If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   Children at risk from "electronic smog" generated by Wi-Fi use. Just think, the next time you are downloading porn the signal may be killing your family, you perv   (news.independent.co.uk) divider line 189
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

10955 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2007 at 11:55 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-04-22 01:06:35 AM
jtown: Even if they were encrypted.

Encryption just means it takes longer to receive the packet, not that it's impossible to receive the packet.


/Do the words "Zoophilia" mean anything to you?
//Shhh - it'll be our little secret
 
2007-04-22 01:06:52 AM
That Guy...From That Show!: The reason most people believe that microwaves only have the hots for water is they've noticed that objects with a lot of water in them heat well and retain that heat. Less wet food items lose their heat more quickly (breads, etc..) so people assume they didn't get very hot.

no
 
2007-04-22 01:07:36 AM
Al Gore must be smacking his lips at this topic....
 
2007-04-22 01:07:37 AM
Goddam flamewars. Can't we all just toke a bong?
 
2007-04-22 01:07:57 AM
idsfa: I'm going for a martini :-Þ

oh I'd love a martini myself right now.
 
2007-04-22 01:08:04 AM
SpeshilEdjukashin: Now I remember why I normally stay out of 'lit threads... you liters are idiots. Ph.D's or not...

And we'll be sorry to see you go.


/But let me know when the pitchforkers are hiring again
 
nrw
2007-04-22 01:08:44 AM
SpeshilEdjukashin

Now I remember why I normally stay out of 'lit threads... you liters are idiots. Ph.D's or not...


Dont get mad at us because you hitched your horse to a tinfoil hat crazy pseudo scientist and got called out on it.
 
2007-04-22 01:09:15 AM
SpeshilEdjukashin: Now I remember why I normally stay out of 'lit threads... you liters are idiots. Ph.D's or not...

liters !!

he hehe, now your just trolling. Nobody is this silly.
 
2007-04-22 01:09:26 AM
ultramoderate Eventually, someone's going to find a slight correlation of minor errors, if not mutation, with low-power radiation exposure.

Couple things:

1) Correlations don't prove anything. Did you know that virtually all drug addicts started out on milk?

2) Non-ionizing radiation, by definition, does not affect electron bonds. The wavelength of radiation at 2.4 GHz is about five inches, which is far too great to affect molecular processes. You need to be in the nanometer range if you want to knock electrons around.

Now, if you want to posit some other mechanism of interaction, that's fine... there's at least one Nobel Prize in it for you, if you succeed. But you'd better take some time to come up to speed on current knowledge first, or people will just laugh at you.

Really, this stuff does not require a PhD in astrophysics, or a ham radio license, or whatever. All you need to do is go back to your high-school physics teacher -- you know, the guy you did your best to tune out, back in the day -- and offer to buy him a beer in exchange for helping clear up a few things.
 
2007-04-22 01:09:49 AM
ahhh, yes. When exposed as a moran, go for the ad hominem. Run away, little one.
 
2007-04-22 01:11:42 AM
Now I remember why I normally stay out of 'lit threads... you liters are idiots. Ph.D's or not...

Haha, ok, nevermind. I thought you were actually serious...but that's not possible. An amoeba wouldn't post something THAT farking stupid.
 
2007-04-22 01:12:18 AM
SpeshilEdjukashin


Laugh all you want people...

Yes, it's true that while 1000 watts at 2.4 GHz can cook a potato in 9 minutes, 10-50 miliwatts can't... but think about long term exposure.

Come say hi to me in 20 years: After 4 hours a day, 365 days a year talking on that cell phone of yours, and two decades of holding your laptop's WiFi antenna square over your nuts.

I hold an FCC license people, I'm no tin-fail hatter. It is NOT good for you. You'll see in a decade or two if you don't believe me. :)


I will laugh, and in twenty years I'll still be laughing at this idiocy.

In case Camper Bob's picture was too technical I'll break this down for you

i173.photobucket.com

Its no different then claiming space heaters will cause cancer. Or more accurately, that standing near a warm object will cause cancer.

The radiation in question cannot cause cancer, and can at most cause heating, but considering you cannot feel any heat emanating off the antenna, suffice it to say that its power output is inconsequential.
 
2007-04-22 01:12:32 AM
Ultramoderate:

"[by my calculations there is not enough energy in a WiFi signal to alter a single molecule in your body]

Not even the energy state of a single electron? [snip]
Eventually, someone's going to find a slight correllation of minor errors, if not mutation, with low-power radiation exposure."


Individual DNA and other molecules are being broken and 'altered' all the time. Unless you begin to impact a large number of molecules, you won't have a discernible effect.
 
2007-04-22 01:12:39 AM
Sorry, Camper_Bob, I'm a high school dropout. (Dropped out to go to college, so I never had high school physics ... hence I had to fall back on higher ejumakashun)
 
2007-04-22 01:13:41 AM
/for the above, I know it lacks complete accuracy, nuance, detail, or being presented properly, this was the intention to make this concept as simple as possible.
 
2007-04-22 01:14:25 AM
My Wifi router is strapped to my gonads, so I'm getting a real kick out of these replies ...
 
2007-04-22 01:17:38 AM
Camper_Bob: 2) Non-ionizing radiation, by definition, does not affect electron bonds. The wavelength of radiation at 2.4 GHz is about five inches, which is far too great to affect molecular processes. You need to be in the nanometer range if you want to knock electrons around.

I think people get confused because microwaves can deposit their energy into electrons (ie. microwaves heating things) and an electromagnetic waves ability to actually alter electron structure (ionization, etc.)

WiFi, like microwaves, can only impact you in the form of heating damage. energy deposition. In terms of energy deposition, your bodies thermal conductivity is more than sufficient to prevent a WiFi box from doing anything to you. no molecule can receive sufficient energy flux to break even a hydrogen bond before it is dissipated to other molecules.
 
2007-04-22 01:20:31 AM
Yeah, but mebbe cell phones have caused the bees to abandon their hives, which is really bad, cause they pollinate stuff we need. This also says cell phones seem to cause cancer.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece
 
2007-04-22 01:20:50 AM
idsfa Well, your high school must've been good for something. Mine only served to convince me that I was too smart to bother going to my engineering-physics classes. As it turned out, no, not so much...
 
2007-04-22 01:23:07 AM
007-04-22 12:27:20 AM nashBridges [TotalFark]

WhyteRaven74: Oh also microwave ovens work by striking water molecules primarily

Well, water or liquid of some sort, but they excite almost anything in the oven. It's a testament to American education that my own brother argued to me that a microwave oven cannot heat something without water in it. It took a three minute cook time of an empty ceramic coffee cup to prove him wrong.



I am a Ceramic artist,what was heating up was the metal in the Glaze
 
2007-04-22 01:26:46 AM
Camper_Bob

"1) Correlations don't prove anything. Did you know that virtually all drug addicts started out on milk?"


And do you know that there is a strong correlation between the # of alcoholics/sq. mile and the number of Baptist preachers/sq. mile?


\Simpson's paradoxes - the hidden variable
 
2007-04-22 01:27:07 AM
Just a thought... Bluetooth devices emit 1 to 100mW, with class III headsets operating at 1mW.

The US FDA maximum allowed leakage for a newly manufactured microwave oven is 1mW / cm^2 measured at 5cm from any point on the case.

The Bluetooth figure is output power so 5cm away the figure would be lower, but the real difference is that most people don't go around all day with their ear pressed against a operating microwave oven.

Given the inverse square law you're getting far less exposure from the microwave unless you've got your nose pressed against the glass to watch your hot pockets cook for hours.

Your laptop's 802.11 wireless ranges from 20 to 100mW in case anyone wants to calculate how much you're irradiating your lap.
 
2007-04-22 01:27:29 AM
dbaggins I think people get confused because microwaves can deposit their energy into electrons (ie. microwaves heating things) and an electromagnetic waves ability to actually alter electron structure (ionization, etc.)

Yeah, I guess a better way to phrase it is that the radiation on the right side of ThematicDevice's chart can increase molecular motion by bumping stuff around, while the radiation on the left side can actually break stuff.

Of course, raising the temperature can break electron bonds as well. So remember to take a break from surfing Fark at least once every hour, and feel your antenna. If it blisters your skin, it's time to call it a night.
 
2007-04-22 01:31:33 AM
maxheck Given the inverse square law you're getting far less exposure from the microwave unless you've got your nose pressed against the glass to watch your hot pockets cook for hours.

I've never seen an RF exposure limit specified as milliwatts per square centimeter. Normally the spatial field strength is specified in volts.

At any rate, see my earlier post. Most likely, you will receive more 2.4 GHz radiation from the microwave in your kitchen than you will from the router on your desk... in both cases, while you are sitting at the desk. (I've repeated this test with a couple of different microwave ovens, so I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with mine.)
 
2007-04-22 01:37:35 AM
SpeshilEdjukashin: Now I remember why I normally stay out of 'lit threads... you liters are idiots. Ph.D's or not...

Psst, I'm not a liter.
 
2007-04-22 01:45:32 AM
SpeshilEdjukashin

C+ on your trolling.

Positives:
Drew numerous replies.
Sparked conversation.
Provided humor.

Negatives:
Made yourself look like a complete retard in the process.
 
2007-04-22 01:46:05 AM
raged: you don't think there's water hidden between the ceramic or attached to the outside as vapor?

It's a moot point, it's not solely the water that gets excited. Water isn't necessary excited. It helps, but anyone who tells you it's just water that makes a microwave oven work doesn't understand what is actually happening.

I am a Ceramic artist,what was heating up was the metal in the Glaze

I agree, but I'd like to point out that any material that could respond to a microwave would heat up, metals first, liquids second, and good old fashioned dirt last.

Seriously folks, put a pile of dirt in your microwave and set it for two minutes. Take your old clay or ceramic dominoes and put one in. After two minutes, if it's not hot, call me out. It's flat out energy delivery, and any material that can absorb it will.
 
2007-04-22 01:50:16 AM
princeps:"Yeah, but mebbe cell phones have caused the bees to abandon their hives, which is really bad, cause they pollinate stuff we need. This also says cell phones seem to cause cancer."

Okay, seriously, I'm starting to hate that link. The actual experts (at Penn State) are fairly sure what's causing colony collapse, and it's not cell phones. (It's a mite that lives on bees.) And there's many more studies that show no statistically significant link between cell phones & cancer than studies that show a link - i.e., if there is a link, it's small enough that a hundred other factors outclass it.

(Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case I apologize for not seeing it, it's 2am, and I should be asleep, but I'm not.)
 
2007-04-22 01:53:26 AM
Fark needs a Junk Science tag for stuff like this.
 
2007-04-22 02:05:57 AM
Don't forget, Camper_Bob, that your microwave oven was probably 4 times farther away from your antenna than the 802.11 device. To properly measure the difference in power output, either put your antenna an equal distance away from each source or take into account the difference when doing your analysis.

I figure about the microwave will leak about 1,000-10,000x times more radiation than your average in-room WiFi intentionally emits.
 
2007-04-22 02:07:40 AM
jay_vee: And yet you can't even afford $0.17 cents a day for TotalFark... and I (some loser in your eyes) can!

And some people have better sense than to deal with Pay Pal.

/PG-3-3636
//Formerly P-1-3-14309
 
2007-04-22 02:09:32 AM
Isn't it just so *cute* how the little Luddites panic whenever they hear the word "radiation"? Schmuck.
 
2007-04-22 02:14:51 AM
Camper_Bob:

I've never seen an RF exposure limit specified as milliwatts per square centimeter. Normally the spatial field strength is specified in volts.

(shrug) I got it from this site, evidently that's the way the FDA specifies it.

I'm not doubting your findings, I'm just pointing out that we tend to stick radio transmitters in our ears and pockets for long periods of time which is a little different than an intermittently-used microwave 5' away or a wireless router 2' away.

The time of exposure might also be significant. Unless you have a lot of hot-pockets you're not going to run the microwave for hours.

In case anyone is interested, here's the US NIH's take on power-line EMF. The Cliff-notes version is "the powerlines, they do nothing."

Another interesting link is a study which shows that Wi-Fi power exposure in office environments is lower than most other RF sources
 
2007-04-22 02:18:20 AM
maxheck: The time of exposure might also be significant.

no
 
2007-04-22 02:24:54 AM
SpeshilEdjukashin [TotalFark]

idsfa: "I've got a Ph.D. in Physics, Masters degrees in Physics and Astrophysics (specializing in Radio and Microwave Astronomy)"

And yet you can't even afford... TotalFark... and I... can!

Hah hah haa. It's the old Ph.D. vs. TotalFark membership argument.

Classic.
 
2007-04-22 02:36:28 AM
Why do people hate the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation?
 
2007-04-22 02:46:05 AM
johnny mnemonic anyone?
 
2007-04-22 02:46:42 AM
One thing that hasn't been brought up is the fact that it's not just a pure 8cm wave from one point we're talking about.

Right in front of me I have a cheap router with two antennas separated by about 6', sitting on top of multiple metal chassis, and if I turn on the laptop I've got yet another source, etcetera.

Perhaps there's a flaw in my thinking here, but by superimposing all the various direct and reflected waves at different phases, it would be possible to produce pulses of any wavelength you care to name at a lower power.
 
2007-04-22 02:51:21 AM
By the way, the solar neutrino flux through your body is on par with the output from your router (if it is strapped to your gonads).

i48.photobucket.com
 
2007-04-22 02:51:59 AM
maxheck: Perhaps there's a flaw in my thinking here, but by superimposing all the various direct and reflected waves at different phases, it would be possible to produce pulses of any wavelength you care to name at a lower power.

no
 
2007-04-22 02:52:17 AM
I know that this is just a small case sample but take this into consideration

TV and radio stations have been using microwaves for decades to do live shots, relay signals from the stations building to the transmitters, (and at least once that I know of to defrost a KU-band dish) people that work in the technical areas of TV stations are exposed to hundred if not thousands of times the amount of microwave energy every day then any wi-fi user ever will be and according the IBEW the union that would just love to get us workers hazard pay if there was even a tiny risk rates of cancer among broadcast workers is slightly lower then in the general population.
 
2007-04-22 02:53:27 AM
dbaggins:

sure
 
2007-04-22 03:04:41 AM
eclipz

Ditto to just about everyone with some sort of Scientific Sense.

I did a research project about 8 years ago on the effects of ordinary EM radiation of humans (that is, the non-ionizing kind of radiation). The only research that even closely relates the two some statistical correlation between high-voltage transmission lines and the occurrence of childhood leukemia. Even that doesn't prove that electricity did it.

In fact, I found that most studies indicated that when they were not completely benign, they actually could help the human body. Soft tissue growth can be sped up with the application of certain fields.

So, go stuff it. I actually almost failed the class for that research because I couldn't find any harm EMFs could produce, and thus almost didn't have a paper.


How much did you read on the leukemia study? The back story to that is along the lines of - some nurse drove around to a bunch of kids houses with leukemia. She noticed some high power lines and transformers nearby, and leap to a conclusion. The 'link' has been shown to be insignificant when you take into effect other factors like diet, economic level, and environmental factors.


On a side note, anyone have a quick link to specific absorbtion rates? Too lazy to google. And though I know it is non-ionizing radiation, that doesn't mean I stand in front of our dish antenna at work when it's pumping out 6000 V/m.
 
2007-04-22 03:27:57 AM
mags4242 Don't forget, Camper_Bob, that your microwave oven was probably 4 times farther away from your antenna than the 802.11 device. To properly measure the difference in power output, either put your antenna an equal distance away from each source or take into account the difference when doing your analysis.

Right; the oven was more like 10x farther away, and on the other side of a wall. My original comment, though, was still misleading because I forgot that the measurement was taken at 5 dB/division rather than the usual 10. (The software didn't support anything other than 10 dB/div for the longest time...)

Also, the spectrum analyzer's resolution bandwidth is quite a bit narrower than the WiFi signal bandwidth, so that makes the WiFi source appear somewhat weaker than it really is. Bottom line, I'd guess the oven was leaking about a watt and the WiFi access point was putting out between 1 and 10 milliwatts.
 
2007-04-22 03:59:27 AM
SpeshilEdjukashin [TotalFark]

idsfa: I've got a Ph.D. in Physics, Masters degrees in Physics and Astrophysics (specializing in Radio and Microwave Astronomy)

And yet you can't even afford $0.17 cents a day for TotalFark... and I (some loser in your eyes) can!

/STFU


... ever taken a class on, or at least read a book about, logical fallacies? I would highly reccomend it.
 
2007-04-22 04:01:16 AM
Don't worry. If this stuff gave you cancer, the WiFi and cellphone companies would tell you right away.
 
2007-04-22 04:19:37 AM
All microwaves will do is create heat. A little heat does no harm at all... a lot will kill you.

I see no one worried about sitting under their incandescent light bulbs all day. Those emit radiation too... infrared radiation, and they generate a lot more heat than the microwaves from a wifi router ever will.

And look how close microwaves are to the IR spectrum:

www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov

You know what that means, right? Incandescent light bulbs give off IR radiation!!

You're cooking yourselves with your light bulbs! Oh noes! Teh cancerz!
 
2007-04-22 04:45:58 AM
palad: You're cooking yourselves with your light bulbs! Oh noes! Teh cancerz!

so Wi-Fi gives Magical Cancer?
 
2007-04-22 04:46:22 AM
But global warming, that's real. yup.


/wishes some of you would apply the same simple logic
 
2007-04-22 05:47:39 AM
Gahbrone: But global warming, that's real. yup.

But global not-warming, now THAT's the really well thought out reasoning.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report