Are Internet Router Waves Dangerous?

[Dackzy]

6 minutes ago, skywake said:

SNIP

dude 

1. I did not say wifi is bad or dangerous at all
2. I am always around wifi, never a night without wifi
3. My family had the problems not me and they did not know about what I did.

I am just saying what happened and what some people suggested that I should do, nothing more.

Yes you tend to hear the worst things the most.

[skywake]

@Dackzy

By saying that "moving the WiFi helped resolve these problems" the implication is that WiFi is bad. You're giving oxygen to this nonsense. Nonsense that has built up to the point where I've seen products advertised on prime time TV in my country claiming to "remove the bad WiFi" from your phone. They're selling snake oil and people like you are enabling them.

 

The second point I'd make is about whether or not you actually know these two things are correlated. You said yourself that you are around WiFi all the time and don't have any issues. That you ran this experiment on your family without them knowing. But how did you then verify the results? How do you know that their period of so-called symptoms that prompted this action from you wasn't going to resolve itself anyways? How did you ask them if they felt better without telling them what you did? How do we know that there's not some other person who did the same, got a different result and is not commenting on this thread?

 

And as I said before, I inadvertently ran the same experiment. I didn't get the same result.

[Dackzy]

2 minutes ago, skywake said:

SNIP

My mom and dad had said many times that they had gotten worse sleep for a while now, so I decided to ask around and then I came acros a doctor and a friend I know who said this, I tried it and my parrents said the next day that first time in a while they had gotten better sleep and by the end of the week they said that in that week they had slept really well. again this is just what worked for my family.

I moved the wifi router 20m away from where it was and turned down the signal. 

I have no idea how this worked, because I don't study this, I have had one year of high level biology and that is it and only because the school I go to force it on you..

 

Yes this is far from scientific study, I know and I am kinda ashamed, because that's what I do on my school every day and there is really no way I can test it again sadly.

[skywake]

@Dackzy

 

The scientific method:

1. Observation: What did you see? When you turned off the WiFi your family got a good night sleep

2. Hypothesis: Why do you think that happened? ... well you think the WiFi causes people to lose sleep

3. Prediction: Make a prediction. If WiFi is near where you sleep you won't sleep as well

4. Results: When you ran the experiment what happened? ... You have no issues with WiFi, I have an AP in my room with no issues

 

Your initial theory? That's step 1. You get to step 3 & 4 and you churn through it over and over again. Build up some statistics. As it is we have a sample size of 3. You, your parents and me. We're currently sitting at around 33% of the experiments supporting the hypothesis. It's not looking good for the theory.

[Dackzy]

1 minute ago, skywake said:

SNIP

Yep. I want to test this out with like 10k people who has the same as my parents had and see what the outcome is, but sadly I can't

[Guest]

7 hours ago, manikyath said:

do i need to reiterate once more that my dad doesnt even know what a wifi access point looks like, let alone actually knows when i tuck one in somewhere out of sight?

you never mentioned that.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, skywake said:

Those symptoms are the common catch-all quackery symptoms put up by all this sort of garbage. Headaches, loss of sleep, that sort of thing. Things that everyone gets and can be the result of any number of things. Headaches can be because you're not drinking enough water or because you're having too much caffeine. Maybe you have a bit of mild-flu coming on. If you're not sleeping it might be because you're a bit stressed out. You might have something on your mind. There might be too many lights where you sleep or too much noise. There are a lot of causes for these sort of symptoms.

 

As an individual I can only speak anecdotally. But given that's what passes for good science on the internet? Well let me lay it out like this. Sometimes I do get headaches, sometimes I lose sleep. Everyone does. Recently I put an access point in the room that I sleep in so I could get better coverage across the house. It's been about a couple of weeks since I've done this. In those two weeks? No headaches and I've slept well. Except for one night. And guess what, on that night I didn't sleep at home

 

So therefore I conclude that WiFi is good for you. WiFi cures headaches and helps you sleep!

yea lets go with that!

[manikyath]

7 hours ago, skywake said:

@Dackzy

 

The scientific method:

1. Observation: What did you see? When you turned off the WiFi your family got a good night sleep

2. Hypothesis: Why do you think that happened? ... well you think the WiFi causes people to lose sleep

3. Prediction: Make a prediction. If WiFi is near where you sleep you won't sleep as well

4. Results: When you ran the experiment what happened? ... You have no issues with WiFi, I have an AP in my room with no issues

 

Your initial theory? That's step 1. You get to step 3 & 4 and you churn through it over and over again. Build up some statistics. As it is we have a sample size of 3. You, your parents and me. We're currently sitting at around 33% of the experiments supporting the hypothesis. It's not looking good for the theory.

1: observaton, you are correct

2: well.. i guess its the wifi

3: lets try this again a few more times without the other residents knwowing

4: results: basicly conclusively repeatable.

 

i have mentioned countless times before that it does not necessarily affect everyone there's people who gladly sleep with noise around them, there's people who need a dead silent room.

 

add 3 more people to that sample size (me excluded - to keep placebo out of it) who are pretty much "reproducable with great accuracy" affected by it.

 

also, doctors tell you to keep wifi out your bedroom, they say this for a reason. its dickwheats like you why we cant have conclusive testing being done, because everyone who puts worrying results on the table gets written off as a tinfoil hat freak. i'm so done with people coming up with the stupidest of reasons why i'm wrong about basicly being able to control my dad's sleep with the on/off switch on my access point.

 

to reiterate my main point i entered this thread with:

i have taken my conclusions, if you notice the same problems, it could be a good start to try putting that wifi somewhere further away from your bedroom. it's helped for me, both my parents, and my sister. (and seemingmy for @Dackzy as well)

you exclaiming your great life tips without knowing anything about our lives isnt helping, it's only throwing more senseless agruing into a thread that was doomed to go down the drain anyways because people like you are too shallow minded to see that there's people genuinely affected by this.

 

wanna see a great mindfuck? try sleeping in your bed backwards today, (as in, head at the foot end) you will not sleep as well as other nights, that's those tinfoil hat freak "earth waves" for you  (there's actually a rather scientific explanation that goes with this one...)

[skywake]

@manikyath

See the problem is the people running these experiments are doing it on themselves. By agreeing to move their WiFi they have to believe it first. You find someone who is already having issues sleeping, headaches or some other innocuous thing and tell them that it's the WiFi. When they say it helped guess what? You've now selected for the placebo effect. What did you think the result was going to be?

 

Now if you wanted to actually do a study on this? Go ahead. You'd need at least around four hundred people with half of them being people who are supposedly WiFi sensitive. What you'd then do is split them into four groups all of which you'd tell you were doing a study on the effects of WiFi. The first group you'd tell the WiFi was off and you'd turn the WiFi off. The second group you'd tell the WiFi was on and you'd turn the WiFi on. Then you'd do the same again but this time lie to the participants. They'd all rate their sleep out of 10.

 

What I expect would happen? I reckon whether or not the WiFi was turned on would have zero impact. But there would be a difference based on whether or not they were told the WiFi was on independent of whether or not it actually was. And it would be observable in both groups but more pronounced in the WiFi sensitive group. If you can either run that study then go ahead. But until then what you're talking about is the placebo effect.

 

The last point I'd make is about your claim that "doctors tell you to keep WiFi out of your bedroom". Which doctors? I've never heard this. I do know that there is a general consensus that having lights of any kind in your sleeping areas is a bad idea. Specifically things like phones and tablets that shine a bright light directly into your eyes. But I've never heard this claim that WiFi is bad outside of infomercials for stickers that you put on the back of your phone. 

[skywake]

The problem with the methodology the snake oil enablers here are using:

 

First your selecting for people who had trouble sleeping:

A. Person comes upto them and mentions that they have trouble sleeping in passing

B. Person who did not have trouble sleeping did not -> excluded

 

Then your selecting for people who believe that WiFi could be the culprit:

A. Person who buys into this WiFi theory trys it

B. Person who does not doesn't bother -> excluded

 

Then you're selecting for people who said it had an impact:

A. People who said it helped? Well they're WiFi sensitive! Proof!

B. People who said it was no different? Well they're not, some people aren't -> excluded

 

You guys are selecting for the result you want. And when you get there the positive results aren't valid anymore. They're spoiled by the placebo effect for a start. They're also spoiled by the fact you selected for people who had trouble sleeping already. Like a government fixing an intersection that has had a lot of crashes in the last year. Patting themselves on the back when the next year crashes are down. Were they down or where they just high the year before? Are these people getting a better sleep because of WiFi or did they just happen to have a bad night sleep before?

 

You're not controlling for any of those variables

[manikyath]

3 hours ago, skywake said:

@manikyath

See the problem is the people running these experiments are doing it on themselves. By agreeing to move their WiFi they have to believe it first.

Not if they

1: dont even know what "the wifi" looks like

2: dont care where it is

3: most of my testing was done with a spare AP.

 

not everyone here is a 12 year old twatt that cant process an entire block of text without twisting words, and needs mommy's approval to plug something into the network.

 

Anyways, i'm done here, i have much more important things to do today, like installing a bunch of servers at work to keep a multinational running smoothly

 

You have clearly proven your reading comprehension is sub-par, and for god i hope you'll never end up in a job where details are important.

[U.Ho]

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

Not if they

1: dont even know what "the wifi" looks like

2: dont care where it is

3: most of my testing was done with a spare AP.

 

not everyone here is a 12 year old twatt that cant process an entire block of text without twisting words, and needs mommy's approval to plug something into the network.

 

Anyways, i'm done here, i have much more important things to do today, like installing a bunch of servers at work to keep a multinational running smoothly

 

You have clearly proven your reading comprehension is sub-par, and for god i hope you'll never end up in a job where details are important.

1. That doesn't matter. It's you who interprets the results, not he who "doesn't know what wifi looks like".

2. Same as before, doesn't matter at all since you're the one making the claim.

3. Once again, do not see why it would count as more reliable results since you did it on a spare AP.

 

It's good that you have stuff to do other than this, since this isn't looking like the next big thing anyways...

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, U.Ho said:

1. That doesn't matter. It's you who interprets the results, not he who "doesn't know what wifi looks like".

2. Same as before, doesn't matter at all since you're the one making the claim.

3. Once again, do not see why it would count as more reliable results since you did it on a spare AP.

 

It's good that you have stuff to do other than this, since this isn't looking like the next big thing anyways...

1: i interpret their quite conclusive sleeping pattern changes. I'll reiterate once more since you seem to be unable to scroll up: " i can basicly make my dad unable to sleep by switching on an access point, and the moment i turn it off he's back to sleeping good, with pretty great accuracy."

3: because the main AP didnt move (and for good measure was on a differebt channel) as in, for them nothibg changed.

4: please dont tell me you made an alt called "u ho" to come insult me, its not gonna work.

[skywake]

2 hours ago, manikyath said:

not everyone here is a 12 year old twatt that cant process an entire block of text without twisting words, and needs mommy's approval to plug something into the network.

Charming

 

Anyways, there have been a lot of studies as to the effects of mobile phone radiation. The same frequencies that WiFi runs on although WiFi is significantly lower powered. No conclusions. The WHO puts WiFi and mobile phone radiation in the same class as Coffee and Tea for carcinogenic substances. In other words, probably not. There is also this particular conclusion that you can find on the WHO page about EMF sensitivity:

 

Quote

A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions.

 

The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.

 

It has been suggested that symptoms experienced by some EHS individuals might arise from environmental factors unrelated to EMF. Examples may include “flicker” from fluorescent lights, glare and other visual problems with VDUs, and poor ergonomic design of computer workstations. Other factors that may play a role include poor indoor air quality or stress in the workplace or living environment.

 

There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.

Does anymore need to be said on the topic? No. I don't think so. You can keep rattling on if you want though. I'm not saying it's not a real thing, it is very real. I'm just saying that the WiFi itself probably isn't the issue here. If anything the issue is people such as yourself spreading this sort of nonsense.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, skywake said:

The problem with the methodology the snake oil enablers here are using:

 

First your selecting for people who had trouble sleeping:

A. Person comes upto them and mentions that they have trouble sleeping in passing

B. Person who did not have trouble sleeping did not -> excluded

 

Then your selecting for people who believe that WiFi could be the culprit:

A. Person who buys into this WiFi theory trys it

B. Person who does not doesn't bother -> excluded

 

Then you're selecting for people who said it had an impact:

A. People who said it helped? Well they're WiFi sensitive! Proof!

B. People who said it was no different? Well they're not, some people aren't -> excluded

 

You guys are selecting for the result you want. And when you get there the positive results aren't valid anymore. They're spoiled by the placebo effect for a start. They're also spoiled by the fact you selected for people who had trouble sleeping already. Like a government fixing an intersection that has had a lot of crashes in the last year. Patting themselves on the back when the next year crashes are down. Were they down or where they just high the year before? Are these people getting a better sleep because of WiFi or did they just happen to have a bad night sleep before?

 

You're not controlling for any of those variables

lol get rekt @manikyath

Edited August 16, 2016 by Guest
He's back at it again

[manikyath]

1 hour ago, Lord_Doge said:

lol get rekt @manikyath

Except he's completely beside the point i'm making, but since both of you seem to be more stubborn than the cat6 cables i'm plugging in today i didnt want to bother.

 

But if you insist:

- exactly, this whole thing started with me saying "IF you have these ussues, its worth the try." moving your AP is free, a doctor isnt.

- because the people who "dont buy into it" also are the people who "dont try" or dont have issues in the first place. (No need to move the AP if you dont have issues.

- once again, you're right, but with the wrobg intentions: just like some people are more sensitive to sound or light when sleeping, i dont see why some cant be more sensitive to other types of wavelengths.

 

You're the person here thats twisting the results, pointing out faults in the testing methodology you havent even bother to ask about before taking conclusions, repeating the word placebo without even seeming to know what it means...

 

And instead of shouting "get rekt" like a college dorm chimp, i'm gonna finish this off with a saying i've mentioned before, you most likely missed, but you really should think about:

"technology doesnt need another asbestus"

[Guest]

3 hours ago, manikyath said:

Except he's completely beside the point i'm making, but since both of you seem to be more stubborn than the cat6 cables i'm plugging in today i didnt want to bother.

 

But if you insist:

- exactly, this whole thing started with me saying "IF you have these ussues, its worth the try." moving your AP is free, a doctor isnt.

- because the people who "dont buy into it" also are the people who "dont try" or dont have issues in the first place. (No need to move the AP if you dont have issues.

- once again, you're right, but with the wrobg intentions: just like some people are more sensitive to sound or light when sleeping, i dont see why some cant be more sensitive to other types of wavelengths.

 

You're the person here thats twisting the results, pointing out faults in the testing methodology you havent even bother to ask about before taking conclusions, repeating the word placebo without even seeming to know what it means...

 

And instead of shouting "get rekt" like a college dorm chimp, i'm gonna finish this off with a saying i've mentioned before, you most likely missed, but you really should think about:

"technology doesnt need another asbestus"

lol do you have nothing better to do than to argue on the internet? i thought you had a very important job?

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Lord_Doge said:

lol do you have nothing better to do than to argue on the internet? i thought you had a very important job?

with very long lunchbreaks if the software team in india screws up

[skywake]

13 hours ago, manikyath said:

exactly, this whole thing started with me saying "IF you have these ussues, its worth the try." moving your AP is free, a doctor isnt. because the people who "dont buy into it" also are the people who "dont try" or dont have issues in the first place. (No need to move the AP if you dont have issues.

This is how they sell snake oil. You come in with some health issue and they say "we can solve this, just take this tonic!". Then when the symptoms inevitably pass as they would have without the cure? "It's a miracle!". It's how they sell homeopathy, the power of prayer and all sorts of things. And frankly, your point about a doctor not being free? It makes me uneasy. Because all of this sort of quackery starts innocently enough but before long you're telling people they don't need to see a health care professional about their very real conditions.

 

Could WiFi phobias go down that road? Well maybe not. They are exploiting people with products already but I'm not sure it'll be the next homeopathy. But that kind of thinking does open you up to all sorts of garbage. And that other stuff can be dangerous. So I'm going to be one of the people who opposes any non-science based medicine wherever it appears. If that hurts your feelings? Then tough. I don't care.

 

Quote

once again, you're right, but with the wrobg intentions: just like some people are more sensitive to sound or light when sleeping, i dont see why some cant be more sensitive to other types of wavelengths.

Except that we can detect light and sound with our eyes and ears. They've done double-blind tests on EMF sensitive people and they have been unable to detect radio waves. So you can say all you want that you can't see how we wouldn't be able to be sensitive to those parts of the EM spectrum. But that experiment has been run. And we can't detect it. End of discussion.

[skywake]

See here's the thing @manikyath. There's no way you can be wrong the way you're going about it. If we stick to your methodology there's no way result that could come up to change your mind. If you run this experiment on someone and you don't get the result you want? Well then they're just not WiFi sensitive. You can't be wrong. It's not falsifiable.

 

On the other hand there would be a very easy way for me to change my mind. What you need is to run a test where you get WiFi sensitive folks in a room. A whole pile of them, one at a time. You run a double blind test where neither the subject nor the experimenter know whether the WiFi is on or not. Then you ask them if they can feel the effects of the WiFi. If they're only right around 50% of the time? Then it's bullshit. If they're closer to 100%? Then damn, this is actually a thing. Run the experiment again to see if you can repeat the results. This could be a thing!

 

But they've run that test..... nothing, it's not a thing. So now the only leg you have to stand on is the idea that there's a big WiFi lobby holding this back. Some vast conspiracy of science. That somehow they know this is a thing and they're holding it back from us. Despite the fact that anyone could run that test if they wanted. But go ahead, get out your tinfoil hat. I won't stop you. Just don't hurt other people in the process.

[manikyath]

2 hours ago, skywake said:

See here's the thing @manikyath. There's no way you can be wrong the way you're going about it. If we stick to your methodology there's no way result that could come up to change your mind. If you run this experiment on someone and you don't get the result you want? Well then they're just not WiFi sensitive. You can't be wrong. It's not falsifiable.

 

On the other hand there would be a very easy way for me to change my mind. What you need is to run a test where you get WiFi sensitive folks in a room. A whole pile of them, one at a time. You run a double blind test where neither the subject nor the experimenter know whether the WiFi is on or not. Then you ask them if they can feel the effects of the WiFi. If they're only right around 50% of the time? Then it's bullshit. If they're closer to 100%? Then damn, this is actually a thing. Run the experiment again to see if you can repeat the results. This could be a thing!

 

But they've run that test..... nothing, it's not a thing. So now the only leg you have to stand on is the idea that there's a big WiFi lobby holding this back. Some vast conspiracy of science. That somehow they know this is a thing and they're holding it back from us. Despite the fact that anyone could run that test if they wanted. But go ahead, get out your tinfoil hat. I won't stop you. Just don't hurt other people in the process.

So.. I'm not gonna drag on the wifi thing anymore, but you missed one key thing about quackery: i'm not selling anything. This is a very price-efficiency minded community. If someone comes in asking about an old power supply being iffy, chances are its ded and needs to be replaced, but generally the first suggestion is to wiggle the connectors in case theres a bad contact.

 

It rarely helps, but in the cases it does it just saved someone some decent cash, and thats what this community is about: google will get you the answer that works for everyone, this forum will figure out your very own efficient way.

 

Lets say this thread didnt turn into you splurging up anger, and OP quoted me confirming at least one of the symptoms (lets say trouble falling asleep) i'd recommend to just try it, to reiterate: its free to do so.

If it helps, good for him, placebo or not he just saved a doctor bill.

If it doesnt help, we'd most likely go down other paths that could result in sleeplessness first:

- blacking out the room as much as possible (its not a 'placebo' your body is just not made to sleep with light sources around)

- removing sources of sound: turn off computers in the room, unplug whizzy power adapters, etc.

- refreshing your bedsheets (if you cant confirm this one you're a sad individual)

 

After which, we'd go into the ways that directly cost money. It's not that visiting a doctor is the wrong solution, its that its the more expensive solution for something that has a pretty big chance is in your own hands.

 

I'm not sure how doctors work in your side of the world, but if o go to my doctor and his conclusion is i have a vitamin c shortage he doesnt prescribe me pills, he suggests me to drink a glass of orange juice in the morning.

[skywake]

@manikyath

A few points I'd like to make here just to clear things up for anyone who is reading this other than you. Because I don't think I'll change your mind and my intention in posting in this thread was never to change your mind. It was to make sure that if someone googles this page that your views were not unchallenged.

 

1. I didn't say you were selling anything. I said you were enabling the people who are.

2. I never said that lights, electrical noise and so on could not disrupt sleep. Quite the opposite, I said that they do. Direct quote:

 

On 15/08/2016 at 0:19 PM, skywake said:

Now are there kinds of tech that do have impacts on my sleep? Well sure. Lights of any kind will keep me awake which is why I try to avoid having lights going. I tape over lights or disable them in the settings. When I haven't done that it's very hard to sleep. Another one is electrical noise, specifically coil whine. Fans are tolerable to a point but coil whine is unbearable if you want to get to sleep whatever the volume. Obviously alarms of any kind are also pretty obnoxious, by design. So I try to avoid those things. But WiFi? ... never had an issue.

 

3. The thing that disturbs me the most about your position? It's the fact that you're saying people should do this rather than go see a doctor. Because doctors cost money. Now you can compare your position to telling someone to wiggle the cables on a dead PSU if you want. But what you're saying is nonsense here and it's also people's health we're talking about. If you screw up your computer? That's one thing. But if you mess with someone's physical and/or mental health? That's entirely another. If it's the choice between a quack and a doctor? Please, go see a doctor if it's that bad.

 

4. I never personally insulted you or called you names. At no point. I didn't attack your character, say you were a 12 year old or anything similar. I've only attacked your point of view and the means by which you've come to them. And I think the only reason you're worked up so much is because I've made some good points.

[manikyath]

40 minutes ago, skywake said:

@manikyath

A few points I'd like to make here just to clear things up for anyone who is reading this other than you. Because I don't think I'll change your mind and my intention in posting in this thread was never to change your mind. It was to make sure that if someone googles this page that your views were not unchallenged.

 

1. I didn't say you were selling anything. I said you were enabling the people who are.

2. I never said that lights, electrical noise and so on could not disrupt sleep. Quite the opposite, I said that they do. Direct quote:

 

 

3. The thing that disturbs me the most about your position? It's the fact that you're saying people should do this rather than go see a doctor. Because doctors cost money. Now you can compare your position to telling someone to wiggle the cables on a dead PSU if you want. But what you're saying is nonsense here and it's also people's health we're talking about. If you screw up your computer? That's one thing. But if you mess with someone's physical and/or mental health? That's entirely another. If it's the choice between a quack and a doctor? Please, go see a doctor if it's that bad.

 

4. I never personally insulted you or called you names. At no point. I didn't attack your character, say you were a 12 year old or anything similar. I've only attacked your point of view and the means by which you've come to them. And I think the only reason you're worked up so much is because I've made some good points.

1: have i ever told OP to buy anything?

2: what i'm saying is that wifi could gladly be part of that. (It doesnt need to be visible or audible for your body to notice its presence, especially during sleep)

3: "oh i have a cough i should see a doctor" or "oh i have a cough i'll just drink some tea and if it doesnt go away i'll go see my doctor."

4: good points that have no correlation to the points i'm making because all you did was point out flaws in a methodology which i didnt even describe to you, twist my words, and in no way even considered the vareous points where i expressed why i'm so cautious.

5: you completely missed the part where i explain the whole "try what's free first"

6: if you are so inclined that for something to be true it has to affect everyone:

- i'm less sensitive to lights during sleep than most, even my potted plant thats basicly strobing its water level trough leds all night doesnt bother me.

- i CANNOT sleep without some form of sound, wether it is cars in the distance, a computer purring at idle, or a tv playing bob ross. I need some form of sound to fall asleep.

[skywake]

Quite frankly, I think I've made the case well enough. I look forward to schooling someone the next time this topic inevitably pops up

[juretrn]

the wavelength of 2.4 GHz EM waves is 12.5 cm (c/f=lambda). That has no effect on atoms or electrons, it's too long, and doesn't have enough energy to knock electrons out of their orbitals. Dangerous EM starts with high X-ray frequencies, somewhere around 1 keV. WiFi signals' waves have somewhere around 1*10^-6 eV of energy. 

How that is supposed to be dangerous is beyond me.