Some facts on Wifi

January 11th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Paul Matthews blogs:

In terms of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), the debate is actually around intensity; the evidence is clear that high strength EMFs – massively higher than signal strength – can be harmful to people. But what is high and low, and can prolonged exposure to very low levels of EMFs also be harmful?

This low vs high intensity question is the same in many other radiation contexts as well. For example, exposure to sunlight in moderation is not considered harmful, however too much of it can cause burning and lead to skin cancer. So where does wifi sit on that spectrum?

Let’s first consider just how strong a signal we’re talking about here. Jonathan Brewer’s Inside Telecommunications blog has a great summary of EMFs and electromagnetic radiation, including the following table (Hat tip @shiftygeek):

 
Type of Radiation
Power Level
  Potential to be Harmful (heat can be felt) 200W/kg
  Maximum Permitted in New Zealand 4.00W/kg
  Highest Radiation Cell Phones (Avg of 20) 1.43W/kg
  50 Watt Cell Phone Transmitter at 10m distance 0.365W/kg
  Lowest Radiation Cell Phones (Avg of 20) 0.32W/kg
  Wi-Fi Device Average between 0.5 and 2m distance 0.0057W/kg

Have a look at those numbers. WiFi is at one 35,000th of the level where it has the potential to be harmful.

The Te Horo School should be ashamed for giving in to hysteria. Matthew concludes:

In short, the science is clear and credible. Following very comprehensive and ongoing research,there is absolutely no evidence of a link between exposure to wifi transmission and adverse health effects. It would appear to make no more sense banning wifi in schools as banning electricity, and neither is supported by the evidence.

Maybe the school should also ban the dangerous dihydrogen monooxide.

 

Tags:

58 Responses to “Some facts on Wifi”

  1. nark (13 comments) says:

    As a general rule, the only radiation to be worried about is ultraviolet and higher frequencies – the right-hand side of this chart:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg

    Anything to the left of UV will make you uncomfortably warm before it becomes a health hazard.

    Radio, including wi-fi of course, is at the opposite end of that spectrum, far below the visible light range. The output of those wi-fi transmitters is tiny in comparison to the hundreds of watts of visible light being transmitted throughout your building.

    1.5 billion wifi chipsets were shipped in 2012 and 2.1 billion will ship in 2013. This figure is expected to grow to 3.7 billion in 2017.

    If there is a health issue there will be enough people impacted that the adverse result will surface. Might it be something that appears only over a long time? That is possible. But it’s been since 1984 that people have been putting radios next to their ear for hours each week. That’s a long time, even if not 1,000 years*.

    Should you sleep with you cell phone under your pillow when an alternative is available? Of, course not. If you have evidence that it is giving you a headache should you turn it off? Sure.

    *Nassim Taleb “avoids fruit that does not have an ancient Greek or Hebrew name and drinks no liquid that has not been in existence for at least 1,000 years.”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. SGA (523 comments) says:

    nark at 11:46 am

    Should you sleep with you cell phone under your pillow when an alternative is available? Of, course not. If you have evidence that it is giving you a headache should you turn it off? Sure.

    Sleeping with a book under my pillow was giving me a headache until I bought a thicker pillow.

    *Nassim Taleb “avoids fruit that does not have an ancient Greek or Hebrew name and drinks no liquid that has not been in existence for at least 1,000 years.”

    Geesh, brandy that old must cost a fortune.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mudrunner (82 comments) says:

    Te Horo is a very small community and most of the members of the board undoubtedly knew the family well.

    Sad that this has been all about the irrational thrashing about by probably a guilt ridden parent seeking to assign blame to some one else and was able to transfer some of that guilt to the school board.

    Unfortunately it seems probable that the cancer was going to happen anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thor42 (773 comments) says:

    Excellent article!
    I didn’t know that WiFi radiation is much lower intensity than cellphone radiation (which itself is very low). I wouldn’t mind betting that most people (as I did) would assume that WiFi would be of *higher* intensity.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ross Nixon (599 comments) says:

    I have seen several studies that show a deleterious effect of WiFi on plants.
    Now I’m not saying that this can necessarily affect people as well, but it can’t be dismissed out-of-hand.
    It may be possible that the frequency, not just the power of the radiation, is an important factor.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. NK (916 comments) says:

    Excellent! Let’s use the warmists’ terminology in the future: “The science is settled”.

    Every time some idiot complains about WiFi just say that.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    Ross,

    The frequency of the radiation is an important factor. However the frequency of the radiation only becomes harmful (generally) at or above ultraviolet frequencies. This was sorted all back at least a century ago by Rayliegh and others who wondered why hot dark bodies didn’t glow in the dark (the riddle is called the Ultraviolet Catastrophe). The solution by Max Planck is that there is a threshold of electromagentic frequency required for any given substance before it can become electronically excited (ie an electron in an atom jumps to an orbital with a higher energy level). Below that level, all you will get is heating effects (ie the atom spins or moves around faster).

    So the idea that Wifi is a direct cause of deleterious effects can be dismissed out of hand. This is what’s known in the field as “Settled Science”.

    Indirect causes are something else and generally requires a provable mechanism and effects that show up statistically. The fact that with the widespread availability of wifi there have been no visible deleterious effects in the population that can be attributed to the takeup of wifi demonstrates that it probably has no deleterious effects.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,668 comments) says:

    Ross Nixon

    Which just goes to show that sandal wearing, smelly vegetarians should neither use cell phones nor wifi laptops.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gravedodger (1,426 comments) says:

    Anybody have an assessment of the EMF levels around and under high voltage electricity lines and pylons for contrast?
    When the SI Hydro lakes were built to Fighting Bay for Cooks Straight Cable, a Pylon was planted in an old mans homestead gardens near The Ferry Bridge on the Hanmer highway.
    He has since died, dunno what from, he would be around 140 years old now.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Ross Nixon (584 comments) says:
    January 11th, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    I have seen several studies that show a deleterious effect of WiFi on plants.

    I suspect what you have actually seen is not “several studies” but rather several reports in various media about a “study” undertaken by 15 year old school children from Denmark.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/dec/17/wi-fi-wireless-routers-plants

    I have some doubts about their ability to truly control the environment in their experiment and to account for their results.

    Most likely heat from the router dried out the cress.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Maggy Wassilieff (180 comments) says:

    @ Ross Nixon….. References please…..
    In the meantime, another link that discusses some of the Danish reports….

    http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/danish-school-experiment-with-wifi-routers-and-garden-cress-good-example-of-bad-science/

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    Anybody have an assessment of the EMF levels around and under high voltage electricity lines and pylons for contrast?

    EMF isn’t quite the term to use. The field levels are too weak to be a direct inducement of cancer at the ground level. It has been hypothesized that at the surface of the high voltage power lines, the field can ionize atmospheric molecules which are then present in sufficient concentrations at the ground level beneath the power lines to cause cancer. This has only been hypothesized – it’s not been shown to happen and the effect doesn’t show up in the statistics.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. tvb (3,941 comments) says:

    A distraught father whose son gets a brain tumour. He searched for answers. Comes up with him sleeping with a cellphone under a pillow. Thinks it is radio waves so he gets some material off the net that backs up his claims. Says wifi at the school is the problem. Wages a highly emotional campaign against wifi and succeeds. Meanwhile the kids in school miss out on having wifi. The school’s leadership should have taken a stronger stance against this campaign. But they folded and the kids suffer. I find this sort of tripe gets waged by people of reasonable intelligence but have not much education. The Green Party is full of these sorts of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Reid (15,540 comments) says:

    A distraught father whose son gets a brain tumour. He searched for answers.

    Naive people who don’t understand how science works. Humans who are living in a more saturated EMP environment than at any other time in history. Cancer cells which have a 10-15 year incubation period, longer than the EMP has been around. Naive people forgetting what happens to “science” when vast vested interests are involved in an industry, like the tobacco industry.

    Naive people wage a highly emotional campaign against defence of wifi and succeed, with the help of peudo science that pretends enough data is currently available and the said usefulness of the technology.

    I find this sort of tripe gets waged by people of reasonable intelligence but have not much education.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Reid (14,648 comments) says:
    January 11th, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    Humans who are living in a more saturated EMP environment than at any other time in history.

    Be specific about your definitions and support this claim with evidence. For instance, an EMP generally refers to an electromagnetic pulse which is a short burst of electromagnetic energy which doesn’t seem to relate much to the topic at hand.

    If you are contending that the strength of electric of magnetic fields in our everyday lives are stronger than ever before then support that with evidence. For instance there are plenty of devices that have been around a lot longer that create EMFs and are relatively stronger than common modern devices like WiFi.

    On the other hand if you are contending it is the frequency of the radiation that may be damaging then it would seem you need to invent some new physics to explain how that would happen.

    …peudo science that pretends enough data is currently available…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. jonno1 (76 comments) says:

    @Reid 1.25pm: I replied to a similar comment that you made on 9 January, but you may not have seen it. FWIW I’ve repeated it below. Note that EMFs have been exhaustively studied for about 35 years. TBF, my comments address ELF (extremely low frequency) fields, but as others have commented, Wi-Fi and cell phone frequencies are still in the non-ionising range.

    Also @gravedodger 12.51pm: p6 in the link below answers your question. Magnetic field exposure is at most 1% (2 microtesla) of the guideline safe figure directly beneath a transmission line. However, some people prefer to avoid close proximity altogether. I had a tenant leave a flat of mine after 6 weeks because they were concerned about the 110 kV Transpower lines nearby (that’s the reason they gave anyway) – fair enough, their choice.

    “jonno1 (65 comments) says:
    January 10th, 2014 at 12:33 am

    @Reid 10.27am. It’s interesting that you should conflate smoking, EMFs and AGW. The first two involve the science of epidemiology, the latter politics (or, if you prefer, ideology).

    The definitive work on the link between smoking and lung cancer was first postulated by Sir Richard Doll in 1950. Based on his observations, many controlled epidemiological studies were undertaken, and by 1955 the evidence was overwhelming – a pretty short time frame. That’s not to say that the tobacco industry didn’t resist those findings, but the evidence was unequivocal.

    Next, EMFs. This came to the fore when epidemiologists Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper published a paper in 1979 suggesting that “wire codes” (essentially the size of nearby power line conductors) correlated with the incidence of childhood leukaemia. This study was carried out in Colorado, raising the question of whether correlation indicated causation, and spawned many hundreds of controlled epidemiological studies (still ongoing). The end result was that the hypothesised link could not be proven to exist. Some studies show a slight positive correlation, but these are not statistically significant. Clearly there were confounding factors in the original study, possibly industrial pollution of some kind, or maybe just clusters.

    I had the privilege of meeting Nancy Wertheimer at an EMF conference in the US in the late 80s, by which time she had acknowledged that the study was flawed. It was, however, extremely important in terms of demonstrating the importance of scientific method, which essentially is to attempt to disprove an hypothesis.

    So, of these two hypotheses, one was proven and one was disproven. The reason why EMF studies continue today is simply because “you cannot prove a negative”, ie there will always be an element of doubt remaining.

    On the subject of AGW, regrettably its proponents have painted themselves into a corner, but lack the integrity to gracefully acknowledge their error. This is the antithesis of science.

    Back to EMFs, or non-ionising radiation. The official NZ position is summarised for the layman in this booklet: http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/electric-magnetic-fields-your-health.pdf. This summary is in turn based on the findings of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which can be researched via Google but gets a bit technical.”

    I hope this helps.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Reid (15,540 comments) says:

    jonno how can you conclude anything when the data isn’t there. And it isn’t because of the simple fact humans have never been saturated the way they currently are being by both cellphones and wifi and cancer cells take a long time to manifest themselves, longer than the total time we’ve been exposed to such.

    So scientifically, no-one honest can conclude anything, and comparing the current saturation levels to what was experience by those living close to high-tension wires isn’t comparable both in nature and in sample size and that, I would have thought, is obvious.

    That’s my only point and I’ve never said it’s unsafe, I’ve only said we don’t know yet. And pretending we can know is fallacious.

    And re: the tobacco, AGW and EMF, they’re all analogous, simply because my analogy is solely based on the scale of the vested interests and massive vested interests exist in all three of those. And we’ve seen vested interests operate in two of those, why wouldn’t you expect them to operate in this?

    So no, it didn’t help much mate because you obviously didn’t get what I’ve been saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    He has since died

    Gravedodger

    same thing happened to my grandmother, hopefully someone will get off their arse and sort out this death thing, its been going on for a while now and the government doesn’t seem to be taking it seriously
    .

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ross Nixon (599 comments) says:

    34 Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Biological Effects + Damage From Wi-Fi
    http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/papers-finding-adverse-biological-effects-damage-to-health-from-wi-fi/

    But take the above with a degree of scepticism, as many apparently sound scientific studies are later overturned.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Ross
    complied by campaign group WiFi In Schools. The papers listed ar – See more at: http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/papers-finding-adverse-biological-effects-damage-to-health-from-wi-fi/#sthash.KIQTR1wt.dpuf

    At least be honest with yourself, cherry picked bullshit in an attempt to prove their case- no science, compiled for gullible wet brains

    Bridge for sale at the bottom of Curran Street

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. NK (916 comments) says:

    But take the above with a degree of scepticism, as many apparently sound scientific studies are later overturned.

    Especially those done by computer models and which use hockey sticks to illustrate their science models.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Ross Nixon (585 comments) says:
    January 11th, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    34 Scientific Studies Showing Adverse Biological Effects + Damage From Wi-Fi

    I should acknowledge that you are indeed referring to studies not conducted by school children. :)

    Wi-Fi and health: review of current status of research.

    Abstract

    This review summarizes the current state of research on possible health effects of Wi-Fi (a commercial name for IEEE 802.11-compliant wireless networking). In response to public concerns about health effects of Wi-Fi and wireless networks and calls by government agencies for research on possible health and safety issues with the technology, a considerable amount of technology-specific research has been completed. A series of high quality engineering studies have provided a good, but not complete, understanding of the levels of radiofrequency (RF) exposure to individuals from Wi-Fi. The limited number of technology-specific bioeffects studies done to date are very mixed in terms of quality and outcome. Unequivocally, the RF exposures from Wi-Fi and wireless networks are far below U.S. and international exposure limits for RF energy. While several studies report biological effects due to Wi-Fi-type exposures, technical limitations prevent drawing conclusions from them about possible health risks of the technology. The review concludes with suggestions for future research on the topic.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24162060

    Although I didn’t check all of the papers referenced it seems that they generally “raise questions” more than prove anything. While it’s entirely possible that the current paradigm could be reversed with further study and deeper insights into the mechanism of action that might cause harm, is it reasonable to base policy on something simply because it may prove harmful at some point in the future?

    The problem with epidemiology is trying to infer causality from correlations. This is especially difficult when it is generally the case that a web of different factors can lead to a particular effect. You will often find studies finding a “link” between, for instance, certain proteins and health effects like cancer. They then develop drugs which target these proteins only to find that clinical trials fail or that overall efficacy is limited because the association they found was not necessarily what they thought it was or not the whole picture. So the fact that people can undertake a study, find an possible “link”, and then conclude that it “raises questions” is not necessarily as remarkable as it might seem.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. bc (1,251 comments) says:

    And yet DPF has dozens (maybe even hundreds) of posts that say parents know best when it comes to the schooling of their children.

    [Predictably followed up with the usual replies about leftie teachers, nasty unions etc]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Gulag1917 (425 comments) says:

    “Have a look at those numbers. WiFi is at one 35,000th of the level where it has the potential to be harmful.”
    Not if you are a hypochondriac.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    NK (751 comments) says:
    January 11th, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    But take the above with a degree of scepticism, as many apparently sound scientific studies are later overturned.

    Especially those done by computer models and which use hockey sticks to illustrate their science models.

    You are aware that “models” are inherent in science right? What do you think general relativity is? It’s not reality, but a model of reality. It’s the best model we have for gravity but it is likely just a simplistic model as much as Newtonian mechanics is merely an approximation of relativity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    What a nasty little, left wing, failed, unionist teacher bc really is!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    Minus must be at the beach today.

    Hope he/she doesn’t drown! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. bc (1,251 comments) says:

    Ha ha – nice one Johnboy!

    Don’t forget I’m also a progressive (whatever that is?), commie, socialist (aww – brings back memories of redbaiter), and probably something about homos as well (just for you Harriet).

    Have I left anything out??

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bc (1,251 comments) says:

    But I draw the line at sheep “bothering” johnboy!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Steve (North Shore) (4,323 comments) says:

    @ gravedodger 12.51.

    My grandfather died in 1951, before I was born. This shit must have been going on back then.
    The Government is hiding something from us

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Maggy Wassilieff (180 comments) says:

    As a good wife I asked the husband for his opinion on whether we should be bothered about all this Wifi bombarding us. He was quite happy to show me the progress he is making with his death-ray machine out in the back shack. Seemingly, 35 years of radio transmitting from the shack hasn’t fried his brain cells. “”Why dear one””, he commented, ” I can see that ypu’re worried about those poor plants that didn’t grow alongside the Danish routers, but rest assured, because the Yanks were transmitting to their submarines at ELFs and VLFs for years and no damage to plants occurred…. in fact, some trees grew faster, probably from the soil-heating effect.”

    So I checked out Project Sanguine and looked over the PDF summary of the ecological effects of ELFs (at 2.6MW) and feel I don’t have to switch off the electrickery just yet.
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5410

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Left Right and Centre (2,393 comments) says:

    Father claimed it was wi-fi AND sleeping with cellphone under pillow.

    What it looks like……looks like is just another very sad story of a child dying of a terminal illness that nothing could have prevented.

    The world will not stop turning because the folks at Te Horo axe wi-fi for a while.

    More interesting would be the difference in learning or otherwise effects of classroom wi-fi availability on the children as human beings.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    Never knock sheepish sex unless you’ve tried it bc! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. lolitasbrother (346 comments) says:

    yes we know the joke about dihydrogen oxide Farrar but do you know the joke about the Conservative party 5%

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. lolitasbrother (346 comments) says:

    yes we know the joke about dihydrogen oxide Farrar but do you know the joke about the Conservative party 5%, or one man in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Tom Barker (92 comments) says:

    You’ve got to love this selective respect for scientific evidence. 99.5% of climate scientists agree that global warming is a real and immediate threat. Yet people on this site prefer the views of a deranged British aristocrat with no scientific training whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RightNow (6,338 comments) says:

    Wow, just when I though nobody could be more of a joke than lolitasbrother along comes Tom Barker.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Tom Barker (92 comments) says:

    And do you also have any intelligent response to my comment?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    Good grief: lolitasbrother has a “C” cup for the 7:13 and a “D” Cup for the 7:15! :)

    Tom has a snitch on the upper classes….. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RightNow (6,338 comments) says:

    Yes Tom: it’s bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Tom Barker (92 comments) says:

    Are you saying it’s bullshit that 99.5% of climate scientists agree on global warming? You’re wrong. Or are you saying that Lord Monckton is not demented? I’d like to see you prove it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Johnboy (13,386 comments) says:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/scientists-abandon-global-warming-lie/11383

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. NK (916 comments) says:

    Tom, I’m with the 99.5% mate. Only fools would believe otherwise.

    After all, Global Warming has been around for 40 million years.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RightNow (6,338 comments) says:

    “Are you saying it’s bullshit that 99.5% of climate scientists agree on global warming?”
    Yes, absolute bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    Are you saying it’s bullshit that 99.5% of climate scientists agree on global warming?

    It doesn’t help to convince other people that a particular scientific idea is correct when you quote discredited studies.

    The study that was quoted by everyone, including Barrack Obama, by Cook et al claimed that there was 97% consensus. A claim that was proven to be bunk by the first basic analysis. With many authors of papers that Cook claimed supported the idea calling him a liar. It is obvious to any sensible observer that Cook manufactured his study to fake the appearance of a consensus (which may or may not exist).

    The thing is, if you believe that BS statistic then your opinion on the actual science is completely worthless.

    Even if anthro-climate-change is real, people like you are still wrong for trumpeting bullshit stats. Next time you might as well say “120% of climate scientists agree…”, it would be just as valid.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Maggy Wassilieff (180 comments) says:

    Here’s the Cook et al paper…

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/

    Note that 66.4% of the papers were not used in the part of the study that comes up with the 97% consensus value.

    There’s other references out there, confirming, challenging this paper.
    Read the original folks and see if its all hunky dory yourself……….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Kimble (3,921 comments) says:
    January 11th, 2014 at 10:41 pm

    It doesn’t help to convince other people that a particular scientific idea is correct when you quote discredited studies.

    The study that was quoted by everyone, including Barrack Obama, by Cook et al claimed that there was 97% consensus. A claim that was proven to be bunk by the first basic analysis. With many authors of papers that Cook claimed supported the idea calling him a liar. It is obvious to any sensible observer that Cook manufactured his study to fake the appearance of a consensus (which may or may not exist).

    There have been other surveys reaching similar conclusions. For instance:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

    Also the main conclusions of the IPCC are not, to my knowledge, disputed by any reputable national or international scientific body with expertise in the relevant area. Naomi Oreskes gives a decent overview of the “consensus”:

    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=PXJIqCkb7YIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA65&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Doesn’t mean it is necessarily correct, but it would seem to at least exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Maggy Wassilieff (180 comments) says:

    And here’s some more critique of the Cook consensus paper…… (I think Oreskes work was much earlier and used a smaller data set)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.

    This seems misleading. Science generally doesn’t involve every scientist and every paper published attempting to prove or disprove the biggest and most challenging questions facing any particular scientific discipline. Scientists generally don’t set out to prove or disprove global warming per se. They aren’t bloggers. What they generally seek to do is address specific narrowly defined questions. For instance, one paper might consider changes in arctic sea ice. Another might consider glacier retreat. Another might consider changing sea levels. Another might consider historic climate change in any number of areas. Each line of inquiry provides a thread of evidence and through the gathering of a large number of these threads you might be able to build an overall picture of what is happening. But each strand of evidence by itself would never be enough to make any large conclusions about so it would be inappropriate to suggest as much in the paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Yoza (1,348 comments) says:

    The reality is nobody actually knows the effect the differing electromagnetic radioactive frequencies will have on the human anatomy. The human brain is too sophisticated for any scientist to accurately speculate on whether or not the effect WIFI communication between various devices is damaging or not. Unfortunately, we are locked in a paradigm which demands the effects of WIFI communication, like microwave mobile phone communication, is deemed an acceptable commercial risk. ( We have WIFI at our house and I use a mobile phone along with my partner and oldest daughter.)

    If people are concerned about the effect WIFI may have on the developing brains of young children then the task of installing a Local Area Network isn’t a huge expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Scott Chris (5,678 comments) says:

    Excerpt from Cook et all 2013 abstract:

    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming

    lol at watsupduck’s ‘rebuttal’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    And how was this survey used?

    Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief.

    So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest.

    97 percent of scientists. (Not true)

    97 percent of scientists say we need to act. (Not true)

    97 percent of scientists say we need to act to stop global warming causing more disasters. (Not true)

    The study was published to deliberately spread mis-information. How much effort does the author make to correct misinterpretations like this? None. In fact, he endorses the misinterpretation.

    What is the real proportion of scientists that say that man caused MOST of the warming since 1950 and that AGW is dangerous? Cook et al dont help answer that at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. UglyTruth (3,060 comments) says:

    WiFi is at one 35,000th of the level where it has the potential to be harmful.

    .. based on the thermal effects of electromagnetic radiation. What is relevant here are the athermal effects of EMR, not the thermal effects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. UglyTruth (3,060 comments) says:

    Maybe the school should also ban the dangerous dihydrogen monooxide.

    Dihydrogen monoxide is toxic to aquatic life. Water typically contains oxygen an minerals essential for life, DHMO does not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. slightlyrighty (2,448 comments) says:

    It has shades of the autism caused by immunisation debate. Which was also a lie, but one with deadly consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. jcuk (505 comments) says:

    I thought COOK studied the transit of venus not global warming?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. MH (558 comments) says:

    and for his intransigent “views” he got clubbed to death not too far from where Key goes on golfing holidays. You can see the obvious connection or do I have to explain it?
    Who wants to live under a pylon or telecom tower?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. jcuk (505 comments) says:

    Whatever you are talking about MH I suspect that you are judging a person of past centuries by todays standards which is an error.
    Apart from the constant noise I wouldn’t object the living under a pylon but I believe there is a danger of electrocusion so I don’t think it is permited.
    But people want to be afraid so enjoy your fear iof pylons and telecom towers … it is probably pretty harmless on the scale of things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.