SCO honcho: It's time to ban free Wi-Fi

What a pile of mental

What a pile of mental masturbation. End of story.

Not only local control is

Not only local control is under consideration. Health risk fears from WiFi in schools is sweeping across Europe.

In the UK, and at prime time on BBC1, their flagship serious documentary programme PANORAMA recently (May 21 8.30) raised the issue of health risks from information carrying radiowaves. More specifically it focused on WiFi being installed in schools where children are compulsorily exposed to levels far in excess of spending hours in the main beam of a transmitting mast or cell tower.

Full acknowledgement was made that it was still well below the ICNIRP international, but industry set, guidelines, and the power levels required for thermal heating of the body with the known damage that causes.
Unusually in this debate this programme went a further step and examined whether there was any cause for concern at these lower than thermal (the only safety) levels. Distinguished researchers and scientists from Austria (Oberfeld) Sweden (Johansson) and the USA (Lai) were wheeled on and though some admitted there was science illustrating both sides of the debate, all agreed there were serious effects already sufficiently well established to properly mean a proportionate precautionary response.

In Austria not only were masts banned from proximity to schools but the mini-masts, which is effectively what WiFi is, were banned from use inside schools as threatening children’s health. More damningly still, chief UK government scientific advisor on this issue, author of the MTHR safety report 2000 on mobile phones, and head of the UK Health Protection Agency Sir William Stewart, with a careful choice of words, judiciously considered it was "timely" for a delay in the rush for WiFi while investigations were made.

Future health possibilities were a major concern for him, for children have special vulnerabilities due to skull size and thickness, not fully formed immune systems and anticipating much higher life-long exposures due to starting earlier and spending much more time in more highly charged electrospheres than previous generations.

All in all this programme, only the tip of the iceberg of a blizzard of complaints and criticisms of variable scientific provenance,(such as anti-mast groups) deserves a measured and level-headed response worthy of the issue and the millions now tied up in the industry. It cannot be brushed aside, and especially not by the near hysterical OTT mouthings on blog spaces such as that of Badscience knocker Dr Ben Goldacre. Perusal of internet sites such as his and others with their alarming array of ranting and raving irrationality is guaranteed to send any neutrally objective observer into the arms of the ‘precautioners’. This Panorama programme is already arousing interest from US news organisations and must be met with a rational measured non-emotional response as it goes international.

Now is the time solid research should be brought forward for examination, in the past, the cellphone industry at least has claimed “there are thousands of studies” showing microwave technology is safe (see Dr George Carlo) but this was exposed as foolish wishful thinking and only damaged credibility. So without boastfulness, but as is now required, a responsible technology using industry concerned about legitimate questioning on safety grounds, at the very least a public relations and PR disaster potentially, must produce its evidence that there is no cause for concern.

As the support charity ES-UK for those who describe themselves as specially sensitive to the health effects of these wonderfully useful new communications we have no wish to make unjustified or unwarranted mere assertions about health risks. We would enjoy the opportunity to examine any science and present it for consideration by our sufferers. It might disabuse them of some of their beliefs and fears.

Further, we would welcome a more considered response to their ‘personal stories’ or case studies. When these are presented to supposedly scientific commentators, like the columnist mentioned above among others, they are ignored. This is distressing and painful, devaluing the individual's real life experience.

So often is the word ‘only’ inserted in front of ‘anecdotal’ evidence, sight is lost of the fact it is still evidence. It occupies a special place in scientific reasoning right at the commencement of an inquiry. First problems are raised, and questions become formulated out of these anomalous situations demanding explanation, and which won’t go away. It might be the genius of Newton asking “But why does the apple fall downwards?” or Maxwell pursuing where his mathematical questions were leading him and showing the modern possibilities for harnessing electromagnetism for human endeavours. It can also be Brian Stein with the personal experience of fourteen trouble-free years of mobile phone use before his world changed for ever. It ill behoves so-called scientific commentators like Goldacre to ignore this primary, first level of science, there are facts here to be reckoned with, put under their noses, no good scientist worthy of the name ignores any evidence, not properly first person anecdotal, nor when we have 400 cases, 50 published on our website. In Sweden their 400 'anecdotal' cases, also published on our site, as 'Black and White' inspired official recognition of EHS as a 'functional impairment'.

What has the industry to be afraid of? We are confident of its harmlessness say many in it, so now is the time for it to meet the questions raised by Panorama head on. Argue the science or suffer the consequences of a rising tide of health objectors while out marketing, plus the ignominy of recklessly endangering children's health.
Rod www.es-uk.org.uk

Free public wireless

Free public wireless internet used to attract consumers and win customers.

The "religious fanatics" as

The "religious fanatics" as the previous person called them, are strangely selective about which parts of the constitution they would enforce. They're adamant about the importance of the second amendment, which is, at best, ambiguous about the right to bear arms and don't seem to care much about the first amendment, which states very clearly we have the right to freedom of expression, even if we don't like the results of that expression (such as porn).

That's just a small part of the dubious logic and lack of understanding on their part about what the U.S. is about. In this case, they're misusing the constitution to fight against things that have the *potential* to create problems they don't like. So as the other person said, we should ban convenience stores. Or reading glasses or, for that matter, hands, all of which allow people to do things that this group abhors.

The anti-sex mentality came

The anti-sex mentality came from the Puritans. Unfortunately, everyone seems to think that seeing pornography makes you a pervert later on in life but seeing endless movies about shooting somebody is OK. For me, pornography is OK as long as it does not physically hurt anyone or does not involve anyone underage.

In his fear of homosexulity my father left porn magazines with easy access when I reached puberty. I looked at them again and again and I wanked off so much that it worried me sometimes - I thought there was something wrong with me. But now I'm glad because it only made my dick really big and I have been appreciating and desiring women; and have been a good lover of them all my life.

I don't know what it is with

I don't know what it is with religious fanatics. They want to ban everything that can be porn related. How about convenient stores while we're at it since they sell Playboys. Stuff like this makes it hard for wifi and wireless Internet to be implemented into a citywide scale.

http://highspeed-internet-provider.com

I'm English I use wifi &

I'm English
I use wifi & will be really p*ssed off if yet more madness descends in the form of "control legislation" because of yet another fear
In my humble opinion penises don't kill people - Guns do, as our media has recently shown us - Yet Again!!!
Porn doesn't kill people either, nor does wifi
So, an explanation is due
Why not ban guns/bombs/grenades & all other fear-making devices BEFORE Wifi, Huh?
In England this is known as "Getting your priorities right!!"
You'll be telling me next that I don't know why you insist on the right to bear arms
Wrong - It was to keep the English control freaks [Who will happily use your fear to control the whole world] at bay, or have you forgotten?
Get over the fear, guys, It's not the internet, in it's many guises you have to be afraid of - It's dying prematurely!
{By being shot, bombed, having your legs blown off etc....by some control freak, English, home grown or otherwise)

The American priorities can

The American priorities can be summarized by the line from that old dog, Zardoz: "The gun is good, the penis is evil.".

> porn is bad! gun is

> porn is bad! gun is good!

So what's wrong with that?