Wi-Fi Is It Damaging Childrens Health

8 I3ALL · 21-05-2007, 21:45

After watching Panorama tonight and seeing the case study results it seems that Wi-Fi signals are 3 times stronger than Cellular.

Directives were set up after studies showed that cellular masts close to schools could pose a danger to kids.

Wi-Fi is being pushed into school classrooms around the country which means the children are spending hours subjected to very strong radiation.

The goverment dont seem to care that its possible it could be harming our children, they have even ignored the information one of its main advisers has given.

Do schools really need Wi-Fi ? the way i see it NO

Discuss

Dymetrie · 21-05-2007, 21:56

I've never been a fan of wifi... Mainly because I've found it to be unreliable and unsecure.

I didn't see the program but if it's like you say (despite me having no worries about cellular signals, it's not done me no harm!) then I think putting wifi into schools is a bloody stupid idea!

As it stands then it's not difficult or expensive to set up a decent hard-wired network in any building (I've done it here

), so if there is a risk of health problems from wifi signals then combined with the need for security in schools anyway (yes, I'd put money on at least some paedophiles knowing something about computers and networks) then I'd say it would be incredibly irresponsible for any school to allow wifi technology to be installed as even part of its network.

Feek · 22-05-2007, 09:14

Hmm, I find this quite tricky to understand, and I have an RF background. Cellular transmitters run multiple thousands of watts and will have an extremely strong field strength close to the masts whereas wi-fi is limited in the amount of power it can run to something particularly low. I don't understand how the signals can be three times stronger.

Matblack · 22-05-2007, 09:58

I didn't watch the programme but I am interested in the title, am I to understand that Wi-Fi is only damaging childrens health and is of no risk to adults?

MB

Daz · 22-05-2007, 10:08

They say children are more at risk because they have thinner skulls. I'm with Feek - sceptical at the moment. It all reads a bit sensationalist to me.

Dym has a point though. In many cases installing copper is not only very efficient but also more cost effective than Wifi LANs. Perhaps it's one of those decisions that could be dictated by cost before you even get to the vagueness of RF safety.

Mark · 22-05-2007, 10:34

In my view, wi-fi is only useful when there are laptops about or there are physical or cost barriers to going wired.

As I'm not sure about the prevalence of laptops in schools I can't comment on the need for wi-fi, but it should certainly only be installed where there is a need for it. Having helped install one of the first school computer networks in the country I know it really isn't that hard to go wired.

I'm with Feek on the RF side, though I suspect that the issue here is proximity combined with power, rather than power alone.

Will · 22-05-2007, 10:53

It's just another source of RF... which in turn is another source of interference, which in turn is just more radiation permeating through our bodies... However GSM vs WiFi even with a high gain antenna omni directional antenna, will not be at the same level of a several dBW GSM mast - the mast next to my office is transmitting at 28dBW = just over 600W (630W)... Not really comparable

Mark · 22-05-2007, 10:55

My parents have a mast pretty close to their new home, and there's several kids living very close by. I'm more worried about that than wi-fi.

Will · 22-05-2007, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

My parents have a mast pretty close to there new home, and there's several kids living very close by. I'm more worried about that than wi-fi.

If it's up high - I'd be less worried as they're not designed with a 360 degree coverage, though I'm not sure how wide the transmission angle is. However I'd agree with you on that one. I'd asked them to move it - put it elsewhere but residential areas.

Mark · 22-05-2007, 11:01

God I can't believe I just did that - grammar nazis would be up in arms.

Anyway, I don't know where it is, but both Orange and Voda signal is pretty poor so unless it's one of the other networks you're not wrong.

21-05-2007, 21:45	#1
8 I3ALL Vodka Martini Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: In Forum Heaven Posts: 732	Wi-Fi Is It Damaging Childrens Health After watching Panorama tonight and seeing the case study results it seems that Wi-Fi signals are 3 times stronger than Cellular. Directives were set up after studies showed that cellular masts close to schools could pose a danger to kids. Wi-Fi is being pushed into school classrooms around the country which means the children are spending hours subjected to very strong radiation. The goverment dont seem to care that its possible it could be harming our children, they have even ignored the information one of its main advisers has given. Do schools really need Wi-Fi ? the way i see it NO Discuss __________________ MySpace

21-05-2007, 21:56	#2
Dymetrie A large glass of Merlot Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Letchworth with a Lightsaber Posts: 5,819	I've never been a fan of wifi... Mainly because I've found it to be unreliable and unsecure. I didn't see the program but if it's like you say (despite me having no worries about cellular signals, it's not done me no harm!) then I think putting wifi into schools is a bloody stupid idea! As it stands then it's not difficult or expensive to set up a decent hard-wired network in any building (I've done it here ), so if there is a risk of health problems from wifi signals then combined with the need for security in schools anyway (yes, I'd put money on at least some paedophiles knowing something about computers and networks) then I'd say it would be incredibly irresponsible for any school to allow wifi technology to be installed as even part of its network. __________________ Khef, Ka and Ka-Tet....

22-05-2007, 09:14	#3
Feek ex SAS Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: JO01ou Posts: 10,062	Hmm, I find this quite tricky to understand, and I have an RF background. Cellular transmitters run multiple thousands of watts and will have an extremely strong field strength close to the masts whereas wi-fi is limited in the amount of power it can run to something particularly low. I don't understand how the signals can be three times stronger. __________________

22-05-2007, 09:58	#4
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	I didn't watch the programme but I am interested in the title, am I to understand that Wi-Fi is only damaging childrens health and is of no risk to adults? MB __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

22-05-2007, 10:08	#5
Daz The Stig Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Swad! Posts: 10,713	They say children are more at risk because they have thinner skulls. I'm with Feek - sceptical at the moment. It all reads a bit sensationalist to me. Dym has a point though. In many cases installing copper is not only very efficient but also more cost effective than Wifi LANs. Perhaps it's one of those decisions that could be dictated by cost before you even get to the vagueness of RF safety. __________________ apt-get moo

22-05-2007, 10:34	#6
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	In my view, wi-fi is only useful when there are laptops about or there are physical or cost barriers to going wired. As I'm not sure about the prevalence of laptops in schools I can't comment on the need for wi-fi, but it should certainly only be installed where there is a need for it. Having helped install one of the first school computer networks in the country I know it really isn't that hard to go wired. I'm with Feek on the RF side, though I suspect that the issue here is proximity combined with power, rather than power alone.

22-05-2007, 10:53	#7
Will BBx woz 'ere :P Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 2,147,487,208	It's just another source of RF... which in turn is another source of interference, which in turn is just more radiation permeating through our bodies... However GSM vs WiFi even with a high gain antenna omni directional antenna, will not be at the same level of a several dBW GSM mast - the mast next to my office is transmitting at 28dBW = just over 600W (630W)... Not really comparable __________________ *No No!*

22-05-2007, 10:55	#8
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	My parents have a mast pretty close to their new home, and there's several kids living very close by. I'm more worried about that than wi-fi. Last edited by Mark; 22-05-2007 at 10:59.

22-05-2007, 11:01	#10
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	God I can't believe I just did that - grammar nazis would be up in arms. Anyway, I don't know where it is, but both Orange and Voda signal is pretty poor so unless it's one of the other networks you're not wrong.