Pages

Get wired. For the kiddies.

Spotted at Counting Cats, European 'leaders' suggest mobile phones and other wireless technologies to be the next boogyman that must be faced on behalf of the kiddies.

There is a long standing theory that the electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices cause cancer and other such nasties. A question was even raised in Parliament about possible restrictions to such devices until further research can be done. I know this because it was directly after the recent debate on firearms laws which I watched with avid interest. However this theory is nothing more than tin foil hattery.

I love wireless technology. From the technology that allows me to change channel from the sofa, to the technology that allows me to write this blog post in the bath, I love them all. Unfortunately there are many out there who believe technology to be the spawn of the devil and will oppose it by any means, usually with some environmental campaign or something to do with protecting the children.

'For the kiddies' is not the cry of the rational mind who wants to do something to help other human beings in need. It is the cry of twisted and selfish people who have an agenda they wish to push and know that it is difficult for most people to question the safety of children as nothing less than the holy grail.

A Council of Europe committee examined evidence that the technologies have "potentially harmful" effects on humans, and concluded that immediate action was required to protect children.

Must we take action against absolutely anything that may be 'potentially harmful' to children? No, we simply cannot. Life would come to a screeching halt. Like I said, these people don't really care about children, they are just using them as an excuse to forward their own hobby horses.
In a report, the committee said it was crucial to avoid repeating the mistakes made when public health officials were slow to recognise the dangers of asbestos, tobacco smoking and lead in petrol.

Indeed? Slow to recognise these 'dangers' were they?

*Lead in petrol: This particular scare story also began before there was any evidence to suggest it was harmful. Acute exposure to lead from ingestion can cause weakness, anemia and damage to the brain. The dangers of lead piping for water was identified as early as Roman times, but lead with it's many applications has also been used in paint on children's toys, cosmetics and cooking implements.

Once identified as a danger, it then came to pass that all lead must be dangerous, and therefore banned. This lead to the widespread campaign to ban lead in petrol.

Lead in petrol does not escape into the atmosphere as a pollutant, but drops to the ground as lead bromide powder.

Never the less, lead was eventually banned in petrol. It would cost an extra £4.8 billion per year to consumers, raise the price of an average car by £600 and cost oil companies £70 billion worth of new investment.

*Asbestos: Much the same story as lead. The discovery was made that asbestos fibres, when breathed in to the lungs cause cancer.

Asbestos is another widely used substance with many applications from brake linings to oven gloves to many building applications. Once again, the premise was made that all asbestos is dangerous, which is untrue.

Of the most common types in use, two, know as Blue and Brown asbestos have long, sharp fibres that get lodged in the lungs and surrounding tissue and build up over time.

Another, white asbestos, is a magnesium silicate, closely related to talcum powder. These fibres are soft, silky and curved and they are easily broken down by the acids in the human lungs.

The frightened banning of all forms of asbestos, even the harmless ones that have untold uses in building applications and fire prevention, has also cost billions to industry.

*Smoking: I won't go there apart from this. We all know smoking is harmful to health. No one has ever 'died' of passive smoking and now we start to believe in rubbish such as third hand smoke.

I don't think public health officials were slow to act on these things. On the contrary, I think they jumped on the relevant band wagons very quickly and did untold damage as a result. The same is looking possible here.

The report also highlighted the potential health risks of cordless telephones and baby monitors, which rely on similar technology and are widely used in British homes.
Fears have been raised that electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless devices can cause cancers and affect the developing brain.

Note the words, 'Potential risk' and 'Fears have been raised'. I could raise fears that there is a potential risk from tomatoes. My fears would be backed by roughly the same amount of science as the fears quoted here.

The findings were seized on by campaigners who oppose the spread of wireless devices.

Really? People who already don't like wireless technology, now have something to point to and say, "See!".
The committee concluded that member states should:

• Set thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves of the type emitted by mobile phones;

How? They have no science to even tell them what the thresholds should be. Should they then do what the scientists who worked out units of alcohol per day did? Pull it out of their arses.

• Introduce clear labelling on products indicating the presence of electromagnetic fields and any health risks associated with use;


Really. Again, no science so how can they say what the health risks are. Will the labels say, 'could cause' and 'potential'?

• Ban all mobile phones and wireless networks in classrooms and schools;

Just like that eh? Most schools now have wireless technology, it's fully integrated into the buildings and the learning curriculum. This would probably cost a fortune. And how many teachers carry mobile phones in school? Would they need to be banned too?

• Run information campaigns aimed at children and young adults about the risks to human health;

More unnecessary cost but it would give the Central Office of Information something to do again. It's been a while since we've had those constant nannying adverts on the drive time radio hasn't it.

• Step up research on less-dangerous types of antennae and mobile phones.


Why not step up research on the types that you believe are harmful? Is it because you my find that they are actually harmless and you are talking out of your butts?

The conclusions contradict advice from the World Health Organisation and the Department of Health, which says exposure to electromagnetic fields poses little or no risk to human health.

Oh, would you lookit! Research does exist and it doesn't agree with you. I wonder how long it will take the WHO to change their minds on this though. I bet as soon as they find a way to make a bit of money out of it, 'new' research will appear.

Public health and telecommunication experts are divided on the dangers posed by mobile phones and other wireless devices.

Not really. Take a look at the article and you will see a fairly unanimous opinion that there is no risk what so ever.

Not in the comments though. The tin foil hat brigade are out in force.

*Info on lead, asbestos and smoking taken from 'Scared to Death' by Cristopher Booker and Richard North. Continuum Books 2007. Read it.

6 Comments:

bruteforceandignorance said...

Bucko said...

JuliaM said...

Macheath said...

Bucko said...

microdave said...