WiFi Woo & Wibble

May 22, 2007 12:33

In response to last night's deeply unscientific credulous scaremongering fair and balanced Panorama report into the health concerns associated with WiFi and other RF radiation (won't somebody please think of the children!) comes this marvellous rebuttal from the ever dependable The Register:

"No such scientific evidence exists for the damage ( Read more... )

science, stupid_journos

Leave a comment

Comments 10

peppapig May 22 2007, 13:30:48 UTC
C's brother bought something similar for their father.... but then I do consider him to be a nutter!

Reply

tyfach May 22 2007, 15:55:32 UTC
Oh dear - the deeper the Woo, the bigger the price... I do hope the product description mentioned 'quantum' in there somewhere...

Reply


thepixy May 22 2007, 14:03:39 UTC
Hmm. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean, it all sounds very improbably to me (walk into wifi hotspot 'ouch, my head, the radiation') but having said that, I am negatively effected by the energy of places all the time. I spend a huge amount of time doing energy work and some energies don't agree with me, and I can usually feel that as at least partly a physical sensation. And I guess it does make sense to me (from unscientific and purely common sense point of view) that it probably isn't the best idea be constantly exposed to an extra source of radiation no matter how weak.
Still, even though my own view point is often considered very odd indeed, I am not convinced by these people. I can't help but think that they are suffering from some kind of emotional or mental issue - that they are just very scared of things!

Reply

tyfach May 22 2007, 16:12:50 UTC
Yep - I agree. I have no problem with the fact that some people, especially those tuned to energy work, can be aware of EMF fields (I get a very characteristic headache just before thunderstorms - but that's probably due more to ions, atmospheric pressure and subsonics...), but whether that can translate to an actual health problem is a very different matter. What I object to is the misuse of science to sell copy (or in the case of those QLink guys, bits of ludicrously overpriced crud). Whip up a bit of panic about the Government irradiating our children's brains and the Daily Mail reading drones will lap it up and start forking out for bits of Quantum Resonance Anionic Polymufflers to dangle round the Range Rover in order to take their kids to the 'Down With This Sort Of Thing' protest outside their schools.
And it's funny how it always seems to be middle-aged, middle class women being affected by these things and never, for example, basement dwelling WLAN owning computer geeks...

Reply


tyrell May 22 2007, 14:08:54 UTC
I loved the Qlink on BadScience :)

I've noticed that scientists are almost never 50:50 on anything. They're either 90:10 depending on who's paying them, or 5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5, depending on... who's paying them.

Reply

tyfach May 22 2007, 16:41:36 UTC

cygninae May 22 2007, 18:05:42 UTC
"100 years of radio and 60 years of TV transmission however, suggest not"

Ah, but recent scaremongering has linked cancer with obesity.....and if you put two and two together, much like the words "couch" and "potato", then there might be a case for it....!

Reply

tyfach May 22 2007, 20:24:10 UTC
*Gasps*
You're right...ban it, Ban it, BAN IT!
That'll learn 'em....

Reply


gerryox May 22 2007, 20:23:51 UTC
Sadly I missed this, but I'm sure It'll have managed to shake up some my MRI patients.....joy

Reply

tyfach May 22 2007, 20:24:53 UTC
*Chortles*
Frying tonight!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up