3 ms·

Regardless of whether this research is valid, I think it makes sense to reduce one's exposure to wifi. You may want to make sure you don't share a wall with yo

Regardless of whether this research is valid, I think it makes sense to reduce one's exposure to wifi. You may want to make sure you don't share a wall with your neighbor that only puts a foot between your head and a wifi router when you're sleeping. iStumbler can help you see how strong the various signals are.

chaosmachine 16y ago
Why does it make sense? Are you afraid of tiny amounts of non-ionizing[0] radiation? 2.4Ghz is great for heating things at high power (my microwave outputs at 1200 watts), but the most powerful home routers only do about 0.2 watts. Cell phones can do about 1 watt, and you hold those up to your ear. In fact, it's been calculated that a year of wifi exposure is about the same as 20 minutes on a cell phone.[1] And if non-ionizing radiation is anything to fear, you should be really afraid of the sun, which pumps it out at about 1000W per square meter[2]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation [1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article665419.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/featu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#sunlight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#sunlight
- mybbor 16y ago
  Thank you. This article is bad science!
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  Yeah, wifi is in the most harmless category according to your first source. I stand corrected. I should have looked this up myself earlier. Thanks!
evanrmurphy 16y ago
I'm troubled that this comment was so ferociously downvoted. Of course as far as science is concerned, the burden of proof/evidence lies with those who make claims about the effects of low-energy radiation to make their case. But that doesn't mean your personal health strategy should work the same way. The skepticism tilts the other way here: Don't unnecessarily expose yourself to things you're not sure are safe. Why? Because you don't get repeated experiments with your own body.

chaosmachine 16y ago

Why does it make sense? Are you afraid of tiny amounts of non-ionizing[0] radiation? 2.4Ghz is great for heating things at high power (my microwave outputs at 1200 watts), but the most powerful home routers only do about 0.2 watts. Cell phones can do about 1 watt, and you hold those up to your ear. In fact, it's been calculated that a year of wifi exposure is about the same as 20 minutes on a cell phone.[1] And if non-ionizing radiation is anything to fear, you should be really afraid of the sun, which pumps it out at about 1000W per square meter[2]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation [1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article665419.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/featu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#sunlight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#sunlight

mybbor 16y ago
Thank you. This article is bad science!
stretchwithme 16y ago
Yeah, wifi is in the most harmless category according to your first source. I stand corrected. I should have looked this up myself earlier. Thanks!

evanrmurphy 16y ago

I'm troubled that this comment was so ferociously downvoted. Of course as far as science is concerned, the burden of proof/evidence lies with those who make claims about the effects of low-energy radiation to make their case. But that doesn't mean your personal health strategy should work the same way. The skepticism tilts the other way here: Don't unnecessarily expose yourself to things you're not sure are safe. Why? Because you don't get repeated experiments with your own body.