A while ago, Eircom kindly sent Mary Rafterya present in the post.
As I hadn't asked for it and, being of a suspicious nature, I phoned them to find out how much they were going to charge me for it.
It was entirely free, they informed me, sent with their compliments. Apparently I was not unique - thousands of homes have also been the recipient of similar largesse.
What Eircom had sent me was a wireless router for my computer, enabling me to connect to the internet from anywhere within the house covered by the signal. No longer would my PC or laptop need to be wired up to a fixed point.
However, inertia ruled, together with an unwillingness to interfere with a system which has never caused me any problems. The new wireless technology is certainly magic, but for me it remains undisturbed in its box, and I continue to stick with the devil I am fortunate enough to know in the form of a broadband connection through the phone cable.
Watching Panoramaon the BBC last Monday made me slightly happier about my conservatism in not instantly embracing the latest thing. The programme raised serious health concerns about exposure to the electromagnetic field radiation associated with wireless or Wi-Fi technology.
It focused particularly on schools in the UK, many of which find that the use of wire-free computer networks gives them considerably greater flexibility and is cheaper. However, Panorama also discovered that the low-level radiation emanating from laptops connected to the system was three times higher than that measured within the beam of greatest intensity from a mobile phone mast.
The concern is that, as children's nervous systems are still developing and their skulls are thinner than an adult's, the possibility exists that this level of radiation is causing them harm.
In Ireland, the most recent figures for the introduction of Wi-Fi technology to schools are over two years old. In 2005, one in 10 primary schools operated some form of a wireless system; for secondary schools, it was one in five. In other words, at least 500 schools, with over 60,000 children, were exposed to this kind of radiation. The figures today are likely to be considerably higher.
It is important not to be unduly alarmist about this. There has, to date, been no conclusive evidence to indicate that either adults or children are harmed by the levels of radiation from Wi-Fi systems, or indeed from mobile phone masts.
While echoing this, the World Health Organisation nonetheless states that "some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research". It points to the great difficulty posed by a number of scientific studies (mainly on mobile phone masts) which contradict each other as to the effects on health posed by such radiation.
This has been sufficient for Sir William Stewart, chairman of the UK Health Protection Agency, to sound a warning note. In a seminal report in 2000 on the health effects associated with mobile phone technology, he recommended the adoption of the precautionary principle. This has become established as a means for dealing with health issues where evidence of harm remains inconclusive.
In the case of electromagnetic field radiation, the UK Stewart Report concluded that it was questionable to locate mobile phone masts in close proximity to schools or playgrounds. With Wi-Fi networks potentially carrying three times the radiation levels of phone masts, it could certainly now be argued that a cautious approach to their use in schools is appropriate.
In Ireland, however, the precautionary principle has not been adopted. A Government-appointed expert group considered the matter earlier this year but did not see fit to recommend any slowdown in the use of Wi-Fi technology in schools or indeed elsewhere.
The Department of Health and Children says that it has no responsibility in this area. Likewise the Department of Education. The Department of Communications used to have a role until a few weeks ago, but has now passed it on to the Department of the Environment. Which, in turn, is about to delegate it to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland.
All of which means that the issue of the potential health risks associated with Wi-Fi radiation has become a Cinderella within the system. With its undoubted economic benefits, wireless technology is increasingly being rolled out around the country.
Already, for instance, the whole of Carlow town is proud to call itself a Wi-Fi hot spot. However, it is vital that the health implications be taken seriously. There is no doubt that computers are an excellent, indeed essential, tool for learning. The growing concerns about health risks do not relate to the use of computers as such, but rather to the mechanism chosen to access the internet.
Until such time as the WHO and others conclude their studies on the health risks for children associated with Wi-Fi it would seem only sensible that schools should stick with the tried, trusted and safe method of hard-wiring themselves to the brave new world.