+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 65
Wireless Networks Thread, Wifi power levels compared to mobile phones. in Technical; Originally Posted by srochford Are you real??? Do you know how much damage is caused by visible light?? Have you ...
  1. #46

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,867
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    Are you real???

    Do you know how much damage is caused by visible light?? Have you read anything about the skin cancers caused by over-exposure to visible light (sun burn anyone???)
    Sun burn is not caused by visible light. It is caused by ultra-violet light, which is non-visible.

  2. #47

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,867
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    questions and more questions.....

    I dont feel that any progress has been made, there are, for me at least lots of unanswered questions. And i will not stop asking questions either, nor be bullied into it either. ( have the NAZI's suddenly taken over ? )
    I am quite happy to admit when i have got things wrong, its good to learn new stuff and move on with more knowledge gained.

    scientific study can only be done when enough things indicate that a study may be possible.

    My stance on wireless is this - ensure you can turn off the wireless access point when not in use.!
    Yes, there are questions - but posing them over and over again isn't helping. All you can do is wait. Also, generally it is poor form to start calling people nazis simply because you are losing a debate.

    And whilst your stance for wireless may be suitable for home users, it is far from practical in an education or business environment.

  3. #48
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    No-one is saying that we should not investigate these issues. That is a given. But what you appear to be doing is, well to be honest, paranoid and obsessive.

    And you have yet to actually respond to my comments - even if there is scientific evidence that appears at some point in the future showing a causal link between wifi and illnesses, what will the effect be? Nothing will change...
    if you suspect nothing will change if people are aware of rediation emissions, measure the amount from a phone mast at various places, and then measure it from a WAP, and compare the two, obviously you will need to see both when working under load from wireless devices.
    Then show this evidence to parents, and see what they think.

    so the above 'response' answers, i hope , your question. Either peoples perception of wireless dangers will change, or wireless devices will change, eg less of them.

    And i don't think society is a better place for wireless devices, i can honestly say i have never found a wireless device that performs anywhere as well as a wired device. wired connectivity is known as 'the 5 9's ' that is because it is 99.999% reliable.

  4. #49
    contink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    South Yorkshire
    Posts
    3,791
    Thank Post
    303
    Thanked 327 Times in 233 Posts
    Rep Power
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Yes, there are questions - but posing them over and over again isn't helping. All you can do is wait.
    Finally... !

    Also, generally it is poor form to start calling people nazis simply because you are losing a debate.
    I actually think I agree with about 2 of his points so I wouldn't say he's losing totally... more research is required. However 90% of the arguements have bordered on tin hat paranoia and that means the 10% of reliable, useful, or even factual information is completely ignored.

    Enough already!

  5. #50

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,867
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    And i don't think society is a better place for wireless devices, i can honestly say i have never found a wireless device that performs anywhere as well as a wired device. wired connectivity is known as 'the 5 9's ' that is because it is 99.999% reliable.
    This is simply a view that is outdated. Wireless devices are over-taking wired devices in pretty much ever consumer market where connectivity is an issue. There are countries where mobile broadband is more widely used than wired! With the introduction of the next generation of mobile connection technologoy (WiMax and the like), this will only increase usage. Look at the iPhone's success - simply because it is an easy way to stay connected in ways other than just via text/phone services.

    The bandwidth available for wireless devices is every increasing, the reliability is ever increasing also. A managed wireless system is quite capable of giving you your five 9's reliability (even though 5 9's is actually a myth in itself).

  6. #51
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    22

    ??

    don't see how you can lose a debate by asking questions ?

    all i have heard is the standard response that is generally given by people who ' like their gadgets'

    i have merely asked a question initially about powerlevels, and range of WAPs and i have along the way discovered lots of things, mostly questions.

    And i didn't call anyone a nazi, it was used as an example of a regime where asking questions was suppressed.

    my viewpont hasn't changed, i would like more info, but the area is pretty restricted, as large profits are made from wireless comunications, most probably at the cost of human life, which to me should not be allowed.

    It is those that shout loudest that get heard, but i like to listen to all viewpoints. Mine is not fixed despite what you might think, it moves !

  7. #52

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,867
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,928 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    don't see how you can lose a debate by asking questions ?

    all i have heard is the standard response that is generally given by people who ' like their gadgets'

    <snip>

    my viewpont hasn't changed, i would like more info, but the area is pretty restricted, as large profits are made from wireless comunications, most probably at the cost of human life, which to me should not be allowed.
    You say you are just asking questions, when in fact you have a stand point - that wireless devices are bad as they are most probably costing human life. A neutral stand point would be 'we don't know, so i'll just follow advice as it stands from the independent government investigations, done in various countries'.

    You also seem to be happy to vilify those of us who think you are obsessing or have any view other than your own ('people who 'like their gadgets', referring to nazis).

    Your viewpoint won't change because you have your goals set on wireless being proved to be dangerous. You don't seem to be willing to allow normal scientific method to occur - ie. it is not possible to prove something *isn't* dangerous.

  8. #53
    enjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,488
    Thank Post
    282
    Thanked 196 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    76
    WiFi could be dangerous, even with the current research saying it is fine; heck, there are plenty other examples of things which were thought to be good at the time, but subsequently found to be harmful (thalidomide, lead in petrol...). WiFi may be another of these, however one can only (sensibly) act in the light of the current research on the topic, and that states there is no proven risk. If future research proves a risk, then I will act accordingly, both at home and in work. Until then, I will continue doing what I'm doing.

    More research is required, but I wonder if it is actually possible - as I said earlier, there aren't many people in the developed world who don't live under the exposure of mobile masts and WiFi signals, so I wonder what research can be done without a "control sample".

    I also wonder what will actually change even if a risk is proven. Will we turn all WiFi and mobiles off? Unlikely. I find it far more likely that we will continue on in the knowledge that they're killing themselves but feeling that the ends justify the means. Much like with smoking, drinking, burning fossil fuels, using pesticide and many other examples.

  9. #54

    broc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,046
    Thank Post
    104
    Thanked 401 Times in 265 Posts
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    Are you real???

    Do you know how much damage is caused by visible light?? Have you read anything about the skin cancers caused by over-exposure to visible light (sun burn anyone???)
    Sunburn is caused by Ultraviolet (UV) light. Ultraviolet is extreme violet light, and it falls just beyond the violet range in the visible spectrum, which means we cannot see it with our eyes.

    Some forms of glass filter out UV (typically car windscreens), so you might get hot but you should not burn under the right sort of glass.....

    We all need some UV light to avoid vitamin D deficiency, which causes rickets in children and can cause problems with calcium levels in adults.

    I agree that overexposure to UV is very harmful (& painful)

  10. #55

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    [QUOTE=broc;337346]Sunburn is caused by Ultraviolet (UV) light. Ultraviolet is extreme violet light, and it falls just beyond the violet range in the visible spectrum, which means we cannot see it with our eyes.

    Some forms of glass filter out UV (typically car windscreens), so you might get hot but you should not burn under the right sort of glass.....[QUOTE]

    Pretty much all glass filters it out to a lesser or greater degree, as does water. However its worth remembering that water also reflects UV, so standing in the swimming pool your head and shoulders will burn, and you'll get a nice line to indicate where the water came up to.

    Skiing has something similar, which is why you should always wear goggles with UV filtering when skiing. Snow-blindness is not fun (basically sunburned retinas).

  11. #56
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    22

    standpoint

    i dont have a 'standpoint' but i have a viewpoint, which is flexible, and also moves, my viewpoint is, currently ( but due to change after this point )

    1- so called 'independant' organisiations are not independant, or could be described as 'industry friendly' at best because of money/funding issues.

    2- so called scientific 'proof' is purely based around thermal effects of non-ionising radiation ONLY, and ignores any other observed effects

    3 - I honestly think that emissions from wifi, dect, mobile phone masts, and phones , damage, mutate, cells, that can then lead to cancer and other complications.

    4- whilst the levels of the damage occured from this radiation may be minor or insignificant for short term use, i suspect that over the long term this radiation is suppressing the human immune system, as with increased coverage of mobile phones, and WAPs we are constantly in this type of radiation. This then suppressed immune system 'fails' to remove or repair damaged cells quickly enough.

    5 - i do not recommend wireless communication because it is poor, and the devices that usually use it are also poor in my opinion.

    as you might have noticed the 'latest' OS's are become more and more demanding, this demand requires more powerful CPU's, which in turn give off more heat, thus making devices smaller and smaller becomes harder and harder. I professionally do not recommend any type of wireless 'portable' device over a wired desktop computer, as the portable devices tend to be, expensive, under powered, and less reliable. But that has nothing to do with my viewpoint on wireless communications.

  12. #57
    enjay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,488
    Thank Post
    282
    Thanked 196 Times in 167 Posts
    Rep Power
    76
    1 - I'll grant you that Ericcson's report is somewhat biassed, but how would you say the HPA are not independent?

    2 - scientific "proof" may focus largely on thermal effects, but presumably with some foreknowledge that this is the key area of concern. Other non-scientific "proofs" (sp?) focus on people who don't get headaches now they've lined their houses with tin foil. Flawed though they both may be, I know which I favour...

  13. #58

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    1- so called 'independant' organisiations are not independant, or could be described as 'industry friendly' at best because of money/funding issues.
    Correct. Many of the 'independent' organisations which feature in news articles are not in fact independent (well, except from independence from the manufacturers of wi-fi kit, but they tend to be closely allied to those who sell little quartz crystals you can stick to your phone to block the 'harmful' rays). You can tell the ones who are actually scientific organisations because they tend to subject their reports to peer review prior to publication in actual scientific journals, rather than just posting them off to the Sun after ten minutes with a spell checker.

    2- so called scientific 'proof' is purely based around thermal effects of non-ionising radiation ONLY, and ignores any other observed effects
    Because there are no other observed effects...hence why they focus only on the observed effects.

    3 - I honestly think that emissions from wifi, dect, mobile phone masts, and phones , damage, mutate, cells, that can then lead to cancer and other complications.
    I think that eating brussel sprouts will lead your skin to turn green and your body to begin working through photosynthesis. I have as much peer-reviewed, scientific evidence for this as you do.

    4- whilst the levels of the damage occured from this radiation may be minor or insignificant for short term use, i suspect that over the long term this radiation is suppressing the human immune system, as with increased coverage of mobile phones, and WAPs we are constantly in this type of radiation. This then suppressed immune system 'fails' to remove or repair damaged cells quickly enough.
    You're making a very big assumption here. This statement relies on the fact that all of your previous statements are correct, and assumes proof of them. There is no evidence whatsoever of this. Again, I ask where your indications of this are? Lifespan is continuing to increase, if these things really were so harmful that would not be the case.

    5 - i do not recommend wireless communication because it is poor, and the devices that usually use it are also poor in my opinion.
    Great. I really don't need your recommendation though I'm afraid. I don't actually have a landline phone at home, because its plain inconvenient. I use my mobile for calls, GPS when walking, a lot of web browsing, and many other purposes. When I need more scaled up access I tend to use my laptop and wireless access point in my house.

    as you might have noticed the 'latest' OS's are become more and more demanding, this demand requires more powerful CPU's, which in turn give off more heat, thus making devices smaller and smaller becomes harder and harder. I professionally do not recommend any type of wireless 'portable' device over a wired desktop computer, as the portable devices tend to be, expensive, under powered, and less reliable. But that has nothing to do with my viewpoint on wireless communications.
    How exactly are these two things related at all? I have a desktop computer (which also runs over wireless and functions as my house media server/web server/cocktail inventory/multipurpose device in various ways). The bandwidth my wireless provides is more than enough for any use I'd put it to. A quick count of the wireless devices in my home would be about six devices, all running off a single access point. Putting in wires gains me no speed benefit, as my requirements are reasonable, so the convenience of wireless saves me buying cables and running them all over the house.

    On top of that my laptops are perfectly reliable, as is my netbook. They were not particularly expensive and have more than enough power for my needs.

    scientific "proof" may focus largely on thermal effects, but presumably with some foreknowledge that this is the key area of concern. Other non-scientific "proofs" (sp?) focus on people who don't get headaches now they've lined their houses with tin foil. Flawed though they both may be, I know which I favour...
    Many of these same people who now don't get headaches also don't get headaches if they're unaware that a wireless device is present. Or do get headaches if a device is present but switched off. Or if a fake device with no circuitry is present. I love studies like this.

    And don't forget. Sticking a small crystal to the speaker (only £19.99) prevents all of the harmful radiation doing you any damage.

  14. #59
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    22
    [QUOTE=jamesb;337425]



    Because there are no other observed effects...hence why they focus only on the observed effects.



    QUOTE]

    There are no effects if you IGNORE them, of course not.


    just as a bit more info about background radiation :-

    At the frequency of 1800 MHz, the ICNIRP level for maximum exposure which applies in the UK is 58 V/m. By comparison in Switzerland, Italy, Russia and China the guideline level is 6 V/m and in Salzburg it is 0.06 V/m.
    (The natural cosmic background levels which mankind has evolved in are 0.00000002 V/m.)

  15. #60

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,168
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 319 Times in 261 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by farmerste View Post
    There are no effects if you IGNORE them, of course not.
    So, what exactly are these other effects? All you've said so far is that they haven't been/can't be measured.

    just as a bit more info about background radiation :-

    At the frequency of 1800 MHz, the ICNIRP level for maximum exposure which applies in the UK is 58 V/m. By comparison in Switzerland, Italy, Russia and China the guideline level is 6 V/m and in Salzburg it is 0.06 V/m.
    (The natural cosmic background levels which mankind has evolved in are 0.00000002 V/m.)
    The electric field strength of the earth's magnetic field, around ground level, is about 120 V/m.

    Please note by the way that V/m is a measure of electro-magnetic field strength. Not a measure of the energy content of electro-magnetic radiation.
    Last edited by jamesb; 1st June 2009 at 03:41 PM.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Unlocking mobile phones
    By edie209 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 24th December 2009, 12:05 AM
  2. Mobile phones in schools
    By gaz350 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 17th October 2008, 07:04 PM
  3. Mobile phones
    By kerrymoralee9280 in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 6th March 2008, 09:11 AM
  4. Mobile Phones - Suggestions?
    By acrobson in forum Hardware
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 9th January 2008, 09:56 AM
  5. Combined WIFI/GSM Phones
    By plexer in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11th September 2007, 07:57 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •