Is Wi-Fi safe?

Toothsmith

peterbaker wrote: »

PS The detector has also caused me not to stand so close to the microwave or to peer constantly into it to check whether my chicken dinner might be ready!

That is probably the most useful change you can make to protect yourself.

The 'peering in' is exposing the lens of your eye, which as we discovered earlier is a very suceptible organ to radiation.

As for all of the rest of it, it should show you that medical/dental x-rays really are very insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

And based on current evidence, all the low-level exposure you are getting in a city, compared to your brother in the country, may actually be extending your life!

wolfman

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Nothing is safe until you can make it as safe. And even then, its never 100% safe.

Reminds me of the quote from Anchorman.

"60% of the time, it works all the time."

Need_More_Money_2

Toothsmith wrote: »

The 'peering in' is exposing the lens of your eye, which as we discovered earlier is a very suceptible organ to radiation.

But just to clarify. I was referring only to ionising radiation (such as xrays, gamma rays) when I mentioned the effects on the lens of the eye. I don't know enough about non-ionising radiation (such as radio waves/microwaves) to say if the lens of the eye is particularly sensitive to those

superscaper

I thought most modern Microwaves had metal mesh in the glass in the door.

Need_More_Money_2

superscaper wrote: »

I thought most modern Microwaves had metal mesh in the glass in the door.

Don't you get leakage around the door? (Especially as they get older and are not maintained)

superscaper

Need_More_Money wrote: »

Don't you get leakage around the door? (Especially as they get older and are not maintained)

I would think that with the wavelength being over 12 cm it would be a very small amount if any, any aperture wouldn't really be big enough to allow it through. Unless it is in a really bad state of course.

Toothsmith

Need_More_Money wrote: »

But just to clarify. I was referring only to ionising radiation (such as xrays, gamma rays) when I mentioned the effects on the lens of the eye. I don't know enough about non-ionising radiation (such as radio waves/microwaves) to say if the lens of the eye is particularly sensitive to those

I did a radiology update course a few weeks ago, and your post reminded me that one of the speakers said that peering into the microwave was not a good idea.

peterbaker

Well I am glad we agree on the microwave bit even if I am still not sure about Wi-Fi! And my microwave is not in a state, but it is basic and about 5 years old I think. It's an LG 850W model with a clockwork timer (which doesn't tick!) and yes it has mesh in the door, but there is a pattern, possibly lobe-shaped that can easily be detected out of the microwave door right out to about 1m at least and I think further sometimes depending perhaps on what you are heating. The noise on the detector for that one is a deeper tone much like that from a badly tuned station on an old analogue telly.

PS You experts do realise that the last page or two of this thread is giving out the "modest doses of radiation may be beneficial" message? Whilst it might even be true up to a limit, it surely isn't what a lay-person should use as a basis for risk assessment of radiation generally? A lay person has no idea what modest amounts or low doses might be! And Cosmic Rays being possibly beneficial too? I find that very hard to accept. I can accept acupuncture needles can help people if inserted by experts, but cosmic rays that drill right through you at random entry points? What does a cosmic ray actually do when it hits an atomic nucleus anyway? Surely if it zaps into you like RoadRunner and hits something hard like a tree it doesn't just stop dead, roll its eyes and say "You got me there!"?? Surely there is some kind of accident scene at the nano-levels?:-))

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

PS You experts do realise that the last page or two of this thread is giving out the "modest doses of radiation may be beneficial" message? Whilst it might even be true up to a limit, it surely isn't what a lay-person should use as a basis for risk assessment of radiation generally? A lay person has no idea what modest amounts or low doses might be! And Cosmic Rays being possibly beneficial too? I find that very hard to accept. I can accept acupuncture needles can help people if inserted by experts, but cosmic rays that drill right through you at random entry points? What does a cosmic ray actually do when it hits an atomic nucleus anyway? Surely if it zaps into you like RoadRunner and hits something hard like a tree it doesn't just stop dead, roll its eyes and say "You got me there!"?? Surely there is some kind of accident scene at the nano-levels?:-))

That's what the studies show though, no matter how counter intuitive it is. The mass study that was done on places with higher exposure to cosmic radiation compared to those with lower showed a statistically lower likelihood of developing cancer. I don't see how you could interpret that any other way than low level radiation actually helping prevent cancer. Unless you have a better explanation. The hypotheses put forward (as I mentioned 100 pages ago ) was that at low levels it typically activates the cancer fighting genes and therefore boosts your ability to prevent cancer.

superscaper

You also seem to keep applying macro principles to the micro scale. A cosmic ray hitting an atom (much more likely than hitting a nucleus) is not analogous to something hitting a tree. It's the knocking off of electrons that's important, not what happens to the nucleus and that's not two physical objects colliding it's about the transferrence of energies. At these scales there aren't really "solid physical objects".