6 ms·
What about level of non ionizing radiation the cat is exposed to? Cats head is always in near field of antenna, seems a bit harsh to the cat.
by MichailP 12y ago
What about level of non ionizing radiation the cat is exposed to? Cats head is always in near field of antenna, seems a bit harsh to the cat.
- cookiemonster11 12y agoDo you use a mobile phone?
- elif 12y agothe difference is in the wavelength. cell signals are designed to cut through water, so that you can use them when it rains. wifi signals are designed purposely to be absorbed by water (thus limiting their range to reduce interference). your brain is full of water
- cookiemonster11 12y agoAlso, the device is probably passive, sniffing and logging, but not sending anything. Why would it?
- Piskvorrr 12y ago1. it's a WiFi client, in other words, mostly receiver. 2. even if it were an AP, transmitting at max power for hours, it would give out very limited power (zero, give or take measurement errors). 3. you're starting from assumption "wifi baaaad" without anything to support that claim; if it were a nuclear device, I'd see a cause for concern. [citation-sorely-needed] for this assumption.
- cookiemonster11 12y agoWiFi APs do not have a power output of zero. Think about it for a minute, it makes no sense whatsoever.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Piskvorrr 12y ago"Zero, give or take measurement errors." As related to the GP's assumption "seems a bit harsh to the cat" - in other words, "why are you microwaving your cat, you monster!!111!", not as related to data transfer. Edited to add the direct quote.
- sp332 12y agoThat wasn't an assumption, that was the question.
- Piskvorrr 12y agoOh, okay, that makes sense; I have misread it as a rhetorical question, then. The answer is "no, your cat won't get its brains cooked, not even after prolonged exposure" - there's not even enough juice in the battery to do that :)
- cookiemonster11 12y ago"Zero, give or take measurement errors." Still does not make any sense. It's completely wrong.
- sp332 12y agoYou know wifi operates in the microwave band, right? Microwave ovens operate in the 2.4 GHz band. Wifi is limited to 1 W total power output, but it's not nothing. Edit: More to the point, it's a good question, even if the answer is "no."
- upofadown 12y agoThere is nothing special about the use of 2.4 GHz for ovens. It is just where the regulations arbitrarily put that particular ISM band. Microwave ovens can work on 900 MHz as well.
- sp332 12y agoSure. And wearing a 900MHz one around your neck probably isn't a good idea either.
- Piskvorrr 12y agoIt is chosen somewhat arbitrarily, but it's not completely random: see e.g. http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Wave%20properties/Wave%20properties/text/Microwave_ovens/index.html http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Wave%20properties/Wa...
- Piskvorrr 12y agoIndeed: 1 W is the legal _maximum_ as per FCC rules, part 15. Not even all APs are broadcasting at this power level, this is a WiFi client (meaning that it's only transmitting a few milliseconds out of a second), and this is several orders of magnitude below the power levels used by microwaves. In other words, it is "nothing" for the purpose of cooking your cat's brain. This would be "guilt by association: microwave ovens will cook your brains if inserted, therefore anything else using microwaves will, too, no matter what the power." Edit: I see that you didn't mean the question rhetorically - so yes, while this may be a valid concern in the design phase, the total exposure is infinitesimal, even in prolonged use.
- martiuk 12y agoWatch out for those chemtrails you nut.
- cookiemonster11 12y agoThis is a bit of a stretch. Chemtrails are a baseless assumption. EM radiation has a measurable effect matter. Why not make valid points instead of insulting people?
- martiuk 12y agoNon-Ionizing radiation means exactly that. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1199451940308 http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Pa...
- a8da6b0c91d 12y agoNon-ionizing radiation has biological effects. Magnetic fields have biological effects. This is not controversial! Many replicated experiments prove it! I am not going to say Wifi causes cancer because I don't know (doubt it). But this reflexive bleating about non-ionizing radiation needs to stop. Radio waves do not have to break DNA to affect biological tissues. They can alter many important chemical reactions.
- sliverstorm 12y agoYou could say the same thing about a summer breeze. They have biological effects too.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y agoYour point being? I dare say spending most of each day out in a continuous breeze might have some noteworthy effects. Skin disease?
- 12y ago
- mikeash 12y agoHow big is the battery, and how long does it last? That'll put a firm upper bound (and, I imagine, a quite small one) on how much energy the cat could be absorbing from this.
- MichailP 12y agoThanks for the comments. I am not familiar with WiFi protocol, so I didn't know about amount of time/power antenna spends receiving/transmitting, and how the sniffing works (ie it seems to be entirely passive operation?). My karma has gone to hell ;P
- mattkevan 12y agoMaybe I should have a stern talk with our cat about his health - he likes to sleep on the wifi box as it's nice and warm. So far the only ways we've found to block the cat also block the wifi.
- audeyisaacs 12y agoThere's really no reason to be concerned about that. I'd be significantly more worried(ie: actually worried) about a mishap with that gumstick cell, which looks like it could be(edit: probably is) a lipo.
- foobarian 12y agoA battery on fire could not only hurt the cat, but could also set on fire wherever the cat decided to run to in a wild panic.
- cromulent 12y agoNon-ionizing seems like a safe level.