

What should you say to a parent scared of Wi-Fi? - CaptainMorgan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/21/parent-scared-wifi

======
dazzawazza
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
This situation can hopefully be improved by educating parents about reality.

~~~
bsaunder
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.

------
danw
_"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
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
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
Then one DS or Wii per child should do wonders.

------
StrawberryFrog
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?

~~~
thaumaturgy
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
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
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
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?

~~~
scott_s
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.

------
cool-RR
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."

~~~
hegemonicon
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.

See here:
[http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/09/wifi_and_radiat...](http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/09/wifi_and_radiation.php)

~~~
cool-RR
Some people say that, some people say the opposite. How can I know which are
right?

~~~
gloob
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.

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

------
gaius
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...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6365363/Social-
services-to-take-baby-from-teenager-deemed-too-stupid-to-marry.html)

This law should be applied in this case.

