Date published: 2007/05/21
The BBC says:
Scientists have said there is no evidence to suggest a link between the use of wi-fi and damage to health.
BBC programme Panorama found that radiation levels from wi-fi in one school was up to three times the level of mobile phone mast radiation.
The readings were 600 times below the government's safety limits but there is ongoing debate about wi-fi use.
"Wi-fi seems unlikely to pose any risk to health," said Professor Lawrie Challis, of Nottingham University.
Prof Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme management committee, said: "Wi-fi exposures are usually very small - the transmitters are low power and some distance from the body.
"They can be near to the body, however, when a laptop is on one's lap and my own view is that just as we encourage young children not to use mobile phones we should also encourage them to use their laptops on a table rather than their lap, if they are going online for a long time."
...
Medical physics expert Professor Malcolm Sperrin told BBC News that the fact wi-fi radiation in a particular school was three times higher than a mobile phone mast was irrelevant, unless there was any evidence of a link to health effects."Wi-fi is a technique using very low intensity radio waves. Whilst similar in wavelength to domestic microwave radiation, the intensity of wi-fi radiation is 100,000 times less than that of a domestic microwave oven.
"Furthermore, tissue can only be effectively heated by a wavelength that is closely matched to the absorption, and there are strict guidelines for ensuring such absorption peaks are avoided."
The type of radiation emitted by radio waves (wi-fi), visible light, microwaves and mobile phones has been shown to raise the temperature of tissue at very high levels of exposure - called a thermal interaction - but there is no evidence that low levels cause damage.
The Health Protection Agency has said that sitting in a wi-fi hotspot for a year results in receiving the same dose of radio waves as making a 20-minute mobile phone call.
"Some people suspect a non-thermal interaction but there is no evidence to suggest that this exists and indeed it is unlikely," said Prof Sperrin.
...
Professor Will J Stewart, fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said: "Science has studied the safety of mobile phones for many years and the overwhelming body of evidence shows little cause for concern."As for wi-fi, although these devices operate at a modestly different frequency to mobiles they also operate at a lower power level over a much shorter-range.
...
Professor Sperrin said one of the difficulties around wi-fi research was that it was impossible to prove a negative."It's impossible to prove that something has no effect," he said.
He said there was no justification in discarding wi-fi until it could be proved safe.
"The educational benefits from using laptops and having access to information far outweigh any unproven fears over the safety of wi-fi. I am more concerned about the heat laptops generate and the impact that could on sensitive parts of the body."
If this is the best Panorama can come up with they should pack up and go home. This fear mongering over wireless networks all comes from the usual anti-technology health and safety nutters. Of course Panorama managed to dredge up a few people who support their hysterical view, as one can always do for anything. Sperrin nails it on the head. The heat from laptops is far more likely to cause harm than the wireless. And 101 other things. Of course the health and safety nutters will wheel out the so-called precautionary principle. This means that they have no argument but don't like wireless, so believe the rest of the world has to prove that the technology is "100% safe" (which is impossible). Blair and Bush invaded Iraq based on the precautionary principle (after all, Iraq might theoretically have attacked the UK or US). Blair and Bush want to lock up all Muslims they don't like the look of based on the precautionary principle (after all, one of them might be a terrorist). If you wanted to prevent crime you would lock up all males over the age of 10 based on the precautionary principle (after all, many of them will be criminals). The precautionary principle is a joke at best (in the hands of the health and safety nutters) and sinister at worst (in the hands of governments).
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").