Is Wi-Fi safe?

peterbaker

I really don't understand why posters keep banging on about naturally occurring radon gas in Cornwall and cosmic rays when we are up in the sky and sunburn on a Mediterranean beach which are all things we understand pretty well, as if it is some kind of antedote to the question of what were are doing to ourselves with new technology that we don't fully understand at all.

It is perhaps similar to the long period of denial of the obvious about global warming. Yet the majority of you non-Piers Corbinites accept we did that to ourselves now, don't you?

I am not suggesting that our avid use of Wi-Fi is going to threaten the very existence of the planet, but our use of wireless technologies is very poorly controlled, with its effects not understood and ipso facto likely to cause disorder.

There is a huge difference between background wireless radiation in our cities and that out in the villages. Perhaps that will start showing a trend, or perhaps we already have plotted it and don't have the will to give it a special label .... people in cities are just far more "stressed".

superscaper

peterbaker wrote: »

I really don't understand why posters keep banging on about naturally occurring radon gas in Cornwall and cosmic rays when we are up in the sky and sunburn on a Mediterranean beach which are all things we understand pretty well, as if it is some kind of antedote to the question of what were are doing to ourselves with new technology that we don't fully understand at all.

With those things there is measureably more damage and so far we can't ascertain any damage from microwave and radio radiation. The studies done so far are contradictory and inconclusive and are likely that any damage will be statistically smaller than anything by natural causes.

As for bringing in gloabal warming that's a bit off topic and there's nothing scientifically conclusive other than a statistical correlation. The climate is the most scientifically complicated thing we know of so it's unlikely anyone can prove anything either way.

baby_frogmella

Hi

Does anyone know why its illegal in the UK to have a router which transmits > 100mW in power? I mean is it illegal on health grounds or because of the potential to cause interference? I ask this because i recently purchased a 2WIRE 2700HGV wireless router (also known as BT Business hub) on ebay as this is an excellent router on long, weak ADSL lines. This router came unlocked (so that i can use it on non-BT isps) and allows me to turn the signal strength to a setting of 10/10 which is 400mw!!! (BT standard one only has max setting of 4/10). This router is made in USA so why is it legal there to use 400mw?

Thanks!

superscaper

baby_frogmella wrote: »

Hi

Does anyone know why its illegal in the UK to have a router which transmits > 100mW in power? I mean is it illegal on health grounds or because of the potential to cause interference? I ask this because i recently purchased a 2WIRE 2700HGV wireless router (also known as BT Business hub) on ebay as this is an excellent router on long, weak ADSL lines. This router came unlocked (so that i can use it on non-BT isps) and allows me to turn the signal strength to a setting of 10/10 which is 400mw!!! (BT standard one only has max setting of 4/10). This router is made in USA so why is it legal there to use 400mw?

Thanks!

It's nothing to do with health and is purely for reasons of licensing laws here that you are essentially turning yourself into a broadcaster. It's up to Ofcom who is allocated what frequency and how far/power. It's why MP3 FM car transmitters were only made legal a few months ago, our frequency broadcasting laws are pretty strict.

albertross_2

Millionare wrote: »

When I brought a wireless dongle to stick in my computer and turned it on orginally i started to get a tighting of the chest which gradually increased untill it felt like i was going to have a heart attack.

the pain built up in my chest and felt like someone had grabbed hold of my chest/heart and was squeezing the life out of it. .

If you haven't already, you need to see a doctor about this, they sound like classic heart attack symptoms, and may be coincidence. The next one might not be as minor.

And Thomas, you need to encrypt your network, mac address filtering isn't secure at all.

--

Now, what was the question?

Millionare

superscaper wrote: »

Whether they are damaging or not to the extent some people believe, the above statement is meaningless. Gamma radiation can go through much more material than alpha radiation. But gamma is far less damaging to people precisely BECAUSE it can more easily pass through you.

Well i know how using some of these devices have affected me and its not been in a positive way.

Need_More_Money_2

peterbaker wrote: »

I really don't understand why posters keep banging on about naturally occurring radon gas in Cornwall and cosmic rays when we are up in the sky and sunburn on a Mediterranean beach which are all things we understand pretty well

We don't know about low level ionising radiation all that well, but it is assumed that it is dangerous. Depsite evidence to the contrary. Because of this there is a huge amount of money wasted on radiation protection. I really hope we are not going down the same road with Wifi and the like.

peterbaker wrote: »

There is a huge difference between background wireless radiation in our cities and that out in the villages. Perhaps that will start showing a trend, or perhaps we already have plotted it and don't have the will to give it a special label .... people in cities are just far more "stressed".

People ignore correlations when they don't fit with what they believe. Areas with higher natural ionising radiation have lower incidences of cancer than those with lower levels. Yet we still assume that low level ionising radiation is dangerous!
Of course, there are many complicating factors and correlation does not mean cause. The same complicating factors would apply to background 'wireless radiation'

Need_More_Money_2

Millionare wrote: »

Well i know how using some of these devices have affected me and its not been in a positive way.

How do you know?

superscaper

Millionare wrote: »

Well i know how using some of these devices have affected me and its not been in a positive way.

Again I'm not going to go into anecdotal evidence and dispute what you say as I've got no way to. But I'd definitely take Albert's advice. I've NEVER heard of what you described before from wireless devices. Even if it is the wireless devices you should still see the doctor. If hypothetically you have a particular sensitivity to them then that in itself would be reason enough to seek medical advice.

Millionare

albertross wrote: »

If you haven't already, you need to see a doctor about this, they sound like classic heart attack symptoms, and may be coincidence. The next one might not be as minor.

And Thomas, you need to encrypt your network, mac address filtering isn't secure at all.

--

Now, what was the question?

I had all the tests done as thats what my gp thought at first but they came back fine.

It just when you have felt the effects of something like this, it makes you wonder what your being exposed to by hours of daily use of wireless transmissions sitting a few feet away, holding a wireless mouse or bluetooth headsets etc.