Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   NZ Computing (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f47-nz-computing.html)
-   -   wifi radiation (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t581256-wifi-radiation.html)

Shane 05-22-2007 07:06 PM

wifi radiation
 
I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
about wifi installations at home/school
There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated with a
mobile phone than a wifi ap.

Whilst that may be true, the british study which first concerned me found
the following:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...441276&ref=rss

Radiation levels from wireless internet in schools are being investigated
after a British study found emissions in a classroom there three times
higher than those from a mobile phone mast.

It followed the discovery by BBC researchers that the maximum signal
strength one metre from a Wi-Fi laptop in a classroom was three times that
measured 100m from a mobile phone mast nearby.



I certainly hope my mobile phone isnt emitting the same as a mast, and
granted the mast was measured 100m away, and the wifi AP 1m away. Still,
it could be HT powerlines instead...


--
Q: What do you get when you cross a mosquito with a rock climber?
A: Nothing. You can't cross a vector and a scalar.


Adam Cameron 05-22-2007 08:55 PM

Re: wifi radiation
 
> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
> about wifi installations at home/school


Good. And so you should.

> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated with a
> mobile phone than a wifi ap.


And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!

I think it's all a case of "slow news week", or something. Anyway... the
Beeb didn't quite go as far as admitting "actually, we talk ****", but they
come close:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6676129.stm

Hopefully you can sleep safely tonight, Shane. But put the tinfoil hat on,
just in case, eh?

--
Adam

PS: your sig made me laugh. Cool.

Shane 05-22-2007 09:04 PM

Re: wifi radiation
 
Adam Cameron wrote:

>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
>> about wifi installations at home/school

>
> Good. And so you should.
>


Thats what nz.comp is for :-)

>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated
>> with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.

>
> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
>


Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..

> I think it's all a case of "slow news week", or something. Anyway... the
> Beeb didn't quite go as far as admitting "actually, we talk ****", but
> they come close:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6676129.stm
>
> Hopefully you can sleep safely tonight, Shane. But put the tinfoil hat
> on, just in case, eh?
>


Dunno, the uni is doing experiments with focussed wifi beams.
Essentially, as I am told, the university has consumer grade wifi cards (as
in nicked out of a laptop/desktop) that they are using to transceive over
>20km (Yes twenty kilometers). For those that havent guessed, most of the

magic is in the high gain antennas they employ. (woks anyone?)

Talking to one of the grad students involved with it, apparently they are
getting ~11 Mb/s instead of the theoretical 54 Mb/s maximum because of
transmission errors, interference from microwave ovens, and the like

At any rate, a tinfoil hat may be overdoing it.. but a tinfoil box? :-)


--
Q: Why do mathematicians often confuse Christmas and Halloween?
A: Because Oct 31 = Dec 25.


Allistar 05-22-2007 10:02 PM

Re: wifi radiation
 
Shane wrote:

> Adam Cameron wrote:
>
>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school

>>
>> Good. And so you should.
>>

>
> Thats what nz.comp is for :-)
>
>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated
>>> with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.

>>
>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
>>

>
> Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..


It's everywhere. You cannot avoid it. All transmitting devices do is encode
data into the radiation.

Light is a form of radiation.
So is sound (although not electromagnatic).
Do you want to ban all magnets too?

We couldn't live without radiation. It's essential.

[snip]

Allistar.

Shane 05-22-2007 10:06 PM

Re: wifi radiation
 
Allistar wrote:

> Shane wrote:
>
>> Adam Cameron wrote:
>>
>>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
>>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
>>>
>>> Good. And so you should.
>>>

>>
>> Thats what nz.comp is for :-)
>>
>>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated
>>>> with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
>>>
>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
>>>

>>
>> Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..

>
> It's everywhere. You cannot avoid it. All transmitting devices do is
> encode data into the radiation.
>
> Light is a form of radiation.
> So is sound (although not electromagnatic).
> Do you want to ban all magnets too?
>
> We couldn't live without radiation. It's essential.
>
> [snip]
>
> Allistar.



*sigh*


--
Math problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i)2]-[sin(xy)/2.362x].


Kent Smith 05-22-2007 11:15 PM

Re: wifi radiation
 
Allistar wrote:
> Shane wrote:
>
>> Adam Cameron wrote:
>>
>>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
>>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
>>>
>>> Good. And so you should.
>>>

>>
>> Thats what nz.comp is for :-)
>>
>>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity
>>>> associated with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
>>>
>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
>>>

Yes, even ambient temperature is radiation, otherwise we'd be at 0 deg
kelvin (-273 deg C) :)

The problem with cellphone towers is they 'look bad'. AP's can get away
with it because they are small and you can hide them. :)

It's as bad as farmers arguing transmission lines should be subterranean and
then they argue health risks of overhead lines. Now if they were
subterranean, they would be ~6M deep. If they were overhead they would be
~200M high. Now, you'd think the disbursement of radiation at 6M be more
concentrated/stronger than at 200M. But as long as they can't see them,
when they walk over them, it's fine. :)


-KENT



Adam Cameron 05-22-2007 11:29 PM

Re: wifi radiation
 
>>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!

>>> Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..

>>
>> It's everywhere. You cannot avoid it. All transmitting devices do is
>> encode data into the radiation.
>>
>> Light is a form of radiation.
>> So is sound (although not electromagnatic).
>> Do you want to ban all magnets too?
>>
>> We couldn't live without radiation. It's essential.


> *sigh*


What are you *sighing* about? He's RIGHT.

--
Adam

Lawrence D'Oliveiro 05-22-2007 11:50 PM

Re: wifi radiation
 
In message <f2vesk$rn5$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Shane wrote:

> I certainly hope my mobile phone isnt emitting the same as a mast, and
> granted the mast was measured 100m away, and the wifi AP 1m away. Still,
> it could be HT powerlines instead...


What do the following things have in common:

* ESP
* Cold fusion
* Health effects from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation

Answer: they have all been studied for close to twenty years (or in the case
of ESP, even longer). Every now and then somebody comes up a with a result
that seems to indicate that the effect is real. But then nobody else seems
to be able to replicate that result.

In other words, you get this ongoing, low-level intermittent background of
spurious positives. Which is exactly what you would expect if the effects
do not exist, but a whole lot of people are continuing to look in the
belief that they do.

Craig Shore 05-22-2007 11:50 PM

Re: wifi radiation
 
On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:02:43 +1200, Allistar <a@b.com> wrote:

>Shane wrote:
>
>> Adam Cameron wrote:
>>
>>>> I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having
>>>> concern about wifi installations at home/school
>>>
>>> Good. And so you should.
>>>

>>
>> Thats what nz.comp is for :-)
>>
>>>> There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated
>>>> with a mobile phone than a wifi ap.
>>>
>>> And automatically ***RADIATION*** is always bad!!!!!
>>>

>>
>> Its not what I would put in a healthy diet..

>
>It's everywhere. You cannot avoid it. All transmitting devices do is encode
>data into the radiation.


I wonder how powerful the transmission off a 2.4ghz phone that you hold against
your head is compared to an AP?



Ken Yates@yahooken.com 05-22-2007 11:56 PM

Re: wifi radiation
 
On Wed, 23 May 2007 07:06:54 +1200, Shane <shane@weasel.is-a-geek.net> wrote:

>I seem to recall getting a fair amount of... ribbing.. for having concern
>about wifi installations at home/school
>There was even suggestion that there is more radioactivity associated with a
>mobile phone than a wifi ap.
>
>Whilst that may be true, the british study which first concerned me found
>the following:
>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...441276&ref=rss
>
>Radiation levels from wireless internet in schools are being investigated
>after a British study found emissions in a classroom there three times
>higher than those from a mobile phone mast.
>
>It followed the discovery by BBC researchers that the maximum signal
>strength one metre from a Wi-Fi laptop in a classroom was three times that
>measured 100m from a mobile phone mast nearby.
>
>
>
>I certainly hope my mobile phone isnt emitting the same as a mast, and
>granted the mast was measured 100m away, and the wifi AP 1m away. Still,
>it could be HT powerlines instead...
>
>




The BIG worry is that these things are related to Killing Bees..

No Bees not Food..




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.