Jump to content

      



























Photo

Renowned expert denied voice in Greater Victoria School District


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 09:19 AM

^ I'm actually quite confused about the need for Skype as opposed to just the telephone.

However, I expect the roadblock is that the schoolboard does not allow call-in testimony, which seems reasonable to me. Otherwise you'd have everyone calling in rather than attending the meeting.

I think the board is absolutely in the right on this anyway. They are not at all qualified to determine the safety of a given technology, or assess the credentials of any self-professed "experts". If this group really thinks WiFi is a health problem, they need to take it up with the CSA and CRTC both of which do have experts qualified to understand the testimony, not politically leverage some school board with a half-baked "save the children" pitch.

#22 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 09:30 AM

Skype would be preferred over phone probably because it would be webcammed.

#23 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 09:32 AM

Actually, I would approve the Skype link because I would like to ask the Doctor why his report has been so heavily criticized by experts.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#24 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 10:15 AM

Allowing Skype in this instance would set a precedent. Any group or any person could then argue for a Skype presentation in lieu of attending a meeting.

And considering how technology can impede such meetings rather than better them I believe the time wasted preparing for and managing participants via Skype would be a waste of time, perhaps even a costly waste of time if a specialized technician needs to be called in. I'm saying this based on my experiences in the telehealth field where video conferencing and various telecommunication technologies would lead to frustration and a disconnect between individuals physically present and those who were connected from afar.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#25 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 10 February 2011 - 10:18 AM

^ True too. I'm at UVic, and we have pretty good internet connections (to put it mildly), yet teleconferencing attempts are almost always a disaster. Its a shame, because it *should* work, but its not there yet.

#26 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,056 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 10 February 2011 - 11:50 AM

I was looking at the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University of Albany, of which David Carpenter is the director, and they do not seem to have done any work that relates to the issue at hand.

In fact David Carpenter does not seem to have ever made EM emissions the focus of any of his research. His work all seems to relate to environmental contaminants and their impact on human health. There is no indication that he is an expert of any sort in this field.

One of the things that drives me nuts about the concerns about electromagnetic radiation is a fundamental lack of understanding of the physics. The EM spectrum is a large one and includes light as well has X Rays.

The concern seems to be about the radio wave spectrum, specifically the ultra high frequency end of the spectrum. This is non-ionizing radiation - aka it can not alter the charge of an atom. All ionizing radiation, the stuff that is ultimately harmful to humans, have wavelengths shorter than visible light.

If UHF was a problem, then light would more of a hazard.

Lets look at microwaves - a longer wave length than light but shorter than UHF and therefore closer to ionizing radiation, the stuff that is bad for you. You can microwave something for a week and it will never suffer the effects of radiation burns, it will just burn like something in your regular oven which operates on infrared radiation which is a shorter wavelength than a microwave. A normal microwave has a power level of 1.2 kW and the distance to the object is less than 15 centimeters. They operate at 2,450,000 kHz. Decades of constant use in kitchens, especially commercial kitchens which use stronger ones, has not shown any problems.

We have used UHF for TV broadcasts for decades. A typical UHF TV station transmits at 1,480,000 kHz, have the frequency of a microwave. They also operate at between 200 and 400 kW, several hundred times more powerful that a microwave.

It is important to remember as the frequency gets longer, the energy in the EM radiation gets lower. UHF is one trillion times longer in wave length than UV radiation, the longest wavelength that can cause ionization.

Cel phones and wireless networks operate in the UHF spectrum. The power of the transmission by either one is very, very small. Let us look at a cel phone - typically 1W is what they broadcast at. The wavelength is long so it does not carry much energy. Low energy of the radio wave together with a very weak power source means that the potential of a cel phone to have an effect on a human body is physically not possible.

Remember, we are talking about a wavelength that is one trillion times longer than the longest wave length that has ever been shown to have an adverse effect on human health. We are also talking about something that is a longer wave length than a microwave oven and one thousandth the strength or lower. I suppose that a phone against your head for 100 hours could cause heating inside the brain, maybe, but that only works if you get no cooling at the same time.

Based on how the physics work of electro magnetic radiation, there is no danger. None of the studies that claim to find possible issues can point to a physical mechanism by which it could happen.

Final thing - you can go to any major UHF TV transmitter and see there is no effect at all on the plants in the area. The plants are sitting close to a large transmitter that is radiating at them all day long and there are no physical effects. This transmitter is operating at a couple hundred thousand times more power than a wireless network or a cel phone.

#27 ZGsta

ZGsta
  • Member
  • 573 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 11:44 AM

I'm all in favor of not including crazy tinfoil-hat-brigade conspiracy theorists in public discussion

Here's a tip: you're not a "world renowned expert" when all your "research" is uneducated BS that the actual experts can conclusively disprove.


One of the things that drives me nuts about the concerns about electromagnetic radiation is a fundamental lack of understanding of the physics. The EM spectrum is a large one and includes light as well has X Rays.
.


I don't think "understanding science" is really something these quacks are good at.

As someone with a bachelor's in Electrical Engineering it's pretty funny reading "findings" like this and how they completely don't understand some of the most basic physics.
But you throw enough big words in and you attract a following of people who believe your conclusions no matter how wrong the work arriving at those conclusions is.

#28 martini

martini
  • Member
  • 2,670 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 03:29 PM

I agree, it is silly to exclude the presentation over Skype.

As for WiFi making students tired.. well.. they're all sitting under fluorescent lights, aren't they?

Exactly!
I'm getting a wee bit fed up with wasting time and energy on bashing this school district when it has better things to do. Like trying to educate on an impossible budget!

This group should be attacking the Ministry of Education. Not a school district.

#29 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,211 posts

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:34 PM

Baro owes me a new keyboard! Coffee everywhere...dangit.

Thanks for the background info Bernard. It absolutely blows my mind how many people out there believe these whack jobs who spew this stuff with absoultey no scientific basis.

#30 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 5,056 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 14 February 2011 - 07:09 PM

Baro owes me a new keyboard! Coffee everywhere...dangit.

Thanks for the background info Bernard. It absolutely blows my mind how many people out there believe these whack jobs who spew this stuff with absoultey no scientific basis.


When you ask for single physical mechanism by which there could be a problem, the people opposed to cel phones/WiFi/microwaves etc... can not come up with how it could possibly happen. Scientific method needs to have a theory and then test it, there is no theory here, no basis of how it could possibly happen. Without a theory there is nothing to test for.

Frankly this is often a problem with many medical studies, the quality of the research is sub standard because people do not understand causal links, statistics and the scientific method. Any medical study of less than several thousand people is basically little more than anecdotal information. It is because the rigour of most medical studies is weak, this means that all the pseudo science people can put out stuff that looks and sounds the same.

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users