Anyone who has ever been to a school meeting where there are a large number of parents will realise that some adults are scared of the universe and everything it contains.
<i>"Schools need wireless networks; the pupils need a device (handheld computer, or laptop) each, which they have access to whenever it is needed"</i><p>Why do we need one laptop per child in a school? Computers are useful tools but hardly central to learning.
Quite telling is the data point (not a very accurate data point, but the only one around), that the radiation from wi-fi was below detectable levels, but the child's night-light was not. If wi-fi is fearsome, is it fearsome compared to what?
A killer argument in those cases (though not always applicable) is to ask the people if they are smoking. If so, they do not have any reason to be afraid of any environmental influence, since smoking will definitely kill them first.
I don't understand why everyone is so sure that Wi-Fi is not dangerous.<p>I know a few things about Physics and radiation, and I know Wi-Fi is supposed to be in the same frequency as wireless phones and microwaves, but still I would prefer not to be too close to a wireless router (Although of course, in this time and age I often have to put this concern aside and spend a lot of time close to routers anyway.)<p>Firstly, research about radiation, and generally research regarding health matters, is always vague and ambivalent, probably because of the big commercial interests involved.<p>Secondly, the fact that wireless routers "operate in 2.4GHz like wireless phones" does not calm me. How do you know they transmit only in this range? How do you know it's exactly the frequency that matters? Maybe it's some combination of frequency, amplitude, and something else? How do you know wireless phones aren't dangerous in the first place?<p>I've worked enough with technical things to know that eventually, you can't really know with certainty whether something will work. (Or in this case, whether something will not harm your health.) Sometimes everything makes sense, but you're still getting a different result.<p>If this helps you accept my point, I think Knuth's quotation is relevant: "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
You know, recently in the UK, there was a case where the authorities said a woman was too stupid to have children:<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6365363/Social-services-to-take-baby-from-teenager-deemed-too-stupid-to-marry.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland...</a><p>This law should be applied in this case.