Well isn't there a legal limit set by Ofcom for the power, otherwise it would potentially interfere with everything else in the 2.4ghz spectrum?
thing is... so much stuff causes cancer these days; sun, food colouring, red meat, alcohol, smoking... if we were to try and avoid them all you'd just end up living in a bubble.
People will get cancer FACT
People will get cancer because of wifi... not so fact. You can't prove it unless you sit someone in a darkened room with an access point all their lives supping extra sanitised water and feeding them generic food....
Wifi probably contributes to cancer, but what doesn't these days?
Ofcom - UK Frequency Allocation Table - shows just how crowded the 2.x GHz spectrum is.
Ofcom - UK Fixed Wireless Access, Wireless LAN and Wi-Fi frequency bands quotes the 100mW effective radiated power limit. 200mW and 1W is permitted in certain 5GHz band allocations (802.11a) and upto 2W for licenced users.
Without delving too far into radio theory and to stay within the context of the thread; radio signals will travel in a straight line from the antenna. Path loss caused by many factors (terrain - buildings, hills) is the reduction in power density. Upping the power may solve some problems but it is not guaranteed - that's the nature of radio waves. However, even if it did, and you were able to increase the amount of nodes you could reach - there are still a couple of issues to address. Antennas on the wireless nodes, are they directional or not?
I also mentioned bandwidth. Say your 100mW wireless 'station' has a 10meg connection to the internet, and you have 5 wireless nodes connecting to it. Then you increase your power to 200mW, potentially increasing the number of wireless nodes. You still have your 10meg connection which may or may not be enough to support all the nodes.
Ofcom - Understanding the Scope for a Power Increase for Wireless Broadband Access at 2.4GHz & 5.xGHz
I'm a licensed radio ham so I have some understanding of the issues involved, but some of my knowledge is a bit rusty due to not being as active as other hams are. I'll take a computer keyboard over a radio mic any day
Last edited by webman; 9th May 2008 at 04:16 PM.
Because the regulations in this (and many others) country have specified a maximum power that is well below any danger level that anyone is currently aware of.why cant you just get a better access point
The regulators do tests - they try and determine what effect certain levels of radiation at the frequencies involved have on various parts of the body (skin vs internal organs) and then when they find a detectable effect at a particular level - they then normally say OK - lets reduce the maximum allowed to 1000th of this level and we should be alright.
Sounds like a reasonable method to me
But then again, I'm at ex-RF transmission engineer and look what its done to me
Your method is a bit simplistic as it leaves out the difference that the frequencies make. It does not matter if the power at that distance works out the same because it is not absorbed at the same rate.
You could think of it like infra-red light, its just a small frequency change from visible light and yet you can see strait through a cup of coke with it as coke if almost transparent to IR. Same kind of thing with the wireless access, because of what people are made of they are more transparent to some frequencies (x-rays) than others wireless.
The stuff in my previous post is not circumstantial but based on my ammature radio training and stuff that I have read on the subject of wifi.
here are a few more articles to read :-
Mobile And Wireless - Largest Biological Experiment - Health Supreme
Report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones
Wi-Fi health risks are clouded by static - 15 May 2007 - IT Week
the above are in no specific order, and i have tried to give a balanced sample of reports.
i apologise for being away from this subject for a while, but i have been really busy, but my most recent finding/questions are :-
why can you buy a digital cordless home phone, that can emit greter power than a resticted wi-fi point?
and why are these so- called independant bodies, who perform investigations into dangers of mobiles/wifi etc have a short life span, is it just a funding issue ? or is money only given to the ones who give the required response?
why also do the above scientific bodies purely base their finding on thermal effects generated, and ignore all other health related data as just coincedence ??
why does the power measured at ground level from a mobile phone transmitter at certain points, not coincide with the theoretical power at those points ? ( in actual fact the measured amounts were much lower than what they should have been, but that only makes things worse when i am trying to compare the power outputs of mobile phone mast, to wi-fi point . the results mean you would be even closer to the emitter on the mast than thought previously)
i like this icon, maybe i'll be a vagrant like they have in the states with tinfoil on my head, when i have been made redundant by BSF
all feedback and viewpoints gratefully recieved
Thanks for the links, I'll read through them when I have a chance (not sure when that will be though!).
i have had another look at this, and i have found this recent document:-
this documents backs up the findings in BBC's panorama programme last year, which caused an outcry ( of sorts ) and has an interesting illustration about power levels.
the next document i found was sent to a school outlining concerns, and i think it is a very good document, that could be used to give a balanced view of the current situation :-
much better than my attempt, IMHO
take a look at this also :-
found a couple more interesting articles, the first is a radio show recording, so copy it to your mp3 player and have a listen, its about 1 hour long
the next item is a document i found,
its got me scared now, does anyone know where you can buy foil hats??
Shame I can't find a "paranoia" emoticon.
no there is loads of smilies, but there never seems to be the one you are looking for, the paranoia one is missing, but so is the ' please don't take away my toys' one.
if we like it, it must be safe right ?
I think you are right to be alarmed as a NHS study done recently has found that there has been an increase of brain tumours in children between the ages of 8 - 16 by 40%.
Now I am not saying that one thing is to blame here but I feel mobile phones have been on the increase over the past 5 years to such an extent that the ages of the young people using them has gone down from the average age of 14 to 12 years which I find quite disturbing.
What I find alarming is the use of Wimax transmitters which are so power hungry and about 30-40% efficient being used in clusters around our towns and cities and people are not aware that in America the people around the local areas where these transmitters have been placed have suffered form radiation poisoning and have started legal proceedings against the phone companies who have installed them. I feel it will not be long before these phone companies and ISPs who initiate these wifi solutions will be up to their necks in lawsuits and will go cap in hand to the relative governments to bail them out.
Don't get me wrong I am all for communication but in a safe environment for everyone.
farmerste (3rd July 2008)
Just to thread resurrect,
Wireless N is now 'limited' to 1 Watt at a higher frequency.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)