Is Wi-Fi safe?

jpe20

If u are so worried about Wi-Fi then there are some solutions !!!

(1) Buy a lead apron that the radiologists use in hospitals.
(2) Buy some metal gauze and cover your self in it.

Or ultimately .....

(3) Live in a Faraday Cage or a Metal Box which has a special conductive/optical window to transmit your data whilst running your laptop on battery power with Wi-Fi off.

There ....

Jools

Need_More_Money_2

superscaper wrote: »

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.

I assume you are referring to studies showing areas with higher natural background level (it's not just cosmic radiation but variations in natural background in the soil/rock). Whilst it has been shown that these higher background radiation areas tend to have lower rates of cancer, there are many complicating factors that make it difficult to conclude whether it is due to beneficial effects of the radiation. For example, in the USA the states with higher background radiation levels tend to be the mountainous states and it could be argued that the air quality is better there or perhaps the people who live there are more prosperous. Perhaps fewer people smoke. It is difficult to control for all these factors.
The study in Radiologists is more convinving since it compares to other Drs so those exposed to higher radiation levels are similar to those not. The other study I referred to in the Nuclear Shipyard workers also had matched controls.

I think it is a good thing to educate the public about the safety of low level radiation. We need to be cautious about very high doses, but the current paranoia about anything to do with radiation causes lots of problems.
For me, one of the worst examples of this is the estimate of between 100,000-200,000 wanted pregnancies aborted in Western Europe after Chernobyl. This is because of the fear of having deformed children. In fact there was no increase in birth defects related to radiation from Chernobyl.

peterbaker

superscaper wrote: »

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".

Yes yes SS, but I am trying to keep this thread of general interest to the masses who perhaps don't understand the subtle differences.

The question remains ... if a high energy Cosmic Ray (particle?) that we are told goes right through you more often than not does actually encounter either a physical or biophysical obstruction or deflector then how is the obstruction/deflector (i.e some part of you and me physically affected?

Is is a half-remembered cloud chamber experiment all we are going to get as a clue?

oneofeight

peterbaker wrote:

Well I am glad we agree on the microwave bit even if I am still not sure about Wi-Fi!

So you are happy to stand next to an 800 watt microwave, but worried about the 50 Milliwatt signal from your neighbours wifi?

peterbaker

Get with the program, one of eight! (you need to edit and put [/quote] after your quote! at least) I am definitely not happy to peer into my microwave anymore for any length of time, and I am undecided about the one I cannot control.

Toothsmith

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?

This is what the evidence suggests.

Hiroshima survivors HAVE lived longer than similar Japanese people not exposed to the same dosage of radiation.

Apparently similar results have been found from nuclear shipyard workers.

The same may well be found in years to come from those people living around Chernobyl. Certainly there haven't been anywhere near as many DEATHS as predicted.

As for the lay person taking it the wrong way - They're not going to rush out and buy their own x-ray machine and start zapping themselves.

And if they become a little more relaxed about having x-rays, or even take their family up to Seascale to bathe in the sea - it's hardly going to harm them, and might even help prolong their life a bit!

Toothsmith

jpe20 wrote: »

(1) Buy a lead apron that the radiologists use in hospitals.

Dentists have been told for a fair few years now NOT to use lead aprons for patients.

Apparently, due to the angle of the beam when we take x-rays, it stops the 'scattered' beams exiting the body, and just bounce them back through again like a musket ball in a suit of armour!

peterbaker

Toothsmith wrote: »

...just bounce them back through again like a musket ball in a suit of armour!

I knew there must be valid macro-level analogies for this kind of physics ... I just knew it!! Now I can tell superscraper I didn't mean RoadRunner hitting a tree, I meant musket balls and armour !

Need_More_Money_2

Toothsmith wrote: »

The same may well be found in years to come from those people living around Chernobyl. Certainly there haven't been anywhere near as many DEATHS as predicted.

The number of deaths reported as a result of Chernobyl varies hugely. The greatest (but entirely false) report I saw was of 125,000 deaths. The last I read, the truth was there have been about 56. Most of these were not due to radiation. 31 were due to the blast. Some were due to natural causes. I think there are about 9 that have been relatively conclusively attributed to the radiation (thyroid cancers in children) and there are a few debateable ones.

Toothsmith

peterbaker wrote: »

I knew there must be valid macro-level analogies for this kind of physics ... I just knew it!! Now I can tell superscraper I didn't mean RoadRunner hitting a tree, I meant musket balls and armour !

You need to remember as well though, that most substance, to an x-ray beam, are as transparent as a pane of glass, and they go straight through.