6 ms·
Some claim that wifi and cell phone emissions bouncing around in the cabin are also cause for concern. I've no idea if it's true, but I can imagine that inside
by a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
Some claim that wifi and cell phone emissions bouncing around in the cabin are also cause for concern. I've no idea if it's true, but I can imagine that inside an aluminum tube 150 wifi cards trying to connect might have some biological effect.
- hbar 13y agoYou should understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y agoRadio and microwaves can still have biological effects, including cancer risk. Animal experiments prove this.
- rdl 13y agoAbsolutely -- you can get RF burns from holding antennas, and you can obviously see the results of massive radars (e.g. putting a gerbil in a microwave). What we're arguing about is the signal strength and duration (and to some extent, where on the person the radiation is administered; hands are pretty tolerant compared to brain or torso), and the conversion factor to biological effect (which varies by frequency). With modern radios, you've also got duty cycle -- your cellphone isn't transmitting full-time. I'm basically not afraid at all about "tower" signals as a member of the public. I wouldn't stand in a microwave point to point beam. I also wouldn't want a 5W HT radio next to my head (or groin) for high duty cycle use, but I'm ok with holding it in my hand with a hands-free kit. The people who vote you down for saying some types of non-ionizing radiation can be bad are actually worse scientists than if you were to say all (non-ionizing or ionizing) radiation is a huge problem. We have positive evidence that some radiation is really bad, and some is sort of bad; we have a bunch of negative confirmations that low levels of many kinds of radiation aren't likely to be very bad, and certainly aren't super-bad, but the exact borderline isn't known, and varies, and a 0.01% increase in cancer with zero benefit is more of a concern to me than a 1% increase in cancer with massive benefit (e.g. a CT for trauma where you'd otherwise be likely to die). (Incidentally, my fear of ~200 wifi devices transmitting in the milliwatts on 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz or on a flight is approximately zero -- especially since it's unclear how many would actually be using the service at any given time, and it's a pretty large volume.)
- alexvr 13y agoSo I need to power off my iPhone before I put it in my pocket?
- MichaelMoser123 13y agoI don't know why this was down voted; while in an elevator one is not supposed to use a cell phone, because of this effect. At least in the elevator at work there is a sign that says so. http://microwavenews.com/news-center/using-cell-phone-elevator http://microwavenews.com/news-center/using-cell-phone-elevat...
- hueving 13y agoIt was down-voted because it's nonsensical. Nobody is making cell-phone calls on an airplane.
- ckoepp 13y agoWell, some airlines [1] already offering such services... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft#Status_of_specific_regions_and_individual_airlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft#Statu...
- philwelch 13y agoI thought one is not supposed to use a cell phone in the elevator because it doesn't work because elevators are made out of ferrous metals and hence are effectively Faraday cages.
- DanBC 13y agoI can make and receive phone calls in lifts. It was weird the first few times. I'm in the UK if that makes any difference.
- socillion 13y ago"Some claim" a lot of things. http://i.imgur.com/7LzpYl4.jpg http://i.imgur.com/7LzpYl4.jpg