Anyone who has ever been to a school meeting where there are a large number of parents will realise that some adults are scared of the universe and everything it contains.
I've observed some of these classrooms where every child is using a laptop. About the only benefit is the occasional need to carry less books on their back -- the rest just provides a neat factor and gives the kids an increased familiarity with technology. Education isn't suffering from a lack of laptops and technology.
I think you are undervaluing "increased familiarity with technology".
I think the school systems are missing out on the transformational capability inherent in the use of technology. It's like using airplanes to drive around the country without ever leaving the ground. Until they transform the process of education, it's just typing instead of writing.
Quite telling is the data point (not a very accurate data point, but the only one around), that the radiation from wi-fi was below detectable levels, but the child's night-light was not. If wi-fi is fearsome, is it fearsome compared to what?
Wi-Fi is technological magic, and some people are afraid of that.
Also: unfortunately, a lot of the approaches here aimed at educating people about wifi won't work. Not that the approaches are wrong -- they're the best approach -- but they still won't work in too many cases, because people sense that they have no reason to trust you, and if you're trying to change their opinion, it's only because you're trying to push your own agenda forward at the expense of their health.
People in that mindset then treat facts as scary things that confuse them, so they avoid them altogether.
I live in an area with a higher-than-average ratio of such people, and we also happen to have a fairly thriving tech community. The wifi "debate" comes up often, there have been town meetings about it, it's interfered with city-wide wifi rollouts, etc.
A killer argument in those cases (though not always applicable) is to ask the people if they are smoking. If so, they do not have any reason to be afraid of any environmental influence, since smoking will definitely kill them first.
Fears like this one are all about the power of suggestion. They are irrational. Don't try to deploy rational arguments against an irrational person. [1]
In this case, bringing up smoking is a big mistake, because now you're subtly training people to associate WiFi with something that (a) is now known to be deadly; (b) is the subject of extensive public health campaigns, taxes, legal sanctions, etc., and (c) was widely thought to be okay for decades, was even advertised by doctors as good for your throat. [2]
It's all about the subtext. Go buy some copies of the local tabloids and study their technique. If you put a picture of a fluffy bunny next to a photo of a barking dog, a photo of an angry cop, a photo of a weeping parent holding a dying child, and a blaring headline ("RABID RABBIT RAMPAGE"), you can get people to be deathly afraid of fluffy bunnies. Pavlov and Skinner were too simplistic, but they were not 100% wrong.
So don't try to argue that WiFi is "much safer than these terribly dangerous things that you do every day". Don't mention dangerous things. Emphasize the evidence for safety, talk about the very low powers involved, talk about the kinship between microwaves and radio waves [3] and emphasize that these waves have been used for communications for decades without a problem. Then talk about the advantages.
--
[1] Lesson two: Every human is irrational to some degree.
[2] Or by people in white coats, anyway. Though I'm sure many of them were real doctors. Lesson three: Being a doctor is neither a hallmark of rationality nor a proof against avarice.
[3] But stop short of mentioning gamma rays in this context, because everyone knows they can cause you to become the Incredible Hulk.
I've made similar comparative harm arguments on a number of occasions. For example: the higher fat content in the organic milk [1] will kill you long before trace amounts of evil scary chemicals in inorganic milk will.
Strangely, arguments like that never seem to convince anyone. Anyone susceptible to the power of reason is already convinced.
[1] 1%/2%/3% milk has a wide range of acceptable values. I.e., 3% means "between 2.8% and 3.5%" or something like that. Organic milk is always at the top of the range, which makes it taste better. (It's also pasteurized at a lower temperature.)
I drink organic milk myself, never having considered milk that deadly. I think most people consume only a minor part of their fat through milk, dont they?
I'm a vegetarian who does regular, strenuous exercise. I probably get a lot of my fat through whole milk, which I drink with protein powder. I go through about a gallon every 3-4 days.
I've probably gotten most of my fat intake from milk at times; I have a home espresso machine and use whole milk for lattes, and if I'm really busy I tend to both skip meals and drink lots of coffee.
Definitely a pathological case, though. Also, unhealthy.
You're confusing dietary fat with your own body fat. The thinking for a long time was that dietary fat caused body fat, but that's not the case anymore: "Diets high in fat do not appear to be the primary cause of the high prevalence of excess body fat in our society, and reductions in fat will not be a solution." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12566139
Sugar, on the other hand, does turn into body fat.
Near as I can tell, the study suggests simply that 2000 calories (18% fat) will give you the same long term bodyweight as 2000 calories (40% fat). However, drinking 3.5% fat organic milk will give you more calories (and make you slightly fatter) than 3% fat regular milk.
Yes, the study suggests that dietary fat is not the cause of body fat. Fixing total caloric intake is how to measure that.
Drinking higher fat milk will make you fatter if you don't need those extra calories and you don't reduce calorie intake elsewhere in your diet. But that's a statement about calorie intake, not fat intake. For me, personally, I need both the fat and the calories.
Body needs a lot of things that can become poisons if you overdo them.
Constant drinking of water (forced or induced by failure of some physiological mechanism i.e. taste) will eventually lead to liver failure and death by poisoning. IIRC Chinese used this as a kind of torture/execution tehnique.
You'd have to drink a tonne of milk for this argument to hold. Steroids in non organic milk, and more so in beef, on the other hand are a much larger threat.
Has that actually been shown? It would be ironic to use one unfounded fear to dismiss another unfounded fear, itself raised to dismiss a third unfounded fear.
This article provides no evidence whatsoever that trace amounts of steroids or antibiotics in milk are harmful. It merely suggests they might be present.
I don't understand why everyone is so sure that Wi-Fi is not dangerous.
I know a few things about Physics and radiation, and I know Wi-Fi is supposed to be in the same frequency as wireless phones and microwaves, but still I would prefer not to be too close to a wireless router (Although of course, in this time and age I often have to put this concern aside and spend a lot of time close to routers anyway.)
Firstly, research about radiation, and generally research regarding health matters, is always vague and ambivalent, probably because of the big commercial interests involved.
Secondly, the fact that wireless routers "operate in 2.4GHz like wireless phones" does not calm me. How do you know they transmit only in this range? How do you know it's exactly the frequency that matters? Maybe it's some combination of frequency, amplitude, and something else? How do you know wireless phones aren't dangerous in the first place?
I've worked enough with technical things to know that eventually, you can't really know with certainty whether something will work. (Or in this case, whether something will not harm your health.) Sometimes everything makes sense, but you're still getting a different result.
If this helps you accept my point, I think Knuth's quotation is relevant: "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
The amount of energy put out by Wi-Fi is absolutely dwarfed by the radio, television, and cell phone EM signals that we are swamped in at all times. And none of them put out enough energy to do anything but raise our temperature an immeasurably small amount.
Example: People other than you claim to be sentient. You have no direct access to their first-person experience, and are incapable of coming up with a falsifiable method of testing for its existence. How can you know they are sentient?
Philosophical answer is that you can't, really. Provided you want to remain in the realm of localism, materialism, etc. (variously known as "science" and "common sense"), however, you could just measure the energy output of a television and the energy output of wireless router and stop worrying about how nothing is certain.
We know plenty about it. The mechanism for causing cancer is ionizing radiation. The ionization rate for radiation is proportional to (I'll ignore boring constants) Amplitude^N, where N is the least integer such that N omega > - E_0.
Here, E_0 is the energy of the bond the radiation breaks, and omega is the frequency of the radiation. Amplitude is small (you'll be thermally cooked long before Amplitude > 1), so the ionization rate is a small number to the power of large N.
It's virtually unmeasurable for small amplitude and large N. Typically to measure ionization in the microwave regime, one needs to use a microwave resonating cavity.
(I have a paper doing some rigorous math on this topic. The paper itself is not so interesting, but the references might be useful to you. Many of them go into the basic physics of radiation interacting with matter. http://cims.nyu.edu/~stucchio/pubs/dipole_delta.pdf )
Well, this is called argument-from-ignorance; as others have pointed out, science is pretty bad at proving negatives. So, no, there are no guarantees.
So what we do is we compile the information that we do have, and we try to study effects, establish correlations, and then -- if we're somewhat lucky -- we can reach a conclusion about causation. In the case of the question, "is X dangerous", mostly all we can do is rate it on a relative scale compared to other common things.
(I might get some of the following wrong, but hopefully only in detail. The gist should be correct.)
We know for example that most of the causes of, let's call it spontaneous illness -- tumors and certain diseases and the like -- in healthy adults is the result of damage to nuclear DNA. We also know that most such damaged cells, or cells that are the result of damage during recombination, are attacked and consumed by a person's own immune system. Most of the rest are never viable to begin with -- think of it as a computer program with a serious bug -- and many of the remaining don't produce any viable damaged cells during mitosis.
But, still, we should be cautious about things that do damage to DNA. So, what kinds of radiation do damage to DNA? Well, ionizing radiation does, and as far as we know, it's the only kind that does.
Factors like amplitude, total power, and phase are actually well understood. Scientists shy away from saying with absolute certainty that a particular wavelength is non-ionizing, because they have to take into account other factors, like total power involved. However, microwave radiation -- the 2.4 ghz part of the electromagnetic spectrum -- is pretty safely in the non-ionizing range.
Now, at sufficient power levels, microwaves might cause some minor amount of radiation damage to tissue, but it would have to be an enormous amount of power. Home wifi routers measure their radiation output in milliwatts. You're more susceptible to greater doses of radiation from standing too close to your microwave, and you could probably do that your entire life with no adverse effect.
(In case you're curious: microwaves heat things due to frequency resonance in molecules; i.e., they get certain kinds of molecules -- those containing water -- really excited without stripping their electrons. See also http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/howcook.html)
And all of this is of course aside from the numerous studies which have failed to produce any evidence so far of actual physiological sensitivity to cell phones and wifi and the like -- we're just visiting theory here.
So, how dangerous is it comparatively then?
You are at far more specific danger from walking around outside in the sunshine for just a few minutes than you are from wifi, in terms of ionizing radiation. Although much of the ultraviolet spectrum is non-ionizing, some of it is not, and a small portion of the heat from the sun is ionizing radiation.
And this is where the inconsistency in wifi paranoia comes out, because if you're really, truly that concerned about very very small amounts of radiation, then you shouldn't be venturing around outside wearing anything less than full clothing.
You're right but you miss the point about how people generally perceive danger - that is mainly in emotional, not rational way.
As you point out, science is bad at proving negatives. It is also very good at introducing new unknowns. Combine those two, and you may understand why sometimes people get so emotionally distressed about some new use of science.
And if you develop this thought even further, then you may find that healthy level of skepticism about some new technology is actually not so irrational, considering many unknowns it opens up.
Sometimes -- depending on the person -- you can respond to their emotional fear in a rational way, and it'll take their edge off a bit. :-)
If "cool-RR" had been hysterical, instead of asking questions and appearing at least somewhat curious, I wouldn't've bothered commenting.
And, I agree wholeheartedly that a healthy level of skepticism about new technology isn't a bad idea. Our opinions on what constitutes "healthy" may differ, though.
The problem is, so often, that both proponents and opposers of something, whether it is Health Effects of EM Radiation or Global Warming, either approach those problems with unscientific religiosity, or take some narrow scientific evidence that exists to further their view and discard any criticism.
For our own survival we need more and better research in those issues, not the kind of political and religious pissing contests that we mostly have now.
(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?
