Originally Posted by
bogan
Think the field strength is inverse distance squared or something. Get it a few m away to be on the safe side.
yup, the inverse square law, can be applied to anything making up the electromagnetic spectrum. Every time you double the distance you end up with a quarter of the intensity.
Distance is only part of the story for protection, the other factors are time and shielding. These are not in your favour as you want to be on KB all the time and shielding is problematic as you actually want to be able to pick up the WiFi signal.
Interesting that Akzle doesnt run his phone a lot. A student of mine did a lit review a few years back about the risk to sperm count in young men carrying cell phones in their trouser pocket. Interestingly the effect was not so much on count but significantly impacted the quality of the sperm. On another vein, I worked with a medical physicist a while back who wouldn't have a microwave oven in his house. Bottom line? Nope we dont understand it all completely and WiFi could be risky, however we are talking risk factors calculated on a population basis, not that helpful in predicting likelihood of an 11th toe growing. Statistically you run more risk of dying of cancer in NZ than any other cause and that depends on many many variables. The only thing that is certain however is that you will die. The decision therefore to place the WiFi source there rather than anywhere else is no more statistically significant or risky than deciding whether or not to eat mouldy bread or cross the street when the little red man says no.
I think what might be more useful to you is that you use the same principles to minimise harm from an angry wife....Time, Distance and Shielding.
Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but how many times you have your breath taken away
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks