This page has been translated from Italian

Report program against WiFi

| 15 commenti | TrackBack | | | 15 comments | TrackBack |
una stelladue stelletre stellequattro stellecinque stelle (8 votes, average: 4.20)
Loading ... Loading ...


I was sprawled on the comfortable sofa, TV off, after a night of revelry caused by the first test of the barbecue I had just bought. So you can imagine the state of bliss that pervaded my body.

My wife in the kitchen with the television on when I hear that's twice the word "WiFi".

Urca, let's see why it comes on TV is the 'stuff.

I must say that I have always loved the program Report RAI3, that when I'm there, it is virtually the only program that I follow, considering it seriously ... until tonight.

I can soon. ... "Never heard so many inaccuracies in one go." "The WiFi hurts, causes cancer, causes mutations in DNA, is the reason why the PDL has won the elections." Well, the last I've added ... but otherwise ...

But above all, what has affected me, is how to address the issue that seems to leave any of the parties, where one side is usually the guy who says "I never allow my daughter to attend a school that had a WiFi network access ", and I kept thinking ... and all the mobile phones of students, teachers, caretakers of where we put them?? Anyways, 'I said, first guy I'm there, but on the other hand there is the part of the scientist who says, "There is no evidence from any study that there are diseases caused by electromagnetic fields. Well I say, a serious voice. But once the program makes' pass this second scientist as a colluding with industry noting several times that the first guy has done consulting for several major industry.

"But the point at issue is just that. Dr Repacholi worked
for the same industry that created this form of radiation. Before
work for the WHO, has been an expert consultant industry
telephony, which has placed the repeater in the most controversial positions. "

But we're talking about WiFi or cellular phone? No, because if we talk about cell phone could also be in agreement, but the title is servizion "WI-FI: A SIGNAL DALL'ALLARME"

I obviously turned off and I went to the computer to work. But now, reading the full text of the investigation I have no right anymore. I quote some passages and comment:

"But a phone is a matter of personal choice. It can
decide whether to use it or not, and if you do not want to be hit by
radiation simply not turn on your mobile. You're the
control of the situation "

Apart from that have banned smoking on the premises as a result of passive smoking ... how do I do if the guy next to me ... is calling him sue you for "passive radiation. Then we omit the difference in power between an antenna and the Wifi phone? Just think "my" cell phone antenna is located 10 km away and yet my phone to take too great in my basement while the access point downstairs, not even if I can peck scream ... but strong. ... NOT When we give ANYTHING THAT COUNTS AGAINST THE FAILING THE ANT WIFI PHONE OR THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES MOUNTAIN PRIVATE RADIO?

"We are about 100 meters from the antenna [phone] Ok ... here, and we see then compare it with the wi-fi signal strength within the school. ... Is almost three times what we found for quell'antenna mobile.

That is, considering that we are talking about English schools. ... I wonder ... What kind of WiFi use in England? SUWifi? (Super Ultra WiFi)? No, because here we have a WiFi antenna shoots 100mW max. I honestly do not know 'because it can shoot WiFi antenna, but since the report is going to make the comparison to England I then I would cite Swisscom with the following statement

"In Switzerland, the mobile networks GSM and UMTS are currently
organized in very small cells, and therefore do not need
powerful transmitters. In fact, it is rare that a base station
present a transmission power greater than 120 watts. "

120 W device antenna in Switzerland, a 100mW WiFi in Italy, in England as an access point shot three times cellular antenna? Ah ... the "m" before the "W" stands for milli, not mega :-D

"If you look at the data you can have a very clear vision. is
like a puzzle and every piece fits perfectly: breaks
chain of DNA to DNA damage, until the animal studies and
epidemiological evidence to show that such an increase
symptoms and an increased incidence of cancer. "

What we did see the figures ... because in my opinion, the study cited, the electromagnetic radiation was perhaps a bit more "hard" .... GAMMA RAYS say?? :-D

Not long face too much. ... We want to talk about the problem of radiation em? Ok, let's go then to speak of thousands of kW fired by some private radio stations that broadcast on the Italian territory, in defiance to existing regulations, only because their antennas are placed in extra-territory. ... We talk about the thousands of kV power lines passing close to that nursery schools. ... We speak of our air filled with micro-thin, so much filth that cause cancer in one breath ... .. we talk about cigarettes. ... objects that are known to promote cancer, yet freely on the market. ... we talk about all the shit we eat normally without mention of when some "fast" decides to put on the market by changing the label of frozen expired expiration .... but rompeteci with a few milliwatts, which sometimes do not work even from one room to another.

A final note about the consistency of the transmission instead, six months ago, in "The good news" is "sold" like WiFi care against the digital divide. To look back at this "good news", the service is still available online.

Update May 13, 2008

This "disinformation" made by Report speaks, more
quiet and calm of the undersigned also Paul Attivissimo on

This article has been viewed 2277 time

15 Responses to "Report program against WiFi"

  • Melchior writes

    Hello, maybe you have not seen the beginning (as we understand from your introduction :) ). The service did not report, but as he told the BBC Gabanelli is the service a year ago on WiFi which has aroused much controversy, so the premise that there is a service independent of Report given only to law d 'information.
    Since the BBC talks about the English schools, and at the same service it clearly says that among the many countries where the maximum radiation of WiFi imposed by law is much lower than that accepted in the United Kingdom, there is Italy.
    However the service I agree with you, there are many inaccuracies, there is an argument and everything to confirm it. But consider also that the power of WiFi in schools, and then in the classrooms, in the UK is significantly higher than in Italy. Ciauz


  • Emiliano Bruni writes:

    You're right. I did not know Having missed the beginning. Pero 'even if "only given to the right of information", if the information is wrong would be better not to take it for nothing.
    Also if it is true that the WiFi in the UK is' more 'strong', I think it is still up 1watt and then as our WiFi5 in Italy. And, regarding the overall vision of "problems", 100mW or 1W is not that it changes much.
    Furthermore, I wish to emphasize one thing. Given that the power decreases with the square of the distance, is not that much sense to measure the emission of a cellular antenna at 100 m and the antenna from WiFi to 10cm, especially taking into account that usually an access point I am me always more than a meter away while the phone usually I've got to 2cm supported by a very important organ in my body. ... and I'm not talking about when I have the phone in his pocket :-D


  • Tues writes:

    I too have noticed several inaccuracies about the service, and what terrified me (and not use the term case) is that if I have noticed the inaccuracies because there was talk of good or evil things that I know, on other services is only I might tell false things?
    I always liked Report: that of which you speak, the journalistic style and the type of inquiry that seems good or evil released by political pressure. But now it seems a veil of shadow fallen on this broadcast: '(


  • Emiliano Bruni writes:

    Indeed. My own state of mind.


  • Emilio writes

    The power radiated by an antenna in the case of purely theoretical antenna that emits equally in all directions (we might call distribution "spherical" Grant me the term) depends on the cube of the same ristanza. If you find the power radiated by this type of antenna at a distance x and then the extent to 2x, the power is halved, but is 1 / 8.
    Actually directional antennas are used, so the reduction of power as a function of distance should be a relationship between the quadratic and cubic.
    That is to say that if you get down to 100m from an antenna of a base station or mobile phones 10cm from an access point, surely you have an enormously higher power radiated from the access point, but not fractional power rating, but thanks to the small away!
    Then, if you hurt or not, now there's a mystery!
    I also note that if you talk about other technologies even more widespread sel wi-fi and using the radio frequency: DECT phones (who does not have one at home?), The microwave sensors or dual technology of car alarms, and why not , your new processor core at 3GHz frameworks where we put him?


  • maury writes

    I also saw the broadcast I made your own observations. Especially those on radiated power.
    Anyway called papal papal I got the impression that the target was precisely to remove the wi-fi rather than "doing objective analysis.
    In addition to the post, perhaps you should also try to write to the drafting of reports.


  • John writes:

    I now have my doubts about these programs newspapers / sensationalist.
    Have to scoop and more than a survey that seems to depart from a thesis and that they seek only evidence to prove preconceived thesis on duty.
    In this case there is 'a certain portion of people that a little' they chew and they realize the exaggeration but when the topic is not so well known?


  • Mauri_X writes:

    I agree with John, beginning say
    "I must say that I have always loved the program Report RAI3, that when I'm there, it is virtually the only program that I follow, considering it seriously ... until tonight."
    in fact the approach of these programs is just aiming to substantiate the thesis pre-established
    relegating two notes of doubt in the end credits, just to save himself from the accusation of not being
    Indeed, when they argue the thesis that we share .. you make love, it is certain that a good rule
    taken with the tongs everything is said and possibly also always hear the other bell ..


  • Uguccione500 writes:

    ... I think as long as the guarantor of the health authority does not give us certain that the wifi and mobile phones do not hurt, although it is likely the opposite, and so until proven otherwise is bad, at least as I see it ... But the fact that in Germany have taken all the WiFi antenna that had been placed in different cities should be thinking beyond the comfortable trinket technology, is not it? I'm also nice to have wireless at home because of trailing wires that sooner or later someone stumbles, but if I find myself in twenty years with cancer who do I thank the fact that nobody knew, so no one has warned possible?? It seems a little 'history repeating itself: does anyone remember the asbestos?? Now all loathe him, until a few years ago did not even think that would produce cancer but also those who knew had begun to shut up the evidence ...
    I do not know what to think: I start to avoid having the beloved duck antenna burning day and night, then you do a little 'as you like ... :-)
    Hello to all ...


  • scarf woodland writes:

    Regardless of the fact that other types radiation due to the use (legal or illegal) with age may try that damage to human health, remember that here you are just talking about Wi-Fi, which is the technology that are well documented in the IEEE 802.11 (and its different versions), comparing it to the networks (I think) GSM (I do not refer to those of last generation).
    The question asked by the BBC (translated and repeated from Report) is:
    - It is legitimate to develop the market this new technology?
    corollary are reported by several interviews with experts, will also describe the various arguments for and against the with their motivations.
    E 'fair to say that the survey was done in the United Kingdom therefore stress that it is inappropriate to refer this with carbon paper here, but in any case, I think you are running too and if it is true that there are subjects Electro (since in quantities not negligible) must protect them and do not try to promote the usual 4industriali that to get rich pushing for increased diffussione of this technology.
    The technology exists and is useful to the market (here I disagree), but I point to improve efficiency and thus the effectiveness of the product should be made sicrua, it ends up that is also a way to optimize it (data the problems it has with links).


  • Alessio Susi writes:

    In my humble view, if the service was not done only by Report reported, then we must lay the groundwork for an adversarial seriously, with technical and industry experts, not with the usual talkative jacket and tie on duty.
    I repeat by time, who has the honor of providing information (either staff or is Emiliano Report writing in public here) has also the task to do it properly without ilazioni baseless and without glaring fire bold only for the audience and the public consensus. At the very least, leave the shadow of the doubt and leave the user / viewer to go into that where and as appropriate.
    Greetings, thanks Emiliano


  • I too liked the service, I felt much cheer to the BBC, but compared to the seriousness of the services report the comparison fails. For once in life, there is' a piece of Italy that I can feel proud of. Service but I doubt remains: the wi-fi is harmful to my health? If yes, then take it off. If you do not know, because there are sufficient studies to prove it, I want it removed all the more reason! Certain responses by the institutions, they make me shudder: the wireless technologies in the short and long term, should not have adverse effects on health. However, intervention to control the situation is in any case necessary. And this is not the report is what was said by the health ministry on Wednesday 12 December 2007, a period short enough to view the current political situation. the source is this is a site written by, I trust, are serious. Emiliano understand, for the institutions of my state, I should be healthy. Again, I should. But we were not a state of law?


  • Flavio says:

    Hello boys ... of course only time can tell us right before we smoked in movies with pride, Humphrey Bogart docet, and puts down Eternit roofs it was a pleasure ... ;-)
    I think, and I fear that in a few brief year with the increased rate of cancer there will be a bit 'by ... laughing. :-S


  • James writes:

    It seems to me that the service wanted more than anything else to understand that there are doubts about this technology, it has been presented with two bells.
    The service, if well seen, and not proposing a full head and tried to prove, but from the fact that in the UK is having a huge spread of wi-fi and uncontrolled by government agencies at the same time when the person responsible ' English Institute of Health (its not called that but it is our equivalent) said that under new could have adverse effects on health, then it would be appropriate to use the precautionary principle. The service is on this point is controversial, a controversy inside the institutions GB.
    Then the only thing certain is the presence of susceptible individuals to be recognized as electromagnetism so debilitating disease in Sweden (I think) I do however think.
    The fact that the service is technically inaccurate does not invalidate the main message, namely that in case of doubt the technology impact on health, the precautionary principle should prevail.
    Obviously if you believe that the studies are carried out on wifi cialtronerie you can always look for the publication and evaluate the methodologies ..


  • gianni writes:

    about a year ago, I installed a wifi router at home. in the days following my son for 10 years, he was restless, slept little and badly, he was crabby. this state of affairs' which lasted about three weeks, until I decided to dispose of the WiFi router. within two days the symptoms have disappeared to my son. a mere coincidence? a litmus test? I dare not do inspections.
    What should I assume?
    I agree with Flavio


Leave a comment

/ me runs