Is there technology between wifi and 4g any different in terms of safety?
Comments
-
Davy_Jones_II wrote: »You can file the above post alongside the anti-vaccine posts and the claims of David Icke.
There is no plausible mechanism for WiFi to cause health issues. The photons don’t have enough energy to knock electrons out of atomic bonds, so simply cannot cause cancer.
You are already bathed in the same frequencies from natural sources.
And does 4g qualify in that statement too? In other words is 4g just a type of (long distance) wifi?
Regarding those type's of people's 'reasoning' they don't let any new information in. I was trying to have a discussion with someone who denied climate change and said it was a conspiracy to get tax money; their argument was a couple of tenuous detractors they had cherry picked who somehow have the inside info which supersedes the world's (apparently corrupt) scientists.
I think trying to have a debate with such people is like trying to have a debate with religious zealots; not much point.0 -
Yes.user225688 wrote: »And does 4g qualify in that statement too? In other words is 4g just a type of (long distance) wifi?
Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength longer the the ultra violet part of the spectrum (visible light, infra red, microwaves, radio waves) are not ionising. The worst they can do to the human body is heat it up. All transmissions by phones are pretty low power so any effects would be a slight warming.
Electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths shorter than visible light (ultra violet, x-rays, gamma rays) are ionizing and can cause cancers. The shorter the wavelength the greater the effects on people.0 -
As above, yes, absolutely, it’s in the microwave part of the spectrum, so not ionizing.
There’s no evidence of harm, and no plausible way for it to cause harm.
Thus is another reappearance if so-called electro-hypersensitivity, where people claim that WiFi and mobile phone signals make them unwell. It’s an easily tested hypothesis, so it was tested, and it turned out that there was zero correlation between people’s symptoms and the equipment being turned on.
Interestingly though, there was a strong correlation between people reporting symptoms and then thinking that the equipment was on...0 -
Well I hope you also live in a rural area without mobile coverage and do all your shopping online, never stepping into urban areas. Otherwise it's all for nothing, given the fact that devices and infrastructure owned by others are emitting far more EM radiation, than your own kit.A.Penny.Saved wrote: »I do not use wireless tech, no mobile phones, no wifi, no wireless doorbells or smart (dumb) meters. My internet is wired ethernet.
WiFi is traditionally using the 2.4Ghz(2400Mhz) spectrum, with 5Ghz(5000Mhz) becoming more popular and widespread.
4G in the UK span multiple bandwidths between 800Mhz and 2600Mhz depending on the carrier. 5G is higher than that going between 3400Mhz and 4000Mhz
So there isn't much difference between GSM 2/3/4/5G and WiFi in terms of EM radiation. There is a world of difference on how the protocols and technology operates on these frequencies.
There was a failed attempt in the 2000's of blend between WiFi and GSM for data, running on 2-6Ghz range - WiMAX - IEEE 802.16 that AFAIK is now dead.0 -
Wel...
Shame these people usually do hit and run comments bullet pointing their alarmist opinions, without coming back to back them up; probably because they can't :rotfl:
I surely was concerned at first but my mind was open to rational argument and it has now been appeased having been given solid verifiable data from the lion-share of commenters.0 -
Its a forum with opinions and those opinions may be wrong or right .0
-
There was a bit on Click on BBC news this week (or last week) basically showing the nonsense aboug 4g/5g radiation
If you stood directly in front of the transmitter (at the same height as it) with your heard basically in the middle of it and touching the casing you'd get about 3x the "safe" level (which remember is usually a very conservative estimate which a huge safety margin*). if you were walking directly below one mounted on a roof, with your feet on the roof you'd be getting something like 1x the limit, if you were walking just a couple of meters further away you'd be getting something like 0.15% of the limit for continuous exposure.
Given they're directional, having one fitted on a roof means you're not going to be exposed to even those levels even if you were on the top floor of a building with it, if you're at ground level (around 10m from the emitter) you're probably going to be getting less than 1% of the "safe" limit.
Mind you of course if you stick lab rats in a cage and have them spend their entire life from birth sat in front of a device transmitting the signal directly at the cage, (possibly at a higher power than you'd see in real life) under completely made up and unrealistic conditions, you're going to probably get some indicators that it's potentially dangerous, but you'd probably be better off worrying about the rock under your feet, or the radiation you're exposed to on a transatlantic flight.
A lot of the people who get scared of mobile phone and wifi transmissions have absolutely zero knowledge of what they're even talking about, let alone the science behind it (things like the inverse square law for radiation which basically from memory means that basically if you need X power to get a set signal at a distance of Y, you need 4X to get the same signal at 2Y, 16X at 3Y - assuming you're in a vacuum, in an atmosphere it's a lot more power required and it's affected by things like moisture in the air at the frequencies mobile phones use).
*With radiation from the likes of reactors the safety limit is low enough you can trigger it walking into the facilities if you've been to a coal fired power station, or working with some stone (you also get exposed to more than the "safe" ongoing limit for workers if you take certain long distance flights).0 -
I know they say it is 'generally safe' but I just read the article about the rats that got some kind of cancer from constant exposure.
What happened to all the talk about 'non-ionizing radiation cannot cause dna damage'?
Well I would be buying it only for home use as I can't use wired internet where I will be living which means my exposure would be constant as I work online for like 8-12 hours a day 7 days a week. Does this raise cause for concern?
Does the inverse square law make it not much of a concern since the 3g dongle will be in my computer which is a much greater distance than would be in phones.
I think maybe I would also by like a 5 metre USB extension which would give me even greater distance between myself and the apparatus sending the signals.
Moreover, does the linked study apply only to 3/4g or would it be just the same for any wifi?0 -
The animal studies use radiation levels much higher than you would actually ever get in the real world.user225688 wrote: »I know they say it is 'generally safe' but I just read the article about the rats that got some kind of cancer from constant exposure.
Non ionising radiation can't cause DNA damage. Cancer can be caused by many things that aren't due to DNA damage from radiation. There is no one type of cancer too.user225688 wrote: »What happened to all the talk about 'non-ionizing radiation cannot cause dna damage'?
No cause for concern. Wi-Fi power levels are limited and very very low. They cannot harm you in any way.user225688 wrote: »Well I would be buying it only for home use as I can't use wired internet where I will be living which means my exposure would be constant as I work online for like 8-12 hours a day 7 days a week. Does this raise cause for concern?
It would make the signals broadcast by your dongle weaker by the time they reach you but it would do nothing for the other radiation around you all the time from other sources.user225688 wrote: »Does the inverse square law make it not much of a concern since the 3g dongle will be in my computer which is a much greater distance than would be in phones.
I think maybe I would also by like a 5 metre USB extension which would give me even greater distance between myself and the apparatus sending the signals.
It would apply to any electromagnetic radiation that uses similar frequencies.user225688 wrote: »Moreover, does the linked study apply only to 3/4g or would it be just the same for any wifi?0 -
It would make the signals broadcast by your dongle weaker by the time they reach you but it would do nothing for the other radiation around you all the time from other sources.
Ye I get that. My rationale is that if I lowered it to a similar point as the other signals I have been exposed to most of my life anyway from other sources, by putting it, say, in the farthest corner of my apartment, then I could feel better knowing it was no worse than I my body is used to.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards