Re: Wireless dislike
From: Mary Baker, Solid Communications (marysolid-communications.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
I believe Tom was speaking about the process, not the conclusion, when he said, 
  “That is absolutely the case with wireless signals.” Absolutely it is the 
case that the signals have been and continued to be subjected to studies.
There have been a number of studies done, and even the American Cancer Society 
agrees that radio waves present negligible risks. The WHO classifies wifi as a 
2b for possible carcinogens, right up there with pickles and coffee.  Granted, 
that’s different than “known to be safe”.
Segue: I find it annoying when people demand to “know” that something is 
“safe”. (I hear this a lot, as I’m writing a book about GMO’s, so I get a 
little impatient with the insistence, my apologies.) For instance, no matter 
how hard you try or how much money you spend doing it, you can’t prove to me or 
anyone else that you are a 100% safe driver, or that your home is 100% 
child-proof or pet-proof, or that your refrigerator has 0% pathogens in it. 
Like Tom said, “safe” is a theoretically unprovable concept. It’s like finding 
the last number.
On another note, wifi is a necessary component of most home businesses. I 
absolutely need to be able to roam the house and do webcam or Skype interviews, 
be able to use the printer without being cabled into it, be able to use more 
than one laptop at a time, etc. In my last community, I really appreciated that 
nearly half of the residents work from home—it meant there were always people 
around during the day who would drop what they were doing to help others, 
participate in work parties, or help set up for an event. On the few occasions 
my house wifi was out, I was able to go to the community house or pool to work. 
Wifi is also appreciated by elderly residents who use services like phone 
Skype, or local hospital and doctor apps that allow them to check their 
appointments and medical records, or arrange for a ride.
If a community is not going to provide wifi, that decision should be clarified 
to new residents before they decide to purchase or move in, along with the 
rationale, as the decision affects more than just an important amenity—it also 
reflects the attitude of the community towards issues like health and digital 
connectivity. A decision one way or another will, I believe, have a tangible 
impact on demographics.

Mary

From: Jenny Guy 
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 8:44 AM
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org 
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Wireless dislike

I think I understand how science works. My point is that I don't see this
as a resolved issue; you can find many reputable scientists and their data
on both sides of this issue (unlike something like global warming). So I'm
surprised to see people treating it as a done deal, like we're sure this is
not a problem. Again, not an issue I'm tackling in my life at this point --
I'm sending this via wifi. Obviously this isn't the venue to try to resolve
it, but I am pretty surprised to see flat statements that it's known to be
safe.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Tom Smyth <tom [at] sassafras.coop> wrote:

> > No definitive proof that they are harmful is not the same as proof that
> they are safe
>
> I think this is a misunderstanding of how science works. Proving that
> something is safe is actually theoretically impossible. The best we can do
> is try repeatedly to find harm, and after trying hard enough, we conclude
> that it is safe. That is absolutely the case with wireless signals.

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.