|Re: Wireless dislike||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|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.
- Re: Internet Service [was Wireless dislike], (continued)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.