5 ms·

What should you say to a parent scared of Wi-Fi?

24 points by CaptainMorgan 17y ago

dazzawazza 17y ago
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.
- turning_point 17y ago
  This situation can hopefully be improved by educating parents about reality.
  - tomjen2 17y ago
    Properly, but then the parents would have attended the school in the first place.
  - bsaunder 17y ago
    Some people seem to actively replace reality with their own notions. It continually baffles me. I can only suspect that I do the same thing.
  - Zaak 17y ago
    Some fears can be solved by educating ignorance. Other fears however, are due to untreated anxiety disorders, and need medical help.
gaius 17y ago
You know, recently in the UK, there was a case where the authorities said a woman was too stupid to have children: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6365363/Social-services-to-take-baby-from-teenager-deemed-too-stupid-to-marry.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland... This law should be applied in this case.
danw 17y ago
"Schools need wireless networks; the pupils need a device (handheld computer, or laptop) each, which they have access to whenever it is needed" Why do we need one laptop per child in a school? Computers are useful tools but hardly central to learning.
- travisp 17y ago
  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.
  - bsaunder 17y ago
    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.
    - anamax 17y ago
      Then one DS or Wii per child should do wonders.
StrawberryFrog 17y ago
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?
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  It's fearsome compared to not-wifi. :(
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  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.
ulf 17y ago
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.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  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.)
  - ulf 17y ago
    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?
    - camccann 17y ago
      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.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      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.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Fat is not a poison. Your body needs it.
cool-RR 17y ago
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."
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- borism 17y ago
  Indeed. 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.
  - jerf 17y ago
    "For our own survival we need more and better research in those issues," Knee-jerk calling for more research is just a way of cloaking ignorance in a lab coat. The research has been done: http://www.wi-fi.org/files/wfa_wi-fi_health_faq.pdf http://www.wi-fi.org/files/wfa_wi-fi_health_faq.pdf (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.)
Oranj 17y ago
Introducing foil hats as part of the uniform should calm the parents.

24 points by CaptainMorgan 17y ago

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.

turning_point 17y ago
This situation can hopefully be improved by educating parents about reality.
- tomjen2 17y ago
  Properly, but then the parents would have attended the school in the first place.
- bsaunder 17y ago
  Some people seem to actively replace reality with their own notions. It continually baffles me. I can only suspect that I do the same thing.
- Zaak 17y ago
  Some fears can be solved by educating ignorance. Other fears however, are due to untreated anxiety disorders, and need medical help.

gaius 17y ago

You know, recently in the UK, there was a case where the authorities said a woman was too stupid to have children: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6365363/Social-services-to-take-baby-from-teenager-deemed-too-stupid-to-marry.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland... This law should be applied in this case.

danw 17y ago

"Schools need wireless networks; the pupils need a device (handheld computer, or laptop) each, which they have access to whenever it is needed" Why do we need one laptop per child in a school? Computers are useful tools but hardly central to learning.

travisp 17y ago
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.
- bsaunder 17y ago
  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.
  - anamax 17y ago
    Then one DS or Wii per child should do wonders.

StrawberryFrog 17y ago

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?

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
It's fearsome compared to not-wifi. :(
thaumaturgy 17y ago
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.

ulf 17y ago

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.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
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.)
- ulf 17y ago
  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?
  - camccann 17y ago
    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.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    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.
- scott_s 17y ago
  Fat is not a poison. Your body needs it.

cool-RR 17y ago

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."

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
borism 17y ago
Indeed. 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.
- jerf 17y ago
  "For our own survival we need more and better research in those issues," Knee-jerk calling for more research is just a way of cloaking ignorance in a lab coat. The research has been done: http://www.wi-fi.org/files/wfa_wi-fi_health_faq.pdf http://www.wi-fi.org/files/wfa_wi-fi_health_faq.pdf (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.)

Oranj 17y ago

Introducing foil hats as part of the uniform should calm the parents.