By Peter Cochrane, 29 May 2007 11:14
COMMENT
Written on the Ipswich to London train and dispatched to silicon.com via the City of Westminster free (for a trial period) wi-fi service
A long time ago when our planet was less developed than today, mankind invented the spear. And what an invention! Food on the hoof could be killed at a distance and the tribes prospered.
But then people reported getting headaches when they stood too close to the rush of air the spears created. Investigators could not prove there was no link so safety limits were decided upon. The problem diminished only to resurface year-on-year on a regular basis, until it gradually faded in the minds of those suffering headaches. Ultimately it was realised that a full stomach was a far bigger upside than the potential and unprovable link with headache manifestation.
Is there a skills shortage?
Tell us what you think of the IT workforce in silicon.com's 2007 Skills Survey.
Sometime later the bow and arrow was invented and overtook the spear as the primary killing tool. The net impact was vastly improved killing accuracy and range. Even more food and skins for clothing meant even bigger tribes and a better lifestyle for everyone.
But guess what? Those damn headaches came back. And of course, the rush of air was now considerably more - you could actually hear it. There just had to be a link!
A new team of investigators got on the job but couldn't prove any link at all. Of course the headache crew pointed out that the onus was on the investigators to prove there was no link, and of course they could not. So the old safety standards formulated for the spear were wheeled out and made even more stringent.
All over the planet archers were warned of the risks associated by the rush of air and special protective headgear was devised. Over time the headache problem came and went in regular cycles but ultimately the issue disappeared. Throughout all of this the media had a field day, running scare stories and fielding interviews with members of the public and archers themselves.
Fast forward to the modern world and we see a cyclic repetition of this story with the introduction of every new technology: gas and electricity for heat, light and appliances, wireless and television.
But perhaps the biggest ballyhoo is yet to come! Fears that mobile phones and wi-fi cook your brain will be nothing compared to future concerns over WiMax. And yet strangely no one has spotted that domestic microwave ovens with faulty doors have a 1,000-fold greater density of radiation than wi-fi - or, even worse, the potential damage to thumbs and fingers that suffer radiation from car keys and electronic devices such as digital cameras, MP3 players, laptops, PCs, PDAs, portable TVs and radios.
Speaking of which, recently I was interested to read about a woman who had designed radiation-proof headgear using fine wire gauze to ward off electronic signals which she believes are making her ill.
What a strange world we now live in. It is as if in the thousands of years since we invented the spear and the bow we have learned absolutely nothing. I sometimes wonder if the general levels of understanding and rationality have diminished since that time as we seem to be rushing headlong into witchcraft and superstition as a decision-making paradigm.
All our advances as a species are down to the assembly of a body of knowledge based upon repeatable experience and observation, experimentation, theory and proof. One of our key findings is that proving a negative is impossible and efforts in that direction often lead to mistakes and tragedy.
Perhaps the best and most cruel example of this is the medieval ducking stool. If the unfortunate victim died they were deemed innocent, and if they lived they were obviously guilty and were killed. This is the level of thinking now being applied to the feared mobile phone and wi-fi radiation risk.
To my mind it is truly remarkable that the witch hunters are back in this 21st century, applying 17th century ignorance and fear. Whatever happened to our education system: rational thought, proof by weight of numbers and experience, and the balance of potential risk and benefit?
We have had more than 60 years' experience with high power military and police radios at head height or close to the head. In the last 25 years more than two billion mobile phones have been deployed - all with no reported and confirmed ill-effects - but millions of lives have been saved. Those reporting hot ears and headaches should stop pressing the handset to their ear so hard! A small space or very light contact creates a far better experience.
Comments
There are 26 comments. Join the discussion
1. David Graham
Once again Peter, you should be applauded for your insight. The Panorama Experiment, was as insightful as the Philidelphia one!
2. Richard Barrington
Peter. not sure about the analogy
The spear was developed to kill people: and Cain while chasing his brother missed and killed a rabbit by mistake, so hunting was created, then patented and trademarked so lawyers evolved....yep even before women of negotiable virtue...
The sweeping generalisations in your arguments disappointed me...
Millions of lives have been saved, why, how??? You know proving a positive is almost as hard as proving a negative...
Faulty microwave doors analogy? tut tut..
20 years ago, no one would have questioned the environmental impacts of IT maybe it will take the same to prove- disprove the whywhyfi debate....some of us feel our industry should be responsible and sustainable therefore capable of reasoned debate
Does that make me witch-finder general, if so sign me up!
3. Peter Cochrane
David = Thank you - a bit of summer madness to counter the lunacy of people who need something irrelevant to worry about! Peter
4. Jeremy Wickins
@ Richard - The job description for the W-G post requires an unwavering belief in the existence of evil miasma from radio waves, and the ability to twist all evidence so that it fits this world-view. This means you are not in the frame for witchfinder-general, because you are clearly able to see both sides of the argument.
By the way, how about anecdotal evidence that incidence of headaches has dropped since the introduction of wireless networks...?
5. John
Whatever happened to our education system?
It got messed up. The view now is not to understand issues, but to find someone to blame for everything.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Followed by Blame, Blame and Blame.
6. Peter Cochrane
Richard = I always worry about people who start and argument or discussion by quoting a religious text as an authoritative source of information, and then go downhill from there.
Proving a +ve is easy. Just do a bit of research on road traffic accidents, medical emergencies, and of course modern warfare to discover how instant mobile communication change everything. Better still perhaps, visit the 2nd and 3rd world to witness first hand how the growth of trade and commerce has been stimulated so that people now have food and clothing.
Not sure what faulty microwave door analogy? tut, tut.. means! It isn’t an analogy at all! It is a fact. Domestic microwave ovens often leak far (through aging and abuse) more energy that put out by wifi or a mobile phone – and they are never checked for safety.
I can assure you industry is capable of reasonable debate, but I am not sure you are. Frankly, as someone responsible for Public Policy you disappoint me. But it seems symptomatic of our society that we put people in positions of responsibility that do not understand science, technology, and engineering. The net result you can see in the press every day.
Thanks for proving my obliquely made point so eloquently and convincingly! Peter
PS = Don't forget your black cloak and buckled shoes...
7. Antony Norris
Other analogies are, cigarette companies insisted there were no health risks involved in smoking, and even some were beneficial, even after scientific evidence showed it was bad for your health the cigarette companies commisioned research that supported their outlook, or was inconclusive. More recently the issue of global warming has had various governments saying either it didn't exist or playing down the consequences. There are many more examples that due to huge amounts of money and power balances the truth takes time to see the light of day.
How dare those people who stood up to the cigarette companies, or the scientists and 'green' organisations who petitioned governments, try and prove negatives. I'm certainly glad they did.
There has been research to show that certain radio emissions can have a detrimental effect on health, and the fact that over the last 10-20 years the incidence and density of devices that emit (constant) radio signals has increased exponentially certainly warrants much investigation. Even more so as there are, again, huge amounts of money involved.
As a discussion starter, what do you think would happen worldwide if it was conclusively proved high concentrations of radio frequency emitting devices caused cancer in 1% of the population over their life span without a shadow of a doubt...
The World Health Organisation state "Global cancer rates could increase by 50% by 2020", although I must point out, they do not attribute any of that to WiFi ;)
8. Troy Hosksion
Of course the other point that you cannot prove is whether our paranoia actually forces the manufactures to consider safety factors. If we accepted everything blindly, do you think that business would invest in the safety aspect?
9. Peter Cochrane
Jeremy = Nice one! Peter
10. Peter Cochrane
John = It sure got watered down. People are now getting degree qualifications for doing in 3 years what I did in less than my my first - second year, a five year course.
Understanding, reason, enquiry and debate have taken a real nose dive! Peter
11. Peter Cochrane
Anthony = Are you mixed up or what! You need to get your negatives and positives sorted out. None of your citations relate to wireless! After 100+ years of wireless there is no scientific or other evidence that is conclusive. Unlike smoking and global worming that are actually measurable.
The research that shows that certain radio emissions (whatever the heck that means!) can have a detrimental effect on health has either been disproved, is inconclusive, in error, or just plain bogus.
As a discussion starter, what do you think would happen worldwide if it was conclusively proved that high concentrations of….
…. enter anything you like at this point in the sentence – beer, bread, asprin ….the list is endless…
…..caused cancer in 1% of the population over their life span…
The same people who make such unwarranted claims go sunbathing where there is a definite and quantifiable risk of skin cancer caused by UV radiation.
Yep, there are far more dangerous forms of radiation around ….but switching the sun off aint an option!
Peter
12. Chris
A bit of a crazy analogy, but you get the point across well.
Its almost comical how quick people are to pin the blame on something because they've got nothing else to blame it on. You get a headache, you were just on your mobile phone. Therefore, mobile phone=headache.
I used to get headaches if I'd been talking on a fixed-line phone for too long. Was the phone giving off too much radiation?? Unlikely. Could it be the fact that my head was at a funny angle for half an hour while listening to a muffled voice that had travelled down hundreds of miles of copper wire? Hmmm, that sounds a bit more likely...
13. Simon
I sometimes wonder how TV has stayed out of the argument for so long ! Take my 'local' transmitter for example, it is rated at 500kW which is, I think, for each channel - so that's 2MW for the four main analogue channels, plus some more for C5, plus more for the digital multiplexes, and I think some more for the radio tranmissions.
OK, there aren't THAT many people living really close to Winter Hill, but applying the inverse square law, that 2MW will give the same signal strength at 10km (6.25miles) as a 200W transmitter at 100m.
Or if, like me, your nearest mobile mast is a kilometer away (at least) then the distance from the TV mast needs to be 100km or 62.5miles which is actually about how far away I am !
Of course, mobile masts don't pump out 200W (do they ?) so in fact I'm probably getting a higher signal strength from the TV mast 60 odd miles away than I am from the mobile mast down in the town.
OK, whilst TV does start down at 400 and something MHz, it does go nearly all the way up to the 900MHz GSM band (and the analogue channels at Winter Hill are on the higher channels).
A quick flick through a (rather old) listing shows that some TV transmitters use significantly more power - a full MW at Emley Moor and Crystal Palace for example. And how many people live in relatively close proximity to Crystal Palace ?
14. Richard Barrington
Peter now I can say tut tut!
The reason the ICT industry is under scrutiny by legislators the world over is because we have failed to consider the long term implications of our technologies... ( externialities )
This market failure leads to regulation WEEE, ROHS REACH spring to mind.
My role in Public Policy is to mitigate the risks while maximising the opportunity
I don't think my position in wanting to see balanced arguments backed up with evidence is unreasonable.
But perhaps as I'm not a scientist I have no right to voice or vote.....
15. David Dingley
Look to the USA and be afraid! Experience teaches us that much of what happens there, technologically and socially, eventually ends up here.
Irrationality of the kind Peter describes, that denies evidence based thinking, is rampant in the rise of the so-called "Christian right".
The "problem" with evidence based thinking and reasoning is that it forces you to contemplate the un-paletable and to then accept risk rather than simply finding somebody to blame or a myth to explain away hard questions. We need to re-double our efforts to make sure our education system does not (further) fall prey to minimising rationality in favour of politically correct and "faith" based teaching.
16. Nick Thomas
There is plenty of independent, not manufacturer funded research, that shows that RF radiation does cause biological damage. Take a look at the links page on the following site www.nichollslane.co.uk .
It is very easy to ridicule the safety concerns of others, after all the government has set a fine example by ignoring the findings of it’s own advisor. Other countries have set RF exposure limits 1000 times lower than our own, including China who are not known for their caring approach to their own population.
The evidence is there, it just a case of deciding who’s version you want to believe, Industry or the Independents. WiFi is liberating but would you line your house with asbestos so that you don’t need to bother with fire precautions?
17. Peter Cochrane
Richard = Everyone has a right to an opinion – the question is; how much weight does an opinion carry. Not all opinion is equal!
There you are in hospital waiting for life critical surgery. Do you ask the surgeon for an opinion or the porter and the cleaner.
Peter
18. Peter Cochrane
Chris = Sanity at last - you are a voice in the wilderness! Peter
19. Peter Cochrane
Simon = And then of course there are all the TV repeater stations, Radio, Local Radio, Police, Taxis, Fire, Ambulance, Public Mobile Radio, Radar, Aircraft, Ships, Satellite....etc etc. Clearly we are all being slowly cooked! Peter
20. Peter Cochrane
David = Nice one. And how right you are! Peter
21. Peter Cochrane
Nick = I looked at your scare site and I have read The Report of the Group (The Stewart Report) you cite. Nowhere in the report is any evidence presented that says there is a risk! In fact it is quite nebulous - it just advises caution in the absence of any real evidence. It is all 'might be' 'could be'....in fact it is quite a political/social document as opposed to a fully scientific or enigneering one.
Let me repaet - in the face of over 100years of exposure to wireless radiation from broadcast stations - and over 60 years exposure to backpacks and hand helds + over 40 years of public walkie talkies + 20 years of mobile phones - there hasn't been a jot of evidence found to make us worry.
Of course there are, and have been the stupid cases and accidents and huge RF powers. Believe me 100 - 500mW in your pocket or on your head aint going to cook you! Personally I am far more concerned about MRSA at a hospital that the cordless phone radiation!
Over 2Bn mobiles out there buzing away....no headaches...lots of lives saved...people fed and clothed...
On balance it looks positive.....
Peter
22. James H
I am an avid reader of your blog and agree with the majority of your observations. On this rather contentious debate I am drawn to one of your own comments under ‘Everyone has a right to an opinion’ where you cite the example of asking a porter for a medical opinion.
Similarly, would I ask an ex BAT engineer who has spent his life perfecting cigarette manufacture about the health hazards of smoking?
Likewise, would I ask an ex BT engineer who has spent his life perfecting telecoms equipment about the health hazards of RF exposure?
I first came across the likes of Roger Coghill and Dr Neil Cherry and their independent research, while working with the Independent Broadcasting Authority and it always seemed relatively straightforward to follow the accepted line to counter such opinions.
However, when my daughters were younger I was faced with the option of buying two houses – one close to power lines and one several roads away. Based on advice from the Health Protection Agency, the decision was easy. When the health of your children is potentially at risk it rather focuses the mind.
23. Dr Colin F Parsons
Any one who knows any science, will be aware of the very high levels of radio-frequency emissions coming from the Sun, especially during Sun Spot activity periods. Although normally blanketed out by our atmosphere, during the latter periods of activity, it does penetrate to the surface, at levels several orders of magnitude higher than all cell phone communication technolgy. Natural selection has given us a quite high resistance to such radiation levels, which was much higher in the geological past!
24. Peter Cochrane
Colin = Might it actually be the case that a little radiation does you good! Peter
25. Peter Cochrane
James = Quite right. BUT the power levels involved are massively different. Peter
26. anonymous
interesting that you mention 60 yrs of technology. the benchmarks for todays gadgets were based on the effects radar had on the operators. Maybe, Peter you should re-write your piece to include the fact that the bow and arrow and spear analogy were based on the way people swung clubs about their heads.
I have read your articles for years and this one is little more than poppycock. when will you people understand that it is the proliferation of these devices that affect -in one way or another our health. The problem is that the only people doing the research are dependent on finance from the very companies that produce them.