Wi-Fi Fears

Every once in a while, a scare hits the media about the dangers of Wi-Fi use. Whether they are talking about cell phones or wireless routers, the scaremongering remains the same. Cancer. We are all going to die from cancer that develops as we fry our brains.

Except we aren’t. It is a case of looking at health issues backwards.  Most cancer rates are decreasing. They are looking at a cause that has no effect. Cancers that are increasing such as lung cancer in women and colorectal cancer have causes that are well known and have nothing to do with wi-fi. Lung cancers in women are catching up to the rates in men as the incidence of female smokers increased in the 1970s and beyond. Genetics and lifestyle choices (high fat diets and sedentary living) are behind the majority of colorectal cancers. Since the proliferation of cell phones, the incidence of brain tumors has decreased. So why are so many people afraid of cell phones and wi-fi.

Wi-Fi

Most people who are against technology, whether wi-fi, or modern farming methods using genetically modified products cite the, Precautionary Principle which states:

if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

However, they are actually a victim of the Paralyzing Precautionary Principle:

Because if they were as worried as …. is, they’d be paralyzed. They wouldn’t drive a car, get on a bus, eat a meal at a restaurant, or turn on any electrical device. They wouldn’t stand near a granite mountain because it might give off cancer-causing electromagnetic radiation. They wouldn’t go swimming in the ocean for fear of being eaten by a shark or killed by a jellyfish. They wouldn’t even read his memo out of fear that their computer monitors might be poisoning them with radiation. They wouldn’t open their mail for fear of being killed by anthrax or a mail bomb.

The most dangerous thing we all do in our lives is drive a vehicle. The second is to live a sedentary lifestyle and eat an unhealthy diet. Even there, we are making progress. So, fire up your laptop and chat on your cell phone, just remember to put them down once in a while.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Biology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Wi-Fi Fears

  1. deever says:

    Curmudgeon is flat wrong about there being mono-focus on cancer, and that cancer stats show nothing to worry about re RF exposures. To more careful observers who dare to look past the keepers of the status quo — and “skeptics” don’t dare — it seems that the extraordinary cancer increase of past decades has indeed had as a necessary condition, “safe” RF exposures.

    “Since the proliferation of cell phones, the incidence of brain tumors has decreased.”
    That is flat nonsense.

    You blather about precaution — honest examiniation of the issues yields the conclusion that we are way past the point of precaution, it is of diminishing value to frame discussion in that vein.

    But I will thank you for a chuckle about what’s “behind” “the majority of colorectal cancers”.

  2. So Daryl, you dig up a year old post and while I provide links to back up my statements you provide
    Nada.Nothing. Zero. Zilch. except bullshit.

    • deever says:

      hadn’t noticed the yr-old bit, the originating libellous webpage is being populated by commenters again, which i found out about, came across your cross-reference there

      read the Bioinititative report (online) for starters, a good place to start to see the excluded science — see its bibliography

      as for your preoccupation with excremental reference & remark…well, thanks for another chuckle

      • You and your group’s ability to date posts is indicative of your ability to understand the science behind the posts.
        As long as you are laughing at your shit and not believing it, we’re all good.

      • deever says:

        ???
        Typical incurious display by a skepto — why find out for oneself, when (corrupt) establishment groups assure a “skepto” (credulo. that is) all is ok?

        Maybe go back to sitting on the loo.

  3. I have done my research. The links are there, but as was demonstrated on Skeptic North, you and your group are not interested in facts, only FUD.

    • deever says:

      don’t know what your acronym means, i’ll guess it has something to do with poop, your preferential topic

      your claim is ridiculous, i was the prime commenter at many links going after that particular batch of fool skeptos on this topic, and if you read them, you would see plenty of references & debunking, lots of scholarly references ignored by your info filterers your ilk likes to go by

  4. What – you can’t look it up. I followed your group’s comments on Skeptic North and you posted no facts there either. Btw – your hominem attacks are pathetic and further demonstrate the paucity of your ideas.

  5. I have noticed all the way through that you and your group have ignored both the Interphone and the more recent Danish study. Nor have you addressed the many posts over at Skeptic North.
    Until you do that, I am not going to look at a page of cherry-picked studies.

Comments are closed.