Smartphones and Wi-Fi are killing vital insects
bgr.com
An analysis of over 80 studies shows a direct link between mobile phone and Wi-Fi radiation and declining insect populations. Radiation can affect insects at …

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/7625705

According to the linked article, 72 studies suggest that wi-fi radiation harms/kills #bees – and by some claims is a threat to their continued existence. I suppose if extinction were really a likely risk there would be widespread outrage and bee conservationists taking actions. It seems there is a lack of chatter about this. This thread also somewhat implies disinterest in even having wi-fi alternatives.

In any case, does anyone think this is a battle worth fighting? Some possible off-the-cuff actions that come to mind:

  • ban the sale of wi-fi devices bigger than a phone in Europe¹ if they do not also comply with these conditions:
    • include an ethernet port as well. So e.g. macbooks would either have to bring back the ethernet port or nix wi-fi (and obviously Apple wouldn’t nix Wi-Fi).
    • have a physical wi-fi toggle switch on the chassis (like Thinkpads have)
  • force public libraries with Wi-Fi to give an ethernet port option so library users at least have the option of turning off their own wi-fi emissions.
  • ban the sale of Wi-Fi APs that do not have:
    • a configurable variable power setting that is easily tunable by the user; maybe even require a knob or slider on the chassis.
    • bluetooth that is internet-capable
  • force phones that include wi-fi to also include bluetooth as well as the programming to use bluetooth for internet. Bluetooth routers have existed for over a decade but they are quite rare… cannot be found in a common electronics shop.

Regarding bluetooth, it is much slower than wi-fi, lower range, and probably harder to secure. But nonetheless people should have this option for situations where they don’t need wi-fi capability. E.g. when a phone is just sitting idle it could turn off wi-fi and listen over bluetooth for notifications.

I suspect the 1st part of this quote from the article explains the lack of concern:

“The subject is uncomfortable for many of us because it interferes with our daily habits and there are powerful economic interests behind mobile communication technology.”

  1. I say /Europe/ because it’s perhaps the only place where enough people would be concerned and where you also have the greatest chance of passing pro-humanity legislation (no “Citizens United” that human needs have to compete with).
  • freedomPusher@sopuli.xyzOP
    2·
    10 months ago

    That smoking causes cancer is not purely statistical correlation. This article gives a good overview and is aimed at a general audience. It has a section acknowledging that we do not yet have all of details nailed down, but my reading of that is that it’s more about “how exactly do carcinogens work” rather than leaving us with only a pure statistical correlation.

    Your paywalled article was unreachable to me but to go off your comment, not having the answer on how carcinogens work is sufficient for missing the mechanical proof that xkforce requires as a precondition to not regarding research as “garbage”. Hence my question, which was directed at xkforce and which still stands b/c the nuts and bolts of carcinogens remains unexplained.

    Cancer was an example of a case where we have a 10,000 foot view of evidence but not at the cellular view. Attacking the example just muddies the waters; it does not actually counter the idea of taking precursory superficial evidence seriously.

    It’s also worth noting that, as powerful as statistics can be, most of the best science uses initial statistical correlation as a clue that there is something worth investigating, not as an end in itself. Sometimes, of course, statistics is all there is, which is why so many things have to be investigated using many carefully designed, carefully controlled trials.

    Of course, but investigation takes time. If you wait until there is an xkforce-approved mechanical cause-to-result finding, you have hundreds of thousands of smoker deaths in the meantime before acting. As the bee population shrinks, what is the harm of using the low-emission tech that already exists in parallel to the research on what’s happening at a cellular level?

    Notice that none of the actions I proposed would actually block the use of wi-fi but merely push for people to have useful alternative options. At a stage where the research reaches an xkforce-approved mechanical cause-to-result finding I would be proposing prohibitions.

    my bet is that there is some combination of ulterior motives

    NABU is a nature protection non-profit. What would the ulterior motive be? If the research is bogus then the compromise of their integrity and credibility works against them.

    • jadero@mander.xyz
      2·
      10 months ago

      Too bad about the paywall. I did a web search, picked a few likely looking sites, and linked what I thought was the best one.

      Your rebuttal seems sound on the face of it.

      I would point out that people and organizations commonly promote things that seem like they should be counterproductive.