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).
  • frazorth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Oh boy is that a complete shit show!

    Against my better judgement I took a look at page 18.

    It’s 5G that’s causing the problems! No its GSM 900Mhz!

    Let’s just call it WiFi!

    So it’s 5G that’s causing the problems (look how I predicted that already) but bees are impacted in locations where 5G isn’t deployed?

    For a scientific paper, it mixes terms and confuses technologies which is a massive red flag. Radio and TV and very close in the spectrum, are they not impacted? Where is the cut off point where the different types of radio waves? Or are they claiming it is all bad? If they are then we are already fucked because light is just a slightly different frequency.

    No there is no evidence from this travesty of a “paper”. However there is already a long relationship with modern farming techniques, pesticides and bee issues. Rather than having a complete wank over a conspiracy theory, why don’t you put your efforts into something that has better scientific backing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/02/glyphosate-weedkiller-damages-wild-bumblebee-colonies

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf7482