best science can do is say, “well, she doesn’t do it when we’re around.”
Don’t Panic! Don’t panic!
But parents don’t understand this, and they – rightly – want their little darlings to be safe. So they read stuff online, and they panic, and they lobby the schools, and the Wi-Figets taken away, even though there isn’t a single bit of evidence to suggest that it’s any more dangerous than duffle coats. And it’s not just Wi-Fi, either. Parents are being misinformed about vaccines, about conventional medicine, about all kinds of things, and because the information sounds scientific, they believe it.
Is Wi-Fi100 per cent safe? Nobody knows, but nobody knows of any dangers either, so any panic is based on superstition instead of science. There are lots of things we know to be dangerous, but Wi-Fiisn’t one of them. And despite my suspicions, neither is Carol Vorderman.
Bookmark with:
Comments
Ellen / 10/04/2007 / 02:26 / http://www.ellenburgess.com
Well I am sure who ever pays for the study will decide weather it is good for humans or animals. With so many possible breaches of security with WiFi I do not see it replacing braodband anytime soon.
Lyndsey / 11/04/2007 / 12:54
They'll be taking away their mobile phones next.
Martin Sharp / 11/04/2007 / 14:38 / http://www.nomasts.org.uk
Don't put your foot in your big mouth, Gary!
I'm so fed up with the pro-wireless articles in .net that this one has been the last straw, and I've now stopped buying it and a friend has let his subscription lapse.
Gary Marshall has no business stating that wi-fi is safe. Plenty of evidence exists to show that it isn't. The Times Educational Supplement has just uncovered a Becta report which showed that the engineers installing wi-fi in some schools were getting headaches - and that was 6 years ago with the lower gain of wireless-b networks, not the -g and -n networks rolling out now. The government has not released this report for some reason. I myself know people who become ill when in proximity to wi-fi and DECT cordless phones.
I say stick to wired networks and avoid wi-fi. If I'm wrong you may have been slightly inconvenienced by having to put in CAT-5 or 6 LAN cables. If Gary 'Loudmouth' is wrong (as I believe he is) he has condemned many people to ill-health.
Check out some of the information and references that I have helped to amass on our website at www.nomasts.org.uk in a document called "Making Us Sick: The True Health Costs of the Mobile/Wireless 'Revolution' ".
We might return as readers if/when sanity reigns again and wireless devices are treated with the contempt that cigarettes are treated with now.
Martin Sharp
Kenneth / 13/04/2007 / 06:46
I wonder if Gary could provide a sensible explanation on why I get a headache, dizziness ctc whenever I am using a wifi, bluetooth etc enabled device for more than five minutes.
Stewart / 15/04/2007 / 05:23
I wonder if Gary could provide a sensible explanation on why I don't get a headache, dizziness etc whenever I am using a wifi, bluetooth etc enabled device , ever.
Carl / 17/04/2007 / 01:58 / http://digitalgreenlight.com
@Martin: People get headaches for lots of reasons. Another cause of chronic headaches is frequent staring at computer screens. But I'm sure engineers who install internet services never do that!
@Kenneth: That doesn't even make sense. Are you telling me you can walk down a street and tell me when you're in front of a house with wi-fi access based on your "Spidey-sense" !?
This hysteria is all just spook-science. People who just want to make a difference and don't know any better.
Gary / 20/04/2007 / 12:42 / http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com
Sorry I'm late to this, folks. They don't tell me when my babble appears online :)
Martin, Kenneth, I'm not going to get into a drawn-out thread on this, because I've seen the same long and utterly unproductive threads happen on Comment is Free, Badscience.net and so on. I think it's pretty clear what I think from the piece and I don't believe for one minute anything I say here will change your minds. That said, if you want much, much more detail about what I'm saying, track down issue 251 of PC Plus, where I spoke to a whole bunch of scientists at the cutting edge of research into this. They all said essentially the same thing: there's absolutely no evidence that wi-fi or phones are harmful, and there's no evidence that electrosensitivity is caused by the things people think it's caused by.
That doesn't mean they're unsympathetic to people who believe it's harming them (and nor am I), and one of the experts said that electrosensitives are "heroes" for taking part in controlled tests. But all the evidence to date suggests other environmental factors and perhaps an element of the nocebo effect too, and a great deal of the published scares on wi-fi and mobile phones claim it can do things that aren't physically possible.
When there's compelling evidence of a danger - if there is indeed a danger - then by all means panic. I'll join in. But if it's the precautionary principle that matters, worry more about kids' use of mobile phones than their proximity to mobile phone masts, let alone weak wi-fi signals.
Mariel / 22/04/2007 / 16:45
Shoe stores used to have X-ray machines, and X-ray kids' feet to show how the shoes fit. And these were high dose machines. When I got my first wristwatch my mother insisted on a model without a radium dial.
She was a mechanical engineer working for the army on ordnance, and came home everyday wearing her radiation badge. She said that the exposure from a watch could make the difference in recovering from or succumbing to other exposure.
At that time people didn't recognize the damage.
I think wi-fi is a dangerous enviromental pollutant. Fiber-optic feeds must be developed to replace wireless, and, like no smoking zones, areas low in electro-magnetic pollution should be established and maintained to give people a choice.
Supporting w-fi and cellphones for kids is immoral. Have you not yet watched a friend or relative die of cancer? Why take even a chance of wishing that on children?
Brendan / 22/04/2007 / 21:20
Why is everyone having a go at Gary for his views on Wi-FI ? the main thing that everyone here should have a problem with is the disrespect for Carol Vorderman, i personally would have no interest in web design / development if it was not for growing up with the "Carol Vorderman's Sing and Dance times table" on VHS, let alone all the 5am'er trying to rap my head round some stupid bit of code only to give up and fall asleep with Countdown baring in the background. this can cause more damage than Wi-fi simply because you wake up talking with 'BIG' words that you haven't got a clue about.
Gary / 23/04/2007 / 14:14 / http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com
Mariel -
> Shoe stores used to have X-ray machines, and X-ray kids' feet to show how the shoes fit.
Sure, but X-rays are ionising radiation, which means they can change chemical structures. Wi-fi is non-ionising radiation.
> Why take even a chance of wishing that on children?
Woah, hold on there. I'm not wishing cancer on anybody.
Here's what I have a problem with. Let's say that the cancers currently being discussed in some areas are indeed significant, and everybody blames mobile masts or wi-fi or whatever. That stuff goes, everybody's happy.
What if the cause isn't the mobile mast, or the wi-fi?
What if there is indeed a killer in those areas, and we're too busy attacking a straw man to do anything about it?
victim of your stupidity / 23/04/2007 / 21:30
i dislike your logic "if you can't prove something is not true, then it must be true" - - this is a flaw. and a real fundamental one too.
furthermore, the article is blatantly incorrect. there ARE data showing evidence of harm caused by long term exposure to high-rate emf.
while it may be true that there is no "definitive" proof of "direct consequence" it is patently absurd to call off the research and tell children to jump into the pool. there is no proof it is safe either. for the love of god, who would follow this line of thinking. oh, i know --> those who SELL technology. hmmmmmmm?
here's an example fror you gary: in canada, at the nuclear station in the 1970's, my dad loyally went off to work every day, being ensured that his exposure to tritium was kept at "safe levels". then, uh, oh, gee... the "safe level" became.......no level. fast forward 25 years -> my dad now has bone marrow cancer, better known in medical circles as multiple myeloma, caused by exposure to tritium about 25 years previous.
thanks guys - good call.
where will dave be in 25 years, where will we all be....? crazed hamsters? bring it down to earth, discuss cancer and other more realistic consequences, don't pad your argument by using outlandish remarks (yet another failed debating technique)
it should be safety first, then, with proper research, gradually move into unknown areas. too bad that this methodology is in TOTAL opposition to fast turn-around profit centres like the burgeoning wi-fi market. (cell phone marketing target audience: 8 - 12 year olds). you know the drill, go for short term gain and forget the long term costs. sound familiar?
it's logical fallacy like this article's that ushered in mass pesticide use, enormously polluting agri-business, reliance on automobiles, hydrocarbon economies, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. give your head a shake, you are prescribing a leap before you look attitude that is inherently ridiculous.
it's sad really, we have been here for millions of years, but in the last one hundred we have wreaked so much havoc in the name of profiteer's ideas of "progress". it seems quite natural to me that kids can be perfectly well educated without wi-fi. no? NO??? you can't even drink water from the ground anymore - yet we continue to have terrible advice such as this article, appearing in heavyweight journals such as this. sad sad sad.
honestly, what a pile of rubbish. and it's brought to you by a group clearly having a VESTED INTEREST in increased sales of technology. gary, your slip is showing.
this article displays a very certain stupidity. a very certain, identifiable, stupidity.
when will the technology field start trying to be more environmental? WHEN??????? what a bunch of children and hooligans, selling dope to the blind. it's ok, say anything, just sell.
Gary / 24/04/2007 / 11:02 / http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com
Victim -
> i dislike your logic "if you can't prove something is not true, then it must be true"
No, that's the anti-EMF argument. "If you can't prove this is not dangerous, then it must be dangerous. QED." Too much of this debate is framed not by facts, but by faith.
> It is patently absurd to call off the research and tell children to jump into the pool.
Who's saying call off the research? There's lots of research into the area of EMFs, and it's ongoing. Which is as it should be. The scientists' job is to keep looking. The media's job is to report the truth, rather than to scare readers silly for the sake of it. Right now they're doing the latter.
Back to the original article:
"Is Wi-Fi 100 per cent safe? Nobody knows, but nobody knows of any dangers either, so any panic is based on superstition instead of science."
> Bonestly, what a pile of rubbish. and it's brought to you by a group clearly having a VESTED INTEREST in increased sales of technology
Unlike, say, the anti-EMF sites selling protective pendants, magic beehive hats, subscription-only information..?
Gary / 24/04/2007 / 12:25 / http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com
I know I said I wouldn't, but I'm going to come back to this. Let's focus once more on what the column is actually about, which is specifically Wi-Fi. Here's what we do know:
* EMFs are a broad church, ranging from the harmless - non ionising - to the dangerous - ionising.
* Wi-Fi is non-ionising radiation.
* The only way non-ionising radiation can affect us is if there's a thermal effect.
* The levels of Wi-Fi radiation aren't strong enough anywhere to cause thermal effects.
* All Wi-Fi equipment must follow regulations that set out the maximum signal strengths, which are set at levels far too small for even lots of equipment to have any thermal effects.
* The people who say there's no evidence of ill-effects are experts in the field (no pun intended) with demonstrable and verifiable track records in those areas. They also say that we need to keep looking, which is the sensible and scientific thing to do.
* The newspapers that run scare stories told you last week that the pyramids were built by fish gods, and next week they'll tell you that sprout enemas cure cancer. They have consistently misreported and misrepresented studies to completely mislead people about the dangers of all kinds of things, most notably during the MMR scare but more recently in their coverage of tech (and wireless things in particular - three recent studies, one into phones vs fertility, one into phones vs brain tumours and one into disappearing bees - have been misreported in quite breathtaking fashion). They tell us that the case is closed, and we should immediately panic.
* Many of the people writing about health for newspapers - in many cases, the ones going "PANIC!" - have no health background at all, still less science, and their articles are written very, very quickly - so even if they have the inclination to research stories, to question press releases and to go "hang on, does this person have any expertise in this area?", they don't have the time or the resources. Which is probably why there's such a high proportion of quackery in newspaper health coverage.
* Front page scare stories sell papers. Threats to kids are particularly good at increasing sales, because every parent wants the best for their little 'uns.
* Many of the symptoms we're told are caused by wi-fi, we heard about ten years ago - but back then, it was Sick Building Syndrome.
* In some SBS studies, 4 out of 5 office workers reported real symptoms which were blamed on sick building syndrome, and yet the various alleged causes - chemicals in carpets, bacteria in ventilation systems etc - weren't present. The one factor that separated the sufferers from the non-sufferers was stress.
* The nocebo effect is as real and as powerful as the placebo effect. If you believe something near you is dangerous, you may well develop the symptoms you've been told to expect.
* Many of the symptoms we're told are caused by wi-fi are also symptoms of insomnia (and other things - poor diet, bad general fitness, etc. But I digress).
* Stress is a key cause of insomnia.
* Believing that the building you're in is killing you is a fairly major source of stress.
To me, that means that news coverage about killer wi-fi is not just nonsense, but it's actually making people sick. When there's evidence - not 100% proof, but compelling, reliable evidence of something stronger than "wi-fi is radiation and all radiation is bad" - that wi-fi does the same, I'll be the first to join everyone in an orgy of router destruction. But right now, it seems to me that the scares are more dangerous than the things we're supposed to be scared about.
As I've scribbled elsewhere:
The reason people are getting so worked up about this is because ultimately it’s about the health of their children, and I understand that totally. But that means (I think, at least) the media has a responsibility not to peddle scare stories... because while the stuff in the story might not exist, the negative effects of such reporting *do* exist in reality.
victim of your stupidity / 25/04/2007 / 23:10
hi again,
you said: "When there's evidence - not 100% proof, but compelling, reliable evidence of something stronger than "wi-fi is radiation and all radiation is bad" - that wi-fi does the same, I'll be the first to join everyone in an orgy of router destruction."
well, i'm sure that would cheer up everyone at the cancer ward. hey, you could have an "i didn't know at the time" party. or a "we thought it was safe" dance night. maybe an "if only we could go back in time" vigil.
according to you, THEY say "if you can't prove it's safe, then it's harmful". this err's on the side of caution.
and YOU say "if you can't prove it's harmful, then it's safe". this is flawed by the same logic, but it err's on the side of risk. which is in my opinion - worse.
you've proven yourself wrong. is there a latin acronym for that?
look, i couldn't agree more that inaccurate media is deplorable, it causes so much damage, it's brutal. and now that everyone and their uncle can publish stories like this one, it's full-on chaos. i also agree with you that "panic" is not a reasonable response. but there's more than just PANIC or FULL ACCEPTANCE. please, there are more than just those two extremes. be reasonable.
as i said in my original comment, when something is UNKNOWN, then an intelligent scientific method is to approach it with caution. and it should be considered unsafe until it is proven safe. this takes time. time that industries such as yours just aren't willing to wait for - profit waits for no man. "we need to get these devices into the hands of children now!" what rubbish. over and over this is the way it goes.
as i tried to illustrate, some cancers take about 20-30 years to turn up. how long has this wi-fi technology been around? expose children to it on a regular basis??? i think not. it just doesn't make sense. sure, don't panic, but don't run head first into darkness either.
and secondarily, for what benefit should wi-fi be in children's schools? why not get children out to farms and teach them how to grow food properly, live cleanly, stop polluting the water, stop relying on hydrocarbon and electricity so much. teach them mathematics from first principles, teach them to love the stars, to love animals, to care for the elderly. nope, not our society, no way boy - we are gonna turn our kids into day traders, fast-paced business men like donald trump, aggressive leaders like um...george bush. fools. foolish society, foolish choices. foolish role models. remember aristotle? pythagorus? copernicus, isaac newton? einstien? how much wi-fi was in their school? i just don't see the benefit honestly - even if it is safe - of which i am not yet convinced.
i'm not prescribing panic - i'm just saying give research the proper time it needs to fully declare this technology safe, before handing the reigns over to big money to roll out their "1 cent per email mobile sync'd mailboxes for all newborns deal" - vomit.
oops, there goes another ice cap - good one boys, keep that economy chuggin!
remember asbestos? (a sudden quiet envelops the room) - in schools? what a farce.
and let's please mention the hazardous waste from all this technology, and that it goes obsolete every 5 minutes too - ridiculous.
ok, trivia time: do you know what a blackberry is>? here's a clue, it's a small bush that bears fruit, not a piece of oil-based trash from a dumb epoch of human failure. how much for a used palm-pilot? oh yeah, ya can't even give them away. oh well, the next generation can eat them for dinner.
i advocate caution. not panic. not blind acceptance. calm, wise, CAUTION.
my dad is dying of cancer because of half-researched, half-understood, money-driven, assumptive decision making. who in their right mind would advocate that children be exposed regularily to something not yet fully studied? oh i know who....the ones who are selling the stuff. ding!
forgive my emotional attachment, but i think ignorance is just as stupid as panic, maybe even more subversive, if it breeds acceptance. when i look out on the world at all you educated geniuses, all you brilliant minds, i see mostly ignorance, hidden behind a mask of fierceness, that is actually fear. we are all very tense, there's a lot wrong. what are you fighting for? truth? the truth is, money is coloured paper, water and air is life. why dedicate your energy to more and more failure? wi-fi is not going to save us, but education just might.
Nyangabyaki / 14/06/2007 / 09:09
Victim ofy our stupidity?
remember asbestos? (a sudden quiet envelops the room) - in schools? what a farce.
Is asbestos now proved safe? I need to know more.
Kris Adams / 27/06/2007 / 13:36 / http://www.storytime.co.nr
Oh my word! What a pointless debate. Victim, do you think people are going to stop researching into the subject, to see if it is safe or not? NO! They will research it more!
And Gary has said numerous times, "If it is proven unsafe, he will join the 'Kill Wireless March'"...
But if we lived with your mentality, our race would get nowhere. No, No, don't make that lightbulb, it might not be safe. Don't make a wheel round, it could roll forever.. Let's just sit here, very still. Don't make a bubble to sit in. We might be allergic to plastic.
Oh please!
confused / 04/07/2007 / 17:24
Hi can someone tell me simply what makes a live box function is it radiation? Is there more in wi fi ?
Only just got the above not sure if either is safe on our health??
Terry / 10/10/2007 / 03:35
I must say I agree with Gary here. The biggest problem is the media hyping up any hint of bad news while ignoring any good news purely to sell papers.
As is usual in these situations there are a lot of people who, even with no evidence of danger apart from media scare stories, will try and blackmail you into changing your opinion to match theirs with "think about the kids" comments, as if having a different opinion is somehow condemning children to a horrible death.
I would, like anyone else who says that WiFi is safe now, would happily go back to wires if there was any risk that is scientifically proven. But whereas those who believe it's safe now will change their opinion if it is proven unsafe those who already think it's unsafe will always believe that even without evidence 'just in case'.
I can say to you that WiFi is safe and you can come back at me with "can you prove it's safe?" No I can't prove for definite even though all the compelling evidence is that it is safe but you can't prove it's dangerous either.
It is amazing that suddenly, once reported in the media, there are all these victims and dangers, yet we have had home WiFi for 8 years now. WiFi and Bluetooth (todays media fashionable dangers - we seem to have forgotten all about mobile phones) are both low level non ionising radiation, so low a level that they have a very limited range. DECT cordless phones operate on exactly the same frequency, yet we haven't had scare stories about those. Most of us have been bombarded with much stronger levels of non ionic radiation all our lives thanks to radio and television broadcasting, if the radiation is such a health risk we would have much safer levels by turning off terrestrial television and radio than by replacing our WiFi routers with cables. Once again public opinion is swayed by a few scare stories in the papers.
Another fine example of media scare stories are mobile phones. I agree mobile phones do emit radiation and there may be a health risk, but again the risk is unproven. Manchester City Council commissioned a report into mobile phone masts and came to the conclusion that there is considerably more radiation emitted from a phone than from a phone mast and the further a phone is from a mast the more radiation is emitted from the phone, meaning the best way of keeping radiation levels down to a minimum for children is to site the phone masts on the schools. Yet due to the public's somewhat uninformed opinion it is something they would never do.
There are people who are supposedly electrosensitive, for example being effected by the radiation from a WiFi router, yet the same people are unaffected by the much greater and more dangerous radiation emitted from CRT monitors. Electrosensitivity does seem to really effect people and I have sympathy for them, but scientific studies have come to no conclusion that it exists. I know I get headaches after spending all evening on my WiFi equipped laptop. Am I electrosensitive? No, it's just lack of sleep and stress from work.
Whatever form of radiation we all receive from electronic devices I certainly won't be panicking. We are already bombarded by electromagnetic radiation every day, spending one day in the sun we are bombarded with more non ionic and the more dangerous ionic radiation than a whole decade of sitting next to my WiFi router.
jeff / 16/01/2008 / 15:20 / http://www.broadbandpackages.org
Wi-fi and dangerous? What do you then say about Wi-max which has coverage of couple of miles from the access point? WiFi is becoming more ubiqutous I don't think anyone would think about banning it.
VICTIM / 16/02/2008 / 20:38
Oh brother. Why are the simplest bits of logic so difficult to grasp?
No one said, "don't do anything" - instead, it has only been suggested that things should be thoroughly tested BEFORE they are put into widespread use.
@Terry - 8 years you have been using wi-fi....well, so what? 8 years is not long enough. Guess how long it takes after exposure to asbestos, or tritium to develop the related cancer? 25 years - THAT'S HOW LONG. TWENTY-FIVE YEARS LATER - can you understand that?
Yes, it's true that even more powerful things such as wi-max are now becoming the norm, and it's thanks to articles like this one that promote loose standards that this is happening, but hey people have been using wi-fi for 8 years, it must be safe right? Let's crank up the power even more, we'll find out LATER if there's problems. CRAZY.
Remember back in the early 90's when boring, technical people were warning of climate change, and the media all laughed it off, and industry pushed it aside as "nonsense", and "too safe", "impossible"......do you remember that?
Well, where are we now?
chad / 31/03/2008 / 16:47 / http://www.iondetoxpro.com
Maybe we would all be a little healthier if we were not so attached to our computers and cell phones and maybe we went outside for a walk or a game of catch with the kids. Maybe this should be the real point.
