Slim Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 And why should that be relevant? Just because you managed to breed doesn't make you an expert. Years of experience in any subject is relevant. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I struggle to see how you'd know that failing to instill fear in your children makes you a bad parent if you've not raised kids yourself. I'm very proud of my kids and they're extremely well behaved and that's without threatening them with a beating on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 'Threatening them with beating on a daily basis' is an extrapolation to the nth degree from what Albert said. However, I generally don't agree with any form of corporal punishment, there are better and more effective ways. That said, I wouldn't rule it out completely for extreme rare circumstances. Anyway back to the subject. As the article mentions, wi-fi produces non-ionising radiation. Unfortunately, many people don't know the difference between non-ionising radiation and ionising and therefore the term radiation in most people's mind = ionising radiation. So to frighten someone who lacks this knowledge, let's just call it radiation. Hey they're frightened already. Who wouldn't be? Now add that radiation symbol and the job's done. Worried of Willaston might be led to think their wifi is a mini Chernobyl. It doesn't matter if a physics GCSE student could tell them it's a load of rubbish, their mind will be made up probably using the precautionary principle already mentioned. Just remember that rf energy reduces as per the inverse square law and that phone stuck to your kids ear a few hours a day has much more potential for damage (although whether the amount is significant is debatable). Misinformation and the precautionary principle worked in the fluoride debate, so why not with wi-fi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 'Threatening them with beating on a daily basis' is an extrapolation to the nth degree from what Albert said. However, I generally don't agree with any form of corporal punishment, there are better and more effective ways. That said, I wouldn't rule it out completely for extreme rare circumstances. Anyway back to the subject. As the article mentions, wi-fi produces non-ionising radiation. Unfortunately, many people don't know the difference between non-ionising radiation and ionising and therefore the term radiation in most people's mind = ionising radiation. So to frighten someone who lacks this knowledge, let's just call it radiation. Hey they're frightened already. Who wouldn't be? Now add that radiation symbol and the job's done. Worried of Willaston might be led to think their wifi is a mini Chernobyl. It doesn't matter if a physics GCSE student could tell them it's a load of rubbish, their mind will be made up probably using the precautionary principle already mentioned. Just remember that rf energy reduces as per the inverse square law and that phone stuck to your kids ear a few hours a day has much more potential for damage (although whether the amount is significant is debatable). Misinformation and the precautionary principle worked in the fluoride debate, so why not with wi-fi? BB what type of radiation does the islands emergency services, Tetra system produce? is it "good" or "bad"? It is just that I remember when it was being installed over here, I think I am correct in saying we were pioneers and that some Police forces in the UK were not happy about getting it too, the Unions got involved etc or was this just another misunderstanding, like you describe above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Tetra emits digital rf = non ionising radiation. I haven't a clue what the power of the hand held units are though. Rf energy causes damage by tissue heating. The more powerful, the more heating occurs (hardly surprising) but the biggest problem is heating caused by the hand held unit transmitter rather than any base station. How much of a problem this might be is being investigated at the moment and no doubt lawyers are on standby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Tetra emits digital rf = non ionising radiation. I haven't a clue what the power of the hand held units are though. Rf energy causes damage by tissue heating. The more powerful, the more heating occurs (hardly surprising) but the biggest problem is heating caused by the hand held unit transmitter rather than any base station. How much of a problem this might be is being investigated at the moment and no doubt lawyers are on standby. Thanks BB, so that means a Tetra Base Station located on a school roof is OK for the kids at that school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 What about schools making money by having digital masts on their property, good or bad? I would say bad. But then i prob wouldn't be too happy with my kids talking on a mobile phone for extended periods of time either. The masts are, however, very common on office blocks and residentai tower blocks and whether it is on your roof or the roof next door, i would imagine you are subjected to similar amounts of whatever radiation is emmited. I know a telecoms suveyor in London and a typical rent for a roof top mast is only about £10k pa. When you consider the likely cost of running a school it barely seems worth the frustration to parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweek Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 What about schools making money by having digital masts on their property, good or bad? Why not? We could also get drug companies to test the latest drugs, and doctors to test new surgical procedures on them at the same time. Maybe even save a fortune on crash test dummies. This could all raise money and buy quite a few books for those surviving into the new term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Tetra emits digital rf = non ionising radiation. I haven't a clue what the power of the hand held units are though. Rf energy causes damage by tissue heating. The more powerful, the more heating occurs (hardly surprising) but the biggest problem is heating caused by the hand held unit transmitter rather than any base station. How much of a problem this might be is being investigated at the moment and no doubt lawyers are on standby. Thanks BB, so that means a Tetra Base Station located on a school roof is OK for the kids at that school? A Tetra base station, or mobile phone - or other will not cause any significant effects to the kids, unless they're climbing the mast itself. The antennas tend to be directional pushing the signal outwards in a wide 'lobe', you would be subjecting yourself to magnitudes of far more 'radiation' just talking with your mobile phone held to your ear than standing underneath one of these masts. It amazes me how people complain about these masts, yet are quite happy for their kids to own a mobile phone!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Agree with Matty. If there was a base station near my house, the only thing I would be concerned about would be its ugliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Agreed. Parents have no problems with having wireless routers at home, and their kids having wireless controllers for games consoles. Yet because its in a school..."OH MYZ GODZ ITZ COOKZIN MA KIDZ!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.