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.”
- 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).
I think there’s some confusion happening here. So the study being discussed is a 2020 paper that wasn’t peer reviewed, and although I admit I haven’t looked very hard, I can’t find an update to say it was peer reviewed later. It looks of studies of effects of radiation on insects, and then I think expands that to mobile phones, I’d need to see a lot more to see if it actually makes sense.
I’d suggest since it’s a 4 year old study that nobody seems to have done more work on there were probably some serious issues with it.
As a German, I’d just like to throw into the room:
-
NABU is our most widely known, non-profit nature preservation organization. They’ve got tons of passionate biologists as members and undergo painstaking scrutiny. They don’t fuck around.
-
I’ve only skimmed the study so far, but formally, this is the best meta study I’ve seen in a long time.
-
The article is pure BS. WiFi is not killing anything. The 2.4GHz spectrum is not a wavelength that affects bees.
The citation points to this article:
References start on page 18. I’ve not translated it (looks like translation will be rough-going). Do you have at least one recent (2020 or later) study to cite that counters the 72 studies?
(Not OP) I don’t speak German, so I can’t refer back to any useful data in that report. Wi-Fi isn’t a single technology, nor a single frequency. Each revision is very different from each other, meaning we have distinct technologies for 802.11b, 802.11g, n, ac, ax, and be. Within those technologies, there are 3 distinct frequency bands (2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz). These bands were chosen because they are unlicensed/unregulated, which means a lot of devices use them.
At best, such a headline is dangerously imprecise. The only way that all of these affect bees (or anything else, for that matter) is if ALL radio waves have that effect. If it’s about frequency, then anything else in those bands would also be affected- including Bluetooth and microwave ovens. If it’s about technology, then it only covers certain revisions of Wi-Fi.
The study does speak of electromagnetic fields (EMF).
All wi-fi devices support 802.11b at 2.4GHz, no? I think I first heard about the bee impact so long ago that it would likely be 802.11b that’s at issue. If that’s where the problem lies, then it would be affecting all devices. If any of the wi-fi bands harm bees, the headline is accurate but indeed if we know exactly which scope is problematic then the headline should be narrowed for better precision.
Note that every new EMF emitter is being deployed without testing (e.g. 5G is currently being deployed without testing). IMO producers should have to prove their new tech does not harm bees before getting approved. The fact that these safeguards are not in place is cause for reigning it in.
w.r.t bluetooth, range is much smaller and power output is much lower, so that would need a separate study. W.r.t microwave ovens, I doubt enough of them leak enough to cause a problem but indeed leaky microwave ovens should be removed from use.
I don’t have expertise to add to the discussion, just want to say thanks for posting this. We need to work together to address shared environmental issues like this. We need bees for our food production.
Using Bluetooth as an alternative would be more of the same, as it operates on the same 2.4GHz spectrum. The original meta study looked at EMF effects, which would include BT.
The whole point for the existence of bluetooth is the reduced power consumption, which consequently has the effect of reduced range and ultimately reduced emissions. The tiny batteries in bluetooth headsets would be sucked dry in no time if wi-fi were used instead.