WI-FI dangerous

[D-Lew]

Honestly I think there are much more pressing health concerns, like prescription drug TV ads.

 

[root]

Honestly i don't belive it. Wi-Fi is simply raidio waves, yet you don't see raido personell having a greater chance at getting cancer or anything after being so close to those big antennas.

um... people working on a radio mast will never, (ever) stand in front of the amplifying dish.


wireless is 2.5GHz, phones are 800Mhz - 2.5GHz so both wireless and mobile phones are firmly in the microwave band, microwave radiation isn't good for you.

typical transmitter strength for a wireless base station is 100mW

typical strength for a mobile phone base station, (in a city area where multiple transmitters are present) is 100mW

So... what the program said is entirely true, frequency of the two radiation sources *can* be the same

the transmitter strength *can* be the same...

(see sources below for proof!)

however,
mobile phone transmitters usually transmit at a higher radiation level, the 100mW ones are usually only found in cities and are there to ensure good coverage to local surrounding areas, large transmitters can range from anything from 100mW to 1W right up to even 100W (though that's not continuous power, that's a peak output

AND...
mobile phone radiation, (fro typical GSM not data calls) can be as low as 800MHz, (much lower than 2.4GHz), lower frequency radiation penetrates further into the brain.

so, (and I'm at work so I haven't watched it)...
on the strength of the basic facts, the program is entirely correct, WIFI is comparable to mobile phone radiation, (and all radiation is damaging!)
but, with the added information about other types of transmitters and penetration depth of radiation for given frequencies the program is wrong, WIFI isn't really all that comparable with mobile phones at all!

EVEN SO... it's important to remember that wifi IS a source of radiation and it IS damaging, even in small amounts




--------------------------------------------------------------
sources:

the total radiated power from an antenna could be up to around 100 W with multiple transmitters present.

WiFi has not been identified as hazardous. The capacity of WiFi transmitters does not exceed 100 mW. This is the strength of an access point (the user's adapter is usually less powerful), and it is approximately 10 times less than that of a cellular telephone, which has never been proven to be harmful to human beings.

I'm just including this quote to rubbish that last bit about mobile phone radiation never being proved harmful!

amid heightened concerns over the health hazards of saturating levels of electromagnetic radiation [6] ( Cancer Risks from Microwaves Confirmed , SiS 34). Microwaves at current exposure levels are linked to brain damage, DNA damage, brain tumours, cancers, microwave sickness, impairment of cognitive functions, impairment of reproduction and fertility, affecting humans, rodents, birds, and bees ...

* Rats exposed to microwave radiation from mobile phones for two hours showed signs of brain damage due to leakage of the blood brain barrier that persisted 50 days later [7] ( Mobile Phones & Brain Damage , SiS 24).
* DNA breaks and chromosomal abnormalities were found in animal and human cells exposed to low levels of microwaves [8] ( Confirmed: Mobile Phones Break DNA & Scramble Genomes , SiS 25)
* Risk of cancers – breast, prostate, bowel, skin (melanoma), lung and blood - trebled with microwave exposure in the Southern German town of Naila 5 to 10 years after the mobile phone transmitter was installed [6].
* Risk of cancers quadrupled in area exposed to microwave radiation in Netanya, an female cancers 10.5 fold compared with the general population in Israel [6].
* Risk of acoustic neuroma and glioma increased 2 to 3 fold on 10 years or more of mobile phone use [6].
* Mobile phone use correlates strongly with chronic illnesses [9]; Sweden has had a seven-fold increase in the long-term ill since 1981.
* Men who used mobile phones more than 4 hours a day had lower sperm count and poorer quality sperm compared to those who did not use mobile phones [10].
* A study in Greece showed that mice exposed to mobile phone microwaves at 1.68 m W/m 2 became completely sterile after five generations, while those exposed to 10.53 mW/m 2 became completely sterile after three generations [11]
* Reproduction and breeding success of sparrows and white storks are reduced near mobile phone transmitters, and exposure to microwaves in the laboratory caused high mortality rates in chick embryos [12] ( Mobile Phones and Vanishing Birds , SiS 34).
* Bees fail to return to their hives when cordless phone base-stations were installed, raising strong suspicion that microwave radiation may be responsible for the colony collapse disorder now devastating beekeepers and farmers in the United States and Europe [13] ( Mobile Phones and Vanishing Bees , SiS 34).
* Up to 3.5 percent of people suffer a range of symptoms including headache, nausea, lack of concentration, depression and allergy, known collectively as microwave sickness syndrome when in proximity of mobile phone transmitters (see Box 3).

Meanwhile the backlash against wi-fi installations is growing. Teachers are leading the calls for more research into wireless communication networks in Britain, fearing it may become the “asbestos of the 21 century” [4]. The Professional Association of Teachers with 35 000 members wrote to Education Secretary Alan Johnson expressing deep concern. One of its members, Michael Bevington, became ill after the wi-fi network was installed at Stowe School in Buckinghamshire where he has taught for 28 years. He suffered from nausea, headaches and a lack of concentration, symptoms typical of microwave sickness (Box 3). The German Union for Education and Science had already advised its members to resist the roll out of wLAN in its schools in March 2006 [15].

 

[muz]

The thing is though if you watch the program they measured the radiation from the phone mast but then they measured the wi-fi radiation from a laptop recieving a signal , which makes it an unfair test , they should have measured the radiation from the router and the mast or a mobile phone recieving signals and a laptop not as they did measured a transmitter and a reciever

 

[root]

true...

but you have to remember that a wireless receiver establishes two way connections.
it's no good having a very powerful mast if the transmitter on the phone/laptop doesn't have enough power to get back...

generally speaking the test is fair because both the phone mast and the wifi card are transceivers, not dedicated transmitters or dedicated receivers

 

[muz]

well yeah fair point but i think they still should have tested a mobile phone during a call as that would have been fairer and plus the wi if antennas arent as powerfull so the router would prolly have emitted even more radiation , i dont think you can deny the fact that theese things emmit radiation as it is obvious but what needs establishing is the health effects to people because the health effects of mobile phones havent even been fully established yet as some scientists can atill claim they are not damaging

 

[borat_sagdiyev]

nahh wireless routers have their power at 25mW. i pumped mine to 70 this weekend with dd-wrt.

 

[muz]

nahh wireless routers have their power at 25mW. i pumped mine to 70 this weekend with dd-wrt.

what router have you got cos i was wondering if that would run on a wag54gs

 

[borat_sagdiyev]

i have the wrt54g version 2. your router is not supported

 

[lhuser]

You know what guys?

Out there, they tell you don't do this, don't do that, don't eat this, don't eat that...yo!

You have one life. Even if you follow their crap, you're going to die anyways. Why don't you just do what you enjoy and ignore their stuff? You die anyways. Would you rather die of eating and having stuff you enjoy or being paranoid about stuff because "The media said it."?

 

[muz]

You know what guys?

Out there, they tell you don't do this, don't do that, don't eat this, don't eat that...yo!

You have one life. Even if you follow their crap, you're going to die anyways. Why don't you just do what you enjoy and ignore their stuff? You die anyways. Would you rather die of eating and having stuff you enjoy or being paranoid about stuff because "The media said it."?

i agree, hell you could walk out of your house and get hit by a bus tomorrow yet people dont call for busses to be banned and of course if you live in a city you are exposed to lots of pollution every day , i would be more worried about the ploution in the air than some wi-fi
crap frying my brain
Think of it this way you start to die as soon as you are born