wongaBlog
1Nov/070

Wireless SD card at Photojojo

The wouldn't-give-me-a-job-but-are-cool-anyway Photojojo crew have just started selling a 2gb wifi SD card:

Here's how it works: You set up the card once with the included USB card reader, choose the photo sharing service of your choice, then slip the card in your camera. From then on, you never have to touch anything. Just take photos, and next time you're near your wireless network, Eye-fi will upload your photos to your online photo sharing service. Next time your computer's online, they'll download there, too!

They also promise "no antennas, no protrusions, no subscription fees, and no cables." And it's $99, which by today's mental exchange rate comes to £47. If it can actually do what they say, that's a good deal. I'm not so bothered about direct uploading to flickr, but wireless transfer to the computer at 802.11g speeds would be useful. My SLR only takes compactflash, not that I can afford an Eye-fi anyway, but they promise there's an adapter on the way...

31May/072

The Independent goes bugnutty over wi-fi

I didn't think I could be surprised by mainstream coverage of pseudoscience, then along came the Independent with "My war on electrosmog: Julia Stephenson sets out to clear the airwaves". The subtitle is:

How one woman fought back after being diagnosed by her naturopath with overexposure to Wi-Fi and mobile phone frequencies

and the whole thing similarly reads like an Onion article. To say it gets worse is an understatement. Here's a sample:

“Any imbalance in our electromagnetic field creates a disturbance in cell structure and function, which can lead to illness in sensitive individuals,” says London-based complementary health practitioner Dr Nicole de Canha.

Even cordless hands-free home telephones - such a boon to multitaskers, enabling one to patiently listen to friends and family for hours while cleaning cupboards, re-potting house plants and reorganising the CD collection - are now off-limits. Their electrical force-field is nearly as powerful as that of a mobile phone. Since I’m now chained to a phone on a lead, my cupboards are filthy and my friends are neglected. But at least I’m less radioactive.

Radioactive?! (also, why the filth and neglect?)

We also have magical 'holograph field' pendants, 'electro-dictatorships', homeopathic drops that may 'reduce the amount of radiation in the body' and liberal quoting of people who appear to have no training in electrical engineering or medicine, all wrapped up in a brightly coloured cape of paranoid scaremongering.

Anybody playing a pseudoscientific drinking game would die. Do you think it could be a spoof? It's almost too ridiculous. As ever, Bad Science has the best coverage.

22May/074

Panorama on Wi-fi

Written 'live', so not particularly coherent:

-----

Is anyone else watching Panorama? They're scaremongering over wifi radiation. The notorious Powerwatch just got a plug, and various permutations of 'electromagnetic smog' are turning up every couple of minutes, along with calling routers 'mini-masts'. It's pretty strong stuff - some guy just claimed it could cause chromosome damage, cancer etc. - but it's pretty appalling journalism, imho.

They're talking to many 'world-renowned experts' who are for some reason only available via the internet. They keep throwing out phrases like 'its safety is not yet proven'. Now they're talking to electrohypersensitives! This is mixing implausible but vaguely plausible health worries with very fringe ideas. There was just an odd look at a study into whether 'hypersensitives' can detect radiation gave 'inconclusive' results, which were skipped over in favour of the test subject's own personal feelings on the matter (she's installed silver foil all around her bedroom). I have sympathy with 'electrohypersensitives' in that they're clearly suffering, but from what I've read the symptoms - headaches, trouble sleeping etc.. - are generic problems that can be caused by many many things. And radiation exposure has been studied a lot. As has electrosensitivity, as people have had exactly the same fears since TV started broadcasting.

We've now got (made up) figures indicating over two million UK electrohypersensitives that - profound tone of voice - the government is ignoring. And now we're slagging off the World Health Organisation in favour of one UK investigator.

They have at least interviewed one of the (apparently) head scientists in charge of setting health limits, but poisoned the well by claiming he's a controversial figure as he testified on behalf of mobile phone companies who want to place masts in controversial areas. But the danger of such radiation is the very issue being discussed! He claims that the weight of scientific evidence is very much in favour of there being no danger, but the programme is heavily hinting that this is not to be believed. Why aren't they paying attention to the huge number of studies which show no problem? I thought this was meant to be a serious programme?

-----

I'm glad to see it's not me being sensitive: the Bad Science forums and now the front page are talking about it. They both want to know why the background of the head scientist was queried, but the Powerwatch guy was given a free ride. There's also a sensible rebuttal in today's Guardian.

14Dec/060

Wifi health risk paranoia

Thanks to Ed for pointing out a BBC article on the supposed health risks of wireless networks. Some guy goes on about their 'transmitting a microwave into your brain', then says:

"I see no evidence to suggest they could be harmful, but it takes an enormous amount of evidence to prove anything. I don't understand the medical side very well but I do understand the technical side - that of frequency and power. That's why I decided against installing a wireless network."

Isn't that a truly great quote? It's broken in so many ways! The inventive use of 'but'; the second sentence cancelling out what it's trying to suggest; the definitive non sequitur at the end. Inspired.

Others claim they immediately started having headaches after a wireless network was enabled. Every time this is mentioned it's difficult not to notice that knowledge of the wireless network came before the headaches, never the other way around. It's very much like people who claim to suffer from 'electrical sensitivity', but can't replicate it under controlled conditions. It all has an air of woo that has apparently turned up with with the introduction of many technologies, such as the original radio transmissions, or ozone from laser printers, or radiation from the first computers. It seems that once these things become commonplace the symptoms disappear.

After giving plenty of time to anecdotes, the article ends with a spokesman for the Health Protection Agency:

"In classrooms, a typical exposure is at 20 millionths of the guideline levels, whereas a mobile phone is 50% of guidelines," says Dr Michael Clark, science spokesman for the Health Protection Agency.

"Twenty minutes on a mobile phone call is equivalent to a year in that classroom. It's a completely different level of exposure. These are non-ionising radio waves. They're not X-rays, or gamma rays, or ultra violet. It's completely different in energy terms. I'm looking outside now and that's electromagnetic radiation - visible light. Radio energies are a million times less energetic than ultraviolet light."

The HPA finds no evidence of health risks, even for people using wifi-enabled laptops on their, um, laps. The World Health Organisation agrees. As the spokesman said, the average power density from using a mobile phone is much greater, but there seems to be no reasonable basis for thinking they cause harm either. As far as I can tell, even the evidence from the most extreme what-would-happen-if-we-glued-twenty-mobile-phones-to-a-baby's-head-for-a-month studies is inconclusive. I think it's fair to put this kind of low-frequency EMF radiation way down the scale of things to worry about.