Hazards of Wifi (Wifi之忧)

Dale Dougherty Dale Dougherty 03.21.2008

Our town, Sebastopol, had passed a resolution in November to permit a local Internet provider to provide public wireless access. This week, fourteen people showed up at a City Council meeting to make the claim that wireless caused health problems in general and to them specifically. These emotional pleas made the Council rescind its previous resolution.

So, a few people in this town strongly believe a wide variety of problems are caused by low frequency electromagnetic radiation (EMF). Some label the problem as “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS. Here's the Wikipedia entry on ”Electrical Sensitivity.” It reports that the World Health Organization found that “there is no scientific basis for the belief that EHS is caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.”

An online petition collected 235 “signatures” opposed to public Wifi in Sebastopol. The resolution reads: “The convenience of this technology does not warrant the increase in radiation and the potential risks to the health of our community.”

Here's a typical comment from someone signing the petition:

I have had health challenges, and my body cannot handle wifi…it gives me headaches and makes me very sick. I would be unable to go to the store, shop. I have enough problems being limited in my travels, it is outrageous that a place so environmentally conscious would create this in our/my hometown. In Europe they are much more advanced than us, and there wifi is not allowed in cities in the European commonwealth.

The person organizing the petition believes that people don't understand the harm that electromagnetic radiation and basic electricity is doing to them. On a local bulletin board, the opponents cite bioinitiative.org. One person writes:

We are urged us to switch from regular incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs, to save energy. However, there is a very good reason NOT to use CFL bulbs. They create electromagnetic frequencies proven to be extremely detrimental to human health.

Others write about living without electricity, except for the brief period they are using their computer to write messages in support of the petition.

One can see the fear spreading. Science should be a way to dispel such fears but it is clear with this group of people that science cannot be trusted. They put forth the idea that science should be able to prove that there is no harm and therefore eliminate any risk, and without such proof, we should not move forward. They use this logic to recommend a “precautionary” approach, which is their keyword for a “know-nothing, do-nothing” approach.

Yet another person writes:

Research is increasingly showing a correlation between adverse health symptoms and emf radiation exposure. Local and national governmental bodies in other western countries are paying attention and are beginning to legislate limits to exposure to wi-fi radiation by prohibiting it in certain locations. The trend towards increasing international concern is clear. Why are we so sanguine in this country?

Of course, the research is not specified. I can't find much about governments banning wifi except a college in Ontario and a European directive on radiation that threatens to eliminate MRI scans. The article ”Wifi Woo” in Junkscience.blogspot.com is interesting.

The effect of the resolution would have been to add a few wireless access points downtown. There are already several hundred in private homes and businesses in town. The same people who oppose public wifi still walk along streets and into buildings where they are invisibly bathing in wifi. Will this small group of people now demand that we outlaw wireless in public areas, just to accommodate their fears?

Now, I don't know that wireless (or electricity) is without harm. I can read the research that does exist and learn more – if I have the time and reason to do so. However, I do not like the smell of fear, and when people justify actions based on their own fears, I become suspicious that the concern is unwarranted. If it wasn't wifi, it would be flouride. Something is needed to affix to their anxiety. I can only be glad that they weren't alive when the city decided on electrification a century ago.

I plan to write an editorial for our local paper. I'd appreciate hearing from you on this issue if it has come up in your community.

我住的这个城市——Sebastopol——11月份曾经通过一项决议准许本地互联网供应商提供公众无线接入。这个星期有14个人到市议会上声称无线电信号会引发健康问题。这些情绪化的呼吁使市议会撤销了其先前的决议。

城里一些人强烈地认为很多问题都是由低频电磁辐射(EMF)引起的。有人把这个问题看作电磁过敏症(EHS)。Wikipedia上”Electrical Sensitivity“词条说世界卫生组织发现“没有科学依据支持EHS是由于电磁泄露引起的。”

一个在线请愿书搜集了235个“签名”来反对在Sebastopol安装公共Wifi。他们认为:“这项技术带来的便利性并没有理由增加辐射以及对我们的健康带来潜在威胁。”

下面是一个在请愿上签名的人的典型观点:

我健康出问题了,身体不能适应Wifi…..这东西让我头疼,让我病得很重。我连商店也不能去。我行动也有很多问题,在我们/我的家乡这样一个关爱环境的地方做这些简直无法接受。在欧洲人家做得就比我们好,在欧盟的城市里Wifi是不被允许的。

组织这次请愿的人认为人们并不了解电磁辐射以及电正在带给他们的伤害。在本地BBS上反对者引用了bioinitiative.org。 有人写道:

我们鼓励自己把普通灯泡换成节能灯(CFL) 从而节约能源。但是有很足够的理由不使用节能灯。这东西产生的电磁频率被证明对人类健康极度有害。

还有人写道了没有电的生活。他忘了他正在用计算机写这些帖子来支持请愿。

恐惧感在蔓延。科学本来应该是消灭这种恐惧的,但是很显然这些人认为科学不可信赖。他们的想法是科学应该有能力证明一项事务没有伤害乃至消灭危险,如果做不到这一点我们就不应该前进。他们用这样的逻辑建议大家一个“预防性”做法——“不了解就不做”的做法。

还有人认为:

研究越来越多地表明损害健康和低频电磁辐射的相关性。在其他西方国家地方政府和国家政府正在关注这一点,并且开始立法通过在特定区域禁止Wifi来限制Wifi辐射。国际社会关注这个问题的趋势很明确。为什么我们就这么乐观?

当然研究还并不明确。我找不到更多关于政府禁止Wifi的信息,除了在安大略省的一个学校还有一个欧洲的法令说要消除核磁共振扫描。Junkscience.blogspot.com上的文章”Wifi Woo” 很有趣。

当初那个决议其实就是在城里多加一些无线接入点。那里已经有数百个私人家庭和商业的接入点了。这些反对公共Wifi的人还将会在街上走、走进建筑物中,“沐浴”在看不见的Wifi中。这一小撮人要求取缔公共无线设备的人难道就是为了缓解一下他们的恐惧?

现在我还不知道无线信号(或者电)确实没有害处。我会阅读已有的一些研究来学习更多信息——如果我有时间并且有理由作这些。然而我不喜欢恐惧的气氛,如果人们仅仅根据他们自己的恐惧来判断一件事物我会怀疑这种担忧是否有根据。如果这次不是Wifi也许就是氟。他们的焦虑应该管管了。我只能庆幸一个世纪之前我们这个城市决定用电的时候他们不在。

我打算在本地报纸上写一篇文章。如果这种事也出现在了你的社区中我很想听听你对这个问题的想法。

Discussion

Enter your comment (wiki syntax is allowed):
blog/hazards_of_wifi.txt · 最后更改: 2008/09/20 由 radarman
O'Reilly Home | Privacy Policy ©2005-2008, O'Reilly Media, Inc.
All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on oreilly.com are the property of their respective owners.