Parents of boy with tumour want wi-fi out of school

nixie_nox
reply to post by beckybecky

 

Discrediting the source means you are desperately losing the argument. You want to believe that wifi and technology caused the cancer. We get it.
But I am sure a oncologist knows far more of what they are talking about than you do. Accept the defeat with dignity and move on.

This boy's cancer wasn't caused by apple or Microsoft. People get cancer. Children get cancer. Cancer happens and these parents are over reacting, though its understandable.

A friend of mine is a children's hospice nurse. Children die of cancer every day.

ONCOLOGISTS are human beings and are subject to vanity,arrogance,ignorance,stupidity,and all the other vices that human beings suffer from.they make mistakes every day.
242000 people DIE from prescription drugs every year in america.precribed by doctors.so don't give me nonsense about super duper fallible oncologists.

And what is your interest in defending micro soft apple and other corporate interests.how much they paying you?

"A friend of mine is a children's hospice nurse. Children die of cancer every day".hoooray for you then.give yourself a pat on the back.

children get cancer for a reason.wi-fi is one reason.

well to try to take the topic seriously.....what are the child cancer rates in korea(south)? as they have 3x the ammount of wifi,higher speeds and its literally almost everywhere in korea........ are korean children dying of cancer at 3 times the rate of american children? if not id have to say the wifi thing is bunk ...

en.wikipedia.org... here this nation gives free wifi to every one and i dont hear of them dying in droves from cancer....(they only have a population of 1700ish ) so they might make a good test group to study if you really think its causing cancer it should be causing it there.....

www.forbes.com... check the cancer rates of these cities vs ones with out wifi and then factor in all the enviornmental factors and whatnot to try to look for any evidence to tie wifi to cancer as i think it should be easy to try to figure out if its as blantant as the parents in the OP article seem to think it is

Non ionizing radiation still disrupts biological processes. The propaganda needs to stop.

It takes just a wee bit of common sense and 15 minutes of time to realize microwave radiation is harmful.

That being said, I'm a proponent of chemical, radiative, and electromagnetic hormesis in healthy human beings. I think we're mostly adapting, though am still cautious not to place the phone on my person and up to my skull.


Gscholar: microwave radiation cancer

People everywhere are bombarded by wifi signals every second of their lives.

It's gonna be really, really hard to (1) prove that his tumor was caused by wifi and (2) prove that it was the wifi at school that caused it.

I remember when I was a kid, we used every excuse in the book not to go to school. Modern day kids know that they know more about technology than their parents and the "wifi at school is making me sick when I go there" excuse is a good one for a kid to use for any kid who's parent knows nothing about technology.

I bet this mother who complains about the wifi at her kids school uses all sorts of wireless frequency devices at home (such as a cordless phone) and probably even has her own wireless router at home too. Your average TV / Microwave puts out more cancer causing radiation than a wifi router at a school.

I've actually had this discussion with a group of doctors, who all agreed that the "my kid is getting sick from wifi at school" is the modern day equivalent to the kid making up an excuse as to why they don't want to be at school.

MILLIONS of kids around the world sleep with their iPods/wireless devices close at hand, or fall asleep while listening to music on those same devices.

If wireless devices cause brain cancer in kids, there would be a worldwide pandemic.

reply to post by babybunnies


It may be the case that some people are using it as an excuse to skip out, but I think some people are genuinely disturbed by it.

There's a low percentage of people who are sickly from all sorts of things that the majority don't find much a bother.

Like fluorescent lighting, perfumes, or chlorine-treated pools.

Some people are simply more sensitive to various stressors. Genetic variation at play.

babybunnies
If wireless devices cause brain cancer in kids, there would be a worldwide pandemic.

...and in most cases it would take several years or even a couple of decades before it was large enough to cause issues and be diagnosed.

Lookie what I found!

Child Brain Cancer on the Rise
More Kids are getting Brain Cancer

Brain Tumors increased 39% in 3 decades:
Cancer.gov

reply to post by webedoomed

Yes, of course, genetic variation is in effect, and it usually affects many factors, not just a single one. There is rarely a person lacking in one faculty, and not gaining in another. Just imagine what we would lose if we simply suppressed any genetic variation. Hypersensitive people are not always 'hypersick' people, they can simply be aware of some part of the spectrum of frequencies that other people do not see/feel. Some of us may be seeing more colors than the others and not even know about it. The only reason for these people not to be recognized as a 'useful' minority is envy or instinctive competition for better genes. This competition is far from being fair, since people rely on technology as the judge. Technology is versatile, and our current level of it is enough to wipe everything that lives from the surface of this planet in more than a few different ways. So, tolerance to a specific technology can't be the ultimate factor in deciding who should live. We must change our attitude to this diversity. So far it has been, if most of the people aren't sensitive, then it's okay. I believe this to be the wrong approach, as it may lead to losing valuable contributions to society and the genetic pool. I liked the argument on another site, where a commenter said that if humanity were to die of some factor like microwave radiation, those who were sensitive and avoided extreme exposure would survive to rebuild it.

reply to post by mrkeen


So I'm mostly in agreement with your post, though I don't think we should necessarily be adapting our technology for the sensitivities of the few. It depends. If the benefit outweighs the cost, then go for it.

As is, we're more in numbers than ever before. I think additional stressors are needed to weed out whoever can't adapt. That's just natural.

I would generally agree that what most people see as a "disorder" is mere order which is opposed to current "norm" within society, and not politically convenient for however they're trying to shape it.

Variation does strengthen our adaptive capacities, but adaption doesn't exist in a vacuum, we need stressors for them to be seen and utilized.

beckybecky

nixie_nox
reply to post by beckybecky

 

Discrediting the source means you are desperately losing the argument. You want to believe that wifi and technology caused the cancer. We get it.
But I am sure a oncologist knows far more of what they are talking about than you do. Accept the defeat with dignity and move on.

This boy's cancer wasn't caused by apple or Microsoft. People get cancer. Children get cancer. Cancer happens and these parents are over reacting, though its understandable.

A friend of mine is a children's hospice nurse. Children die of cancer every day.

ONCOLOGISTS are human beings and are subject to vanity,arrogance,ignorance,stupidity,and all the other vices that human beings suffer from.they make mistakes every day.
242000 people DIE from prescription drugs every year in america.precribed by doctors.so don't give me nonsense about super duper fallible oncologists.

And what is your interest in defending micro soft apple and other corporate interests.how much they paying you?

"A friend of mine is a children's hospice nurse. Children die of cancer every day".hoooray for you then.give yourself a pat on the back.

children get cancer for a reason.wi-fi is one reason.

It is only 100,000, and that is from side effects, not doctor mistakes.

And I wish I was getting paid by Microsoft or apple, then I wouldn't have to worry about making rent.

WiFi uses radio (2,500,000,000 Hz), which is on the same spectrum as light. Solar ultraviolet light has more power, and a much higher frequency (10,000,000,000,000,000 Hz) and can give you a sunburn after 15 minutes of direct exposure. So, you’d have to lay on your WiFi-router for more than 1,500,000 minutes (virtually 3 years) to acquire a WiFi-burn.

linky

It is more dangerous to be outside than to be by your wifi router.

nixie_nox

beckybecky

nixie_nox
reply to post by beckybecky

 

Discrediting the source means you are desperately losing the argument. You want to believe that wifi and technology caused the cancer. We get it.
But I am sure a oncologist knows far more of what they are talking about than you do. Accept the defeat with dignity and move on.

This boy's cancer wasn't caused by apple or Microsoft. People get cancer. Children get cancer. Cancer happens and these parents are over reacting, though its understandable.

A friend of mine is a children's hospice nurse. Children die of cancer every day.

ONCOLOGISTS are human beings and are subject to vanity,arrogance,ignorance,stupidity,and all the other vices that human beings suffer from.they make mistakes every day.
242000 people DIE from prescription drugs every year in america.precribed by doctors.so don't give me nonsense about super duper fallible oncologists.

And what is your interest in defending micro soft apple and other corporate interests.how much they paying you?

"A friend of mine is a children's hospice nurse. Children die of cancer every day".hoooray for you then.give yourself a pat on the back.

children get cancer for a reason.wi-fi is one reason.

It is only 100,000, and that is from side effects, not doctor mistakes.

And I wish I was getting paid by Microsoft or apple, then I wouldn't have to worry about making rent.

WiFi uses radio (2,500,000,000 Hz), which is on the same spectrum as light. Solar ultraviolet light has more power, and a much higher frequency (10,000,000,000,000,000 Hz) and can give you a sunburn after 15 minutes of direct exposure. So, you’d have to lay on your WiFi-router for more than 1,500,000 minutes (virtually 3 years) to acquire a WiFi-burn.

linky



It is more dangerous to be outside than to be by your wifi router.

edit on 24-1-2014 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

"It is only 100,000, and that is from side effects,"...there still dead arent they? and the medications were prescribed by ?

by DOCTORS.so the doctors are responsible.



so you claim all radiation is the same?

then why don't YOU replace the sunshine by gamma rays?

Then we will see how harmless it is.

babybunnies
MILLIONS of kids around the world sleep with their iPods/wireless devices close at hand, or fall asleep while listening to music on those same devices.

If wireless devices cause brain cancer in kids, there would be a worldwide pandemic.

there is a difference in holding a red hot poker 3 millimetres from your cheek then holding it at 30 millimetres.in the first case you will suffer burns very quickly.in the latter much more slowly or might just feel some warmth.

do you understand?

none of you seem to understand the 1/r law of radiation.

maybe somebody could draw a graph for you.

beckybecky
so you claim all radiation is the same?

He did no such thing.

beckybecky
then why don't YOU replace the sunshine by gamma rays?

Then we will see how harmless it is.

That makes no sense.... WiFi routers don't emit Gamma radiation, so there is no correlation between that and what you're trying to claim about WiFi. In essence, what you are asking is if someone had said apples aren't dangerous and you saying that they should then go and eat some coal.

reply to post by beckybecky


As I said earlier in another thread about WiFi and cancer (which you also were in) about power levels of routers, those levels are taking at the source, not from far away and it is relatively tiny compared to things such a mobile phones or Microwave ovens.

To quote:

stumason
See, this just says to me that you don't actually know what you're talking about - there is no "heat" from microwaves at all. Look up dielectric heating....

The actual power in a WiFi signal is so weak you'd have to sit for a whole year next to a router to be exposed to the same level of radiation as you would by using your mobile phone for 20 minutes.

The power output for a typical WiFi router is in the lower hundreds of mW at it's peak, hardly worth worrying about - significantly lower than even the weakest Microwave oven at 500W - over 100 times the amount of power in a router and focussed, not spread around the room like in WiFI.

And all of this ignores the fact that the world has been bathed in EM fields since before Humanity even evolved and much stronger ones as well, such as from the Sun. Also, it is worth pointing out that microwaves are non-ionising, so much, much less harmful as they don't affect DNA in the same way X or Gamma Rays do, being a much lower frequency and carrying less energy. In fact, your typical microwave carries much less energy than the CMB.

reply to post by webedoomed

I have nothing to add to your point, except that such competition works both ways. While you are generally right that statistical average decides the norm, those who happen to be at the end of the spectrum may decide that you instead should be 'eliminated' (from the gene pool). Nobody can be a hundred percent sure that some day there won't be a guy who is 'different' and invents a technology which completely turns the tables. Like you suddenly discover you are sensitive while he is not. What would you say then? Will you still protect this stats/average approach at any cost?

stumason
reply to post by beckybecky

 

As I said earlier in another thread about WiFi and cancer (which you also were in) about power levels of routers, those levels are taking at the source, not from far away and it is relatively tiny compared to things such a mobile phones or Microwave ovens.

To quote:

stumason
See, this just says to me that you don't actually know what you're talking about - there is no "heat" from microwaves at all. Look up dielectric heating....

The actual power in a WiFi signal is so weak you'd have to sit for a whole year next to a router to be exposed to the same level of radiation as you would by using your mobile phone for 20 minutes.

The power output for a typical WiFi router is in the lower hundreds of mW at it's peak, hardly worth worrying about - significantly lower than even the weakest Microwave oven at 500W - over 100 times the amount of power in a router and focussed, not spread around the room like in WiFI.

And all of this ignores the fact that the world has been bathed in EM fields since before Humanity even evolved and much stronger ones as well, such as from the Sun. Also, it is worth pointing out that microwaves are non-ionising, so much, much less harmful as they don't affect DNA in the same way X or Gamma Rays do, being a much lower frequency and carrying less energy. In fact, your typical microwave carries much less energy than the CMB.

you are completely wrong again.sunshine is harmless.right?

now suppose you get a magnifying glass against your temple and shine sunlight throught it.

is it still harmless?

a point source next to your head gives you tumers.

you don't seem to understand point sources and the 1/r law at all.could you explain why you don't understand the 1/r law of radiation.

do you know what a point source is?

do you understand 1/r ?

beckybecky
you are completely wrong again.sunshine is harmless.right?

I don't believe I said that, Becky. Why do you try to put words in people's mouths? Do have some sort of learning disability which affects your reading comprehension? Nothing I said in that post was anywhere close to claiming sunlight was harmless... In fact, I didn't even talk about sunlight.

beckybecky
now suppose you get a magnifying glass against your temple and shine sunlight throught it.

is it still harmless?

Of course not, I never said it was. You are very confused, aren't you?

beckybecky
a point source next to your head gives you tumers.

Does it really? It entirely depends on what it is a source of as to whether it would do anything, much less give you a tumour. A light bulb is a "point source" - if you put that next to your head, does that mean you get cancer? Wow - I learn something new every day...... /sarcasm

beckybecky
you don't seem to understand point sources and the 1/r law at all.could you explain why you don't understand the 1/r law of radiation.

Huh? Where on earth have managed to leap to that conclusion? I never said anything contradicting the inverse square law and, on the contrary, I do know about it. Quite well as it happens, I work in telecoms and we covered this all at College when I did my HND as well as at school when I did electronics and physics, not to mention during my apprenticeship at Nortel when we covered radio systems.

beckybecky
do you know what a point source is?

do you understand 1/r ?

Er, yes.... Don't patronise me when you can't even spell tumour.

stumason

beckybecky
you are completely wrong again.sunshine is harmless.right?

I don't believe I said that, Becky. Why do you try to put words in people's mouths? Do have some sort of learning disability which affects your reading comprehension? Nothing I said in that post was anywhere close to claiming sunlight was harmless... In fact, I didn't even talk about sunlight.

beckybecky
now suppose you get a magnifying glass against your temple and shine sunlight throught it.

is it still harmless?

Of course not, I never said it was. You are very confused, aren't you?

beckybecky
a point source next to your head gives you tumers.

Does it really? It entirely depends on what it is a source of as to whether it would do anything, much less give you a tumour. A light bulb is a "point source" - if you put that next to your head, does that mean you get cancer? Wow - I learn something new every day...... /sarcasm

beckybecky
you don't seem to understand point sources and the 1/r law at all.could you explain why you don't understand the 1/r law of radiation.

Huh? Where on earth have managed to leap to that conclusion? I never said anything contradicting the inverse square law and, on the contrary, I do know about it. Quite well as it happens, I work in telecoms and we covered this all at College when I did my HND as well as at school when I did electronics and physics, not to mention during my apprenticeship at Nortel when we covered radio systems.

beckybecky
do you know what a point source is?

do you understand 1/r ?

Er, yes.... Don't patronise me when you can't even spell tumour.

edit on 24/1/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)

you said the power level is tiny.what is tiny?
#
define tiny.

the sunlight is on your hand is tiny but when you put through a magnifying glass it is concentrated is it not?
do you deny that?

its called a point source.when you were small did you not burn ants with a magnifying glass?

that same sunlight burns.

why do say is wi-fi is different?

you claim to understand point sources but you seem incapable of understanding voulme and power density and concentration.why?

you claim you can hold a light bulb to your head and not get cancer.for how long?

did i say lightbulbs give you cancer.did i?

i said holding wi-fi to your head gives you cancer.

because it is a point source.do you understand due to 1/r law the strength goes up sharply but you said you understand point sources but you then you seem to be flummoxed by the connection of point sources and concentration.

have you ever plotted 1/r.the Strenght goes up on y axis and decreases sharply along the distance axis or it goes up SHARPLY as you go towards the power axis=the y axis.but you seem to deny the lays of electromagnetism.

webedoomed
reply to post by babybunnies

 

It may be the case that some people are using it as an excuse to skip out, but I think some people are genuinely disturbed by it.

There's a low percentage of people who are sickly from all sorts of things that the majority don't find much a bother.

Like fluorescent lighting, perfumes, or chlorine-treated pools.

Some people are simply more sensitive to various stressors. Genetic variation at play.

babybunnies
If wireless devices cause brain cancer in kids, there would be a worldwide pandemic.

...and in most cases it would take several years or even a couple of decades before it was large enough to cause issues and be diagnosed.

Lookie what I found!

Child Brain Cancer on the Rise
More Kids are getting Brain Cancer

Brain Tumors increased 39% in 3 decades:
Cancer.gov

edit on 23-1-2014 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)

I am a bit confused with your links and the point you wish to make with them as they are conflicting.

The first link claims childhood brain cancer and childhood leukaemia is on the rise by approx 1% a year for the last 20 years.

The second link claims that there is a disturbing rise in the reported incidence of childhood cancers and highlights childhood brain cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia amongst other childhood cancers. It makes these claims but offers no statistics on incidence of childhood cancers both past and present. And although the article is titled "More kids are getting brain cancer, why?" it actually does not address this question at all and talks about findings relating to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

On the page of the third link you posted, it actually claims that both childhood brain cancer and childhood leukaemia incidence rates have remained fairly stable since the mid 80's.

????

beckybecky
you said the power level is tiny.what is tiny?
#
define tiny.

As I said in a previous post, the amount of energy used in a typical WiFi router means you would have to sit next to one for a full year before being exposed to the same level of radiation from a mobile phone call lasting 20 minutes. That is tiny, defined.

beckybecky
the sunlight is on your hand is tiny but when you put through a magnifying glass it is concentrated is it not?
do you deny that?

Not at all, I don't believe I have disputed this in the slightest. Quite what focussed light has to do with this debate about WiFi is a mystery, mind you.

beckybecky
its called a point source.

Erm, I think you are confused again, Becky. In a magnifying glass, the actual "point source" of the light is the Sun - the magnifying glass just focusses that light into a finite area - something else entirely.

beckybecky
when you were small did you not burn ants with a magnifying glass?

Of course - I still do it now

beckybecky
that same sunlight burns.

Yes, but it has bog all to do with this topic. The reason it burns is because you're focussing energy that would otherwise have been spread over a wide area into a very finite space.

beckybecky
why do say is wi-fi is different?

Because it quite clearly is! According to the inverse square law, the power will decrease the further you get away from the router. How is that related, in any way shape or form, to focussing sunlight with a magnifying glass?

beckybecky
you claim to understand point sources but you seem incapable of understanding voulme and power density and concentration.why?

Quite ironic, considering you're equating burning ants with a magnifying glass as an analogy for WiFi......

beckybecky
you claim you can hold a light bulb to your head and not get cancer.for how long?

did i say lightbulbs give you cancer.did i?

What you said was, and I quote:

a point source next to your head gives you tumers

I chose a lightbulb, as it is a "point source" and you claimed point sources give you cancer, which is such a ridiculous thing to say as pretty much anything can be a "point source", such as a lightbulb. So yes, you did say lighbulbs give you cancer.

beckybecky
i said holding wi-fi to your head gives you cancer.

No, you didn't. You quite clearly said "point sources", which can be a wide variety of things.

beckybecky
because it is a point source.do you understand due to 1/r law the strength goes up sharply but you said you understand point sources but you then you seem to be flummoxed by the connection of point sources and concentration.

I am not flummoxed by anything - If anyone is flummoxed, it is you Becky. From putting words into people's mouths, to getting confused over things you patronise others about, to simply being incapable of spelling a simple word....

beckybecky
have you ever plotted 1/r.the Strenght goes up on y axis and decreases sharply along the distance axis or it goes up SHARPLY as you go towards the power axis=the y axis.but you seem to deny the lays of electromagnetism.

Show me where I denied any of that, Becky. Show me.

reply to post by mrkeen


I'm not protecting it. Just throwing out a view that seems to be the way things are.

I already have issues that the system would likely label as a "disorder" if I was dumb enough to position myself to be tested long-term, and actually found someone who could call out my personas for what they are. Not likely to happen!

So it's the same as your reasoning. The ones who have sensitivities, and adapt by not participating (moving away, hiding) are at an advantage. The ones who have sensitivities that can't adapt die out. Just as it is.

So yea, overall I'm for increasing the stressors to thin out the herd. Let's see what kinda abilities pop out of it. If I weren't so challenged by the system, I wouldn't have realized the potential I have so far. They have provided me with the opportunity to grow as I see fit. I am grateful.