The best approach is point to the cellular issue. As you know wi-fi emits considerably less RF than cellular and their is an exponential factor reduction the further you move away from the body...most wi-fi is used at arms length, unlike cell phones.. Attached is the latest on the cellular issue...
Court Upholds Cell Phone Cancer Suit Dismissal By Mark Rockwell October 23, 2003 WASHINGTON--A federal court dealt another blow yesterday to the plaintiffs in a fading $800 million cancer liability case against the wireless phone industry. In a ruling yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., backed a previous ruling by a U.S. District Court in Baltimore that there was 'insufficient evidence to support allegations that wireless phones cause brain cancer.' The ruling was probably inevitable, says Rebecca Arbogast, analyst at Legg Mason in Washington, because the circuit court is fairly conservative and likely to uphold the district court's decision. Probably more important, says Arbogast, is a class action suit making its way through the same district court that's seeking modifications of wireless handsets to shield against radio waves. The plaintiffs in that collection of cases are arguing that the district court unfairly kept the suits from the federal court system, which is considered a more favorable environment than state courts in class actions. The Richmond court of appeals issued a short ruling on the $800 million cancer case brought by Christopher Newman, who alleged that prolonged use of a wireless phone caused his brain cancer. In the ruling, the court said the previous court's reasoning that there was insufficient evidence in the phone's contribution to the disease was sound. The court's action marks yet another blow to the case that has been fading since last year. Last October, District Court Judge Catherine Blake, who had presided over the case for months, granted a summary judgment--essentially dismissing the case. Blake said there wasn't enough evidence to prove the wireless phone was responsible for the cancer. Verizon Wireless, one of the defendants in the case, said in an official statement that it 'was pleased the appellate court upheld the district court's decision' that the plaintiff's expert witnesses 'failed to provide any scientific support' for their assertions that wireless phones cause cancer. A fellow defendant, Motorola, also heralded the decision in a statement. 'The courts have spoken and again the message is loud and clear: These claims of health risks from mobile phones have no basis in accepted science. Anyone pursuing such claims at present or considering them in the future should take careful note.' Newman's attorney John Angelos didn't return phone calls concerning the case. CTIA hailed the appeals court decision as a reaffirmation that there is insufficient evidence to support cancer allegations against wireless phones. ------------------------------------ E.J. von Schaumburg Executive Vice President [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3175 Route 10 East Suite 300 Denville, NJ tel: (973) 659-9009 mobile: (973) 879-4408 ------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Steve Blair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] wireless health risks As I understand it 802.11b wireless LAN technology emits non-ionizing radiation. Several years ago I looked for reports of non-ionizing radiation on the human body. At that time there wasn't any conclusive evidence of any negative effect. I have not kept up with this issue so I cannot say if more conclusive data is now available. -Steve Michael Griego wrote: >My standard response to something like that goes something like this: > >A standard wireless NIC in your laptop computer transmits at roughly >30mW, a miniscule amount of energy. Your cellphone, on the other hand, >transmits up to 600mW. That's 20 times the energy being radiated right >next to your brain. How worried are you about holding that cell phone >near your head? > >Not only that, our wireless LAN access points also transmit at the same >30-60mW range. Cell phone basestations, on the other hand, routinely >transmit at around 100 WATTS (not milliWatts). > >The biggest of the two points, though, is the first one. The amount of >radiated energy is much less from a standard off-the-shelf wireless NIC >than your cell phone. Many many people are using cell phones these >days. > >-- > >--Mike > >----------------------------------- >Michael Griego >Wireless LAN Project Manager >The University of Texas at Dallas > >********** >Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/. > > -- ISC Network Engineering The University of Pennsylvania 3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A Philadelphia, PA 19104 voice: 215-573-8396 fax: 215-898-9348 sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/.
