Comments on: The Great Wi-Fi Swindle http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/ "crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger" - Alex Wilcock Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:32:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Alex Parsons http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-57583 Alex Parsons Wed, 30 May 2007 09:56:08 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-57583 Nich, that section on Norfolk was just simple scaremongering. After walking around using phrases like “Went into the red there” and "We’re getting quite high readings here" Kenyon went into the NewsNight interview and said about this segment “We didn’t make a big point of that, it’s so far beneath the limits”, admitting that the levels detected were incredibly low and way below dangerous levels. He's either incredibly dense not to notice the disconnect or deliberately misleading people. This was one of the worst documentaries the BBC has done in a long time. Nich, that section on Norfolk was just simple scaremongering. After walking around using phrases like “Went into the red there” and “We’re getting quite high readings here” Kenyon went into the NewsNight interview and said about this segment “We didn’t make a big point of that, it’s so far beneath the limits”, admitting that the levels detected were incredibly low and way below dangerous levels. He’s either incredibly dense not to notice the disconnect or deliberately misleading people.

This was one of the worst documentaries the BBC has done in a long time.

]]> By: Nich Starling http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-56023 Nich Starling Mon, 21 May 2007 21:03:59 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-56023 Perhaps if you'd watched it you would have seen that what they pointed out made total sense. I would now be 1.5 meters away from my old wifi point wer it not for the fact that me house is now hard wired. So yes, the BBC's measuring was correct. What about the evidence form Norwich they showed which highlighted that Radiation levels in Norwich are actually dangerously high because of wi-fi ? Perhaps if you’d watched it you would have seen that what they pointed out made total sense. I would now be 1.5 meters away from my old wifi point wer it not for the fact that me house is now hard wired. So yes, the BBC’s measuring was correct.

What about the evidence form Norwich they showed which highlighted that Radiation levels in Norwich are actually dangerously high because of wi-fi ?

]]> By: Laurence Boyce http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-55951 Laurence Boyce Mon, 21 May 2007 16:04:35 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-55951 <i>And so, the cosmic balance of the BBC’s sensible/face-slappingly idiotic halves are once again restored.</i> Great stuff James! Good to see you the other day, though I see that the BBC curtailed our fascinating conversation to some extent! And so, the cosmic balance of the BBC’s sensible/face-slappingly idiotic halves are once again restored.

Great stuff James! Good to see you the other day, though I see that the BBC curtailed our fascinating conversation to some extent!

]]> By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-55933 James Graham Mon, 21 May 2007 14:44:49 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-55933 ...and you put mobile phones right up against your ear, 0cm away. Do the maths. The point is, you have to compare like with like. Yes, you may conceivably be 1m away from a wi-fi station, but you are also quite likely to be 2m away (0.75 x the strength of a phone mast 100m away) or 4m away (0.19 x the strength of a phone mast 100m away). You might be standing 50m away from the mast (where the signal is 4 times stronger than it would be 100m away) or 150m away (where the signal is 2.25 times weaker than it would be 100m away). If all that barrage of statistics sounds meaningless, it is because they are. The only facts out of all this is that wi-fi signals are thousands of times weaker than phone mast signals and that after 20 years there is still no evidence to suggest a causal link between mobile phones and any health problems, let alone links with mobile phone masts. …and you put mobile phones right up against your ear, 0cm away. Do the maths.

The point is, you have to compare like with like. Yes, you may conceivably be 1m away from a wi-fi station, but you are also quite likely to be 2m away (0.75 x the strength of a phone mast 100m away) or 4m away (0.19 x the strength of a phone mast 100m away). You might be standing 50m away from the mast (where the signal is 4 times stronger than it would be 100m away) or 150m away (where the signal is 2.25 times weaker than it would be 100m away).

If all that barrage of statistics sounds meaningless, it is because they are. The only facts out of all this is that wi-fi signals are thousands of times weaker than phone mast signals and that after 20 years there is still no evidence to suggest a causal link between mobile phones and any health problems, let alone links with mobile phone masts.

]]> By: Simon Jerram http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-55930 Simon Jerram Mon, 21 May 2007 14:25:06 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/05/21/the-great-wi-fi-swindle/#comment-55930 While I get your point, surely part of the reasoning is you can stand within 1m of a laptop, but in the normal scheme of things you won't get within 10m of a mobile phone basestation as they're usually at the top of very tall poles. While I get your point, surely part of the reasoning is you can stand within 1m of a laptop, but in the normal scheme of things you won’t get within 10m of a mobile phone basestation as they’re usually at the top of very tall poles.

]]>