Comment by rich_sasha
5 years ago
Really? I don't know much about that... is it that the norms are unsafely high for these devices, or is it that most kit doesn't quite meet them?
Could you point me to any articles etc. on this?
Thanks in advance!
5 years ago
Really? I don't know much about that... is it that the norms are unsafely high for these devices, or is it that most kit doesn't quite meet them?
Could you point me to any articles etc. on this?
Thanks in advance!
My comment is an unresearched, not even cursorially google-searched, from-memory assertion, so take with 5 buckets of salt please, and if I'm wrong I'd like to correct my ignorance, so someone please correct me :)
My understanding is that Wi-Fi, cellular (no matter the 12345G) and radio signals are all harmless in 99.99999% circumstances as they are non-ionizing radiation. They are no more harmful to you than light photons.
In fact, Wi-Fi signals might be safer than light. Since you don't have eyes sensitive to the EM wavelength of Wi-Fi, you can't shine a 'wifi light' too brightly next to you.
Damaging radiation as we think of it is most often in the form of ionizing radiation such as too much sunlight, microwaves that excite water molecules, or high amounts of alpha / beta / gamma particles that can mess with DNA etc. and thus cause cancer as DNA damage accumulates.
> Since you don't have eyes sensitive to the EM wavelength of Wi-Fi, you can't shine a 'wifi light' too brightly next to you.
This is dangerously wrong. Vision damage is not prevented by the wavelength not being in the visible spectrum. Even if you can't see it, and even if it is non-ionizing, electromagnetic waves still impart energy.
Eyes cannot efficiently dissipate heat, so sufficiently strong EMF will damage the eye. This is a well-known risk when operating with strong microwave signals, for example.
"Effects of Microwave and Millimeter Wave Radiation on the Eye", J. A. D’AndreaS. Chalfin, NATO Science Series book series (ASHT, volume 82)
> Most of the early research was carried out in the lower portion of the microwave spectrum (at 2.45 GHz) and demonstrated a high dose response relationship between microwave exposure and cataract induction. For example, Carpenter and Van Ummersen irradiated anesthetized rabbits at 2.45 GHz and showed a decreasing threshold for cataractogenesis from 4 minute exposure at 400 mW/cm2 to 40 minutes at 80 mW/cm2• Guy et al. ... repeated some of the earlier research and found essentially the same threshold for cataract production in rabbits exposed with a near field applicator at 2.45 GHz. At minimum, they determined that 150 mW/cm2 was required for 100 min to produce a cataract.
Not saying your Wi-Fi router is going to cause cataracts, but don't think just because you can't see something it can't hurt your vision. In fact, it could be argued invisibly strong EMF is _more_ dangerous than visible light because it doesn't trigger the self-protective blink reflex.
Microwaves are not ionizing radiation.
So? EM induces other kind of cellular changes. Maybe not as immediately disruptive as ionizing radiation. Just look up the study linking neuroglioblastoma incidence correlates to the side of the head one uses their cellphone.
2 replies →