What is Digg?49 Comments
- RealmDown, on 10/17/2007, -1/+16That hertz.
- McTendo, on 10/15/2007, -1/+12My mom died from her cell phone igniting and blowing up a gas station, so don't say it isn't true because it is. The police even said the death was so instant that she died before her cigarette could even hit the ground.
- Ireland, on 10/15/2007, -1/+11I'm not really worried, but I'd be nice to know if we were being harmed by this.
- sl9sl9, on 10/15/2007, -0/+8"setup.exe" doesn't look much like a video to me. WARNING: probable malware
- Hello1024, on 10/13/2007, -2/+9This has been a debated pint for a while, but I fail to see why it's hard to test. You just get a load of willing volunteers and subject them to 10,000 times the normal wifi output from a laptop for a week or so. You then see if they feel any side effects. If they have no noticable side effects, you can fairly safely assume that a dose 10,000 times smaller which is only transmitting for a few % of the time, and usually not at full power, isn't going to damage anything.
Before anyone says it, that'll be a max power output of about 1kW at 2.4Ghz, which shouldn't "cook" anyone if it's not in an enclosed space. - McTendo, on 10/13/2007, -0/+7Trollmaster? And that's your material?
You suck. - f4nt0m4s, on 10/17/2007, -6/+12im in ur wave lengthz given u cancer
- chris9902, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6It's 1 parent who wants to ban them not the government.
- inactive, on 10/14/2007, -2/+8Too late, we already payroll ***** homeopaths on the NHS.
These ***** ***** cant even stand up to the most basic clinical trial "oh but you dont need a clinical trial to see that it works, medical science just isnt in touch with the human body" SHUT THE ***** UP, a clinical trial is a simple test: does the treatment work more times than a placebo, if they are too ***** stupid to understand this most simple of concepts and consider themselves above scientific testing then they are ***** morons, no its not debatable, asking if something works more times than it doesnt is not ***** debatable so stop ***** trying to say it is you ***** waste of money *****. - chorne, on 10/13/2007, -1/+7As I see it, it's basically RF waves kind of like cellphones, though you don't really see people holding wireless routers to their heads.
- Braingoo, on 10/13/2007, -1/+6good wardrivers need good paying jobs.
- chris9902, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7From the same people who say mobile phones can blow up a petrol station no doubt.
- sgoogle, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4Definitely malware
A-Squared Found nothing
AntiVir Found DR/Zlob.Gen
ArcaVir Found nothing
Avast Found nothing
AVG Antivirus Found nothing
BitDefender Found Trojan.Downloader.Zlob.AATG
ClamAV Found Trojan.Dropper-2529
CPsecure Found nothing
Dr.Web Found nothing
F-Prot Antivirus Found nothing
F-Secure Anti-Virus Found Trojan-Downloader.Win32.Zlob.dkc
Fortinet Found nothing
Kaspersky Anti-Virus Found Trojan-Downloader.Win32.Zlob.dkc
NOD32 Found nothing
Norman Virus Control Found nothing
Panda Antivirus Found nothing
Rising Antivirus Found nothing
Sophos Antivirus Found Troj/Zlobar-Fam
VirusBuster Found nothing
VBA32 Found nothing - RealmDown, on 10/13/2007, -1/+4Wired is better than Cnet.
- sl9sl9, on 10/17/2007, -6/+9So the government is spending even more money on unscientific quackery. What's next - homeopaths and scientology on the NHS?
- dankosaur, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3For a week? I think they're worried about something more long-term, like cancer...
- anti-net, on 10/13/2007, -3/+5Have UK Gov't run out of methods of wasting tax payers money yet? Coup d'état anyone?
- inactive, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3They also need to check up nuclear electricity as it's not the same as regular electricity.
- hplasm, on 10/14/2007, -2/+3Breaking: The Sky Is Falling! Tip: Hats.
- sgoogle, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2I was about to find this as well, Brainiac is great
- inactive, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1thanks
- sega01, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2I would be much more worried about cell phones over weak 2.4GHZ signals. Neither is probably too harmful, but it would be nice to see.
- Invalice, on 10/14/2007, -2/+3isn't the US running a fuking war? now that's what i call a waste
- stupergenius, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1They don't care enough to do that.
- raz98, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1yes, but a lot of people are installing wi fi in their homes, and they have young children who may be affected if they are all the time around the wifi.
- sgoogle, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Dugg, nicely played
- alexforcefive, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Yeah, and I bet you could reproduce that in a controlled environment.
- fjc8, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2Dugg!
(I almost clicked the bury button before I read to the end.) - yesTHEone, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1ok i can see where your coming from, and i actaully would be interested in the results of this investigation...but it would mainly only apply for people that are around wireless like 24/7 ? for kids they are only at skool a certain amount of time during the day and they also have breaks/recess so it will be interesting but its still my personal opinion that its a waste of money
- PhilAirtime, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1And your page doesn't link. What fab country are you from, idiot?
- Christbait, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2Of course they're going to say yes, it's safe. Wouldn't be good for business if it wasn't.
- kurophoenix, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkPT-j8PNg
- onekevinc, on 10/14/2007, -1/+1So how many people think wifi has to safe just because it would be a pain in the ass to go back to using wires?
- karapuz, on 10/14/2007, -0/+0I have a wireless router on my desk about 1 ft. from my head, I get about 12 hours of exposure per day.
Should I get woried or move it further away?
Does the RF component of the router transmit continuously or only when there is network activity (my network is mostly idle). - Chupatumama, on 10/14/2007, -2/+2The cry of the mentally challenged: "Wont someone please think of the children??!!?!"
- inactive, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1I would think any type of wave, radio waves, etc, can't be good for us. Maybe we don't notice the effect , but i often wonder if these waves could degrade cells.
- kiwimonk, on 10/14/2007, -2/+2I agree with going forward with this research.. I have always wondered just how harmful it actually is. There is no doubt in my mind that prolonged exposure has to have some kind of negative effects on our bodies.. and in america.. we're getting hit by these waves all day long. If theres already guidelines that say you have to stay below a limit.. then guaranteed.. Low levels over a lifetime can be equally dangerous.
- yesTHEone, on 10/13/2007, -1/+0ssuk...so do you think that this is just a ploy to scare people and just an excuse to try and take the internet away...what will all the piracy and things that go on ? or do you genuinly think that there could be a link between wireless and bad health ?
- SSUK, on 10/13/2007, -2/+1Oh look, we've found mobile phones cause damage to our selves. Damn scientists... How can we scare people more now... Heeey, that wireless internet is getting pretty popular...
- yesTHEone, on 10/13/2007, -3/+2ok right...im going to go with chorne on this one...i have always thought that wireless is simalar to how mobile/cell phones work with the frequency and what ever, now there has been skeptism about whether mobile/sell phones cause brain damage/cancer or just generally damages your general health...and after years of research they still haven't found any DIRECT links between mobile/cell phones and cancer/brain damge. now i have always been under the impression that wireless "Waves" are less worse then holding a mobile phone to the side of your head for hours on end, and like chorne says you don't see people walking around with wireless routers on the sides of their heads. so i think this is a waste of money when there are people not getting life saving surgery because the NHS is so crap.
- yesTHEone, on 10/13/2007, -1/+0ssuk...so do you think that this is just a ploy to scare people and just an excuse to try and take the internet away...what will all the piracy and things that go on ? or do you genuinly think that there could be a link between wireless and bad health ?
- raz98, on 10/13/2007, -3/+1Funny how many of you oppose this investigation, probably you really don't want to know if it's harmless or not. Just one thing, I remember reading about an experiment done on mice regarding the DECT phones frequencies (1.9ghz ?) , and it turned out that after prolong exposure they were developing brain tumors. That's because the dect phone (mainly the base of the phone), is emitting non stop at this high frequency , not just like the cell phones who emit only short period of time when you are talking.
- stillrealvicz, on 10/13/2007, -4/+2More english taxpayers money squandered by the jock gordon brown
- ianthepetrock, on 10/13/2007, -5/+2This is one the reason technological innovation is slowed.
- scabbers, on 10/13/2007, -4/+1You have to look at the history of health scares in the UK (and elsewhere). For years and years there was "no scientific evidence" that BSE could transfer to humans.
- texas85, on 10/13/2007, -7/+3I switched to wired because wireless was giving me headaches...
- JacNet, on 10/13/2007, -7/+1More reason to prefer wired over wireless. ;)
- makenshi, on 10/13/2007, -9/+1This, from the country that wants to ban plastic pen tops (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7042945.st ...
- inactive, on 10/13/2007, -10/+0hey billy bob.... ur sister is getting lonely
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is