Conversation
Notices
-
Psst, @hannes2peer och @nidron, det här är bättre än de där vänsterbloggarna ni följer: https://solveig21miljoblogg.wordpress.com/
-
too bad I cant read Swedish & google translate is insufficient. Anyway I think #wifi might be dangerous b/c accesspoints #transmit non-stop
-
@mcscx Non-ionizing radiation at low power levels should've shown to be dangerous as soon as we started broadcasting radio and tv with microwaves to the general public all over the world. There's no indication of anything like that.
The person behind that blog is bat-shit crazy.
-
@mmn radio+tv aren't exactly microwave& the transmitters are far away. We dont have long time experience w/ wifi transmitters in our rooms
-
@mcscx Sorry, some radio (like the FM band) are below the specified "microwave" interval, but TV is broadcasted above the line of (apparently) 300 MHz. And regardless, if you think there's a difference in hazardous effects in the tiny difference of ~2GHz (compared to visible light being in the hundreds of THz) between TV and 3G/Wifi I would like to hear a good, sound, scientifically arguable explanation. And how GSM fits in there, which hangs around at 900/1800 MHz with much higher wattage in practice than 3G communication.
Considering the range you get from analogue TV broadcasting and the puny microwave transmitters we carry around in our pockets or put on our tables - and then look at what's needed to actually do any physical harm (high output or high frequency) - I would say TV broadcasting towers would be much more worrying. An effect would've shown with increased cancer cases in neighborhoods close to broadcasting towers.
-
@mmn Health hazards are rarely shown "as soon as we started" anything. That's not a valid argument. 20 cigs >> cancer? @mcscx
-
@inscius Try > 20 years with microwave transmitters to our heads and in our pockets without any measurable health effects.
-
@inscius People have lived entire lives during TV broadcasting at high energy. If modern communication techniques, broadcasted at much lower effects and still with only miniscule thermal effects in the absolutely outer layers of the skin, is more dangerous just because it is a couple of hundred MHz away I'd like to hear a well-based reasoning.
-
@mmn ok, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health#Microwaves seems to confirm there's no cancer inducing effect
-
@mmn OTOH:"Lab experiments have shown short-term exposure to high levels of RF radiation (100–200 mW/cm²) can cause cataracts in rabbits"
-
@mcscx First of all: quotation needed, I can't verify what they mean with "short-term". Also, 100-200 mW/cm² is - as it says - a pretty high dosage.
Could it be this? https://social.umeahackerspace.se/url/31080
From the abstract: "Statistically, there was a significant (P < .01) decrease only of food consumption during the 5-mW/cm2 exposure; other variables were not significantly different between exposed and control groups."
-
citation* (I should practice my wikipedian)
-
@mmn Quotation source is the wikipedia link in the preceding dent = http://qttr.at/rrq
-
@mmn 100mW/cm may be realistic. #wifi: "Equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) in EU limited to 20dBm (100mW)" http://qttr.at/rrt
-
@mmn [speculation] with 100mW being maximum permitted actual microwave output,you could expose 1cm² of your head (near your eye) to 50mW/cm→
-
@mmn →by holding your smartphone against your head with the "wifi hotspot" ap mode enabled.
-
@mmn →I assumed only 50mW/cm² because the other 50mW will go to other directions. I may be wrong with the "cm²" b/c the source says "cm"
-
@mcscx Yeah but I meant there was no citation source _on_ Wikipedia .)
-
@mmn "150mW/cm² for 100 min at the maximum SAR 138 W/kg-¹
in the eye." page 211 (= pdf page 225) http://qttr.at/rs6