Questions about how safe is wifi

make yourself a faraday cage suit, then you should have no worries about emf radiation

 

6.5*10^14 going through you per second -> a.
life = 80 years (optimistic) => 60*60*24*365*80 = 2 522 880 000 seconds -> t.
a*t = 1,639872*10^24 (amount of neutrinos passing through a human being in a lifetime)
a*t = d

clicky

0,0084*1,78*10^-33 = 1,4932*10^-35 <-- alleged mass of one neutrino (smallest size)

d*1,4932*10^-35 = 2,451936614*10^-11 grams!

i'll get m.. oh i'm already wearing it.

ps.
i love doing bullsh*t calculations at work.
ds.

 

You lost me after 6.5...

 

So THAT'S the reason why I keep putting weight on. It's not that I eat like a pig, it's all those neutrinos adding to my overall mass. I always knew there was a proper scientific reason behind weight gain.

 

Interesting thread. I'd only venture that we've had over a century of radio and 70 years of TV to know that that radiation is basically harmless for radio, and only harmful to the eyes on TV if you're sat too close/don't drink water/don't blink/don't take a break from a flatscreen.

It's not always about health, I don't want Aspartame in my drinks because it's pointless and adds nothing compared to those without it. I also don't want wi-fi because I plain cannot be faffed with keeping up with each new standard and the security protocols, when I can unplug the wire end of story. From a tech point of view, I can also change said wire if I think it's worn out for testing faults before checking anything else. Boring wired ethernet (for me on Plusnet anyway) is also faster.

 

makes me think of old radar stations (my father served at one when he was in the army) which used cathode ray tubes, though not as advanced and secure as the more modern ones.
imagine having a constant flow of electron shooting straight into your eyes from a distance of 'bout 25-40cm (yea, they sat that close to the screen), with a very (very) bad material to absorb the electrons (the screens were almost clear, to insure better contrast).

i wonder when people are going to start to investigate (in a bigger way than at the moment) the possibilities with radiation. everybodies favourite underdog had some interesting ideas and theories of using em-radiation to "create free energy" (that really, really sounds bad). umm, let me rephrase, using em-radiation to provide energy for mankind. an energy that would cost us next to nothing to gather.

unfortunately, these days, radiation "is a bad word, mmmkay. you should'nt use, mmmkay".

 

Unfortunately for Tesla, a certain Mr Tesla stomped all over his plans because there's no way that a system like that could generate revenue...plus ca change, and all that

I think a lot of that is because the general public equate radiation with nuclear weapons. I often wonder how different the world would be if Nagasaki & Hirishima didn't happen along with the Cold War proliferation - whether nuclear power stations would be considered the most sensible form of energy generation for the 21st century?

 

i think chernobyl is to blame for people frowning upon nuclear power. true, a whole area is rendered useless now apart from scientific studies, and also a group of people currently living there, clicky.
however, the total death count is officially around 4000

now, compare that to "the much preferred" coal plants, which anually kill more people than that.

that's in china alone, clicky

let's see, 4000 in 25 years gives 160 deaths per year.
an average of (rounding down) 5000 per year (in china alone) gives a total of 125 000 deaths. since conditions are so poor for the coal workers in china, i would assume that the total worldwide death count for the coal industry should be around 160 000 since 1986.

that's a 40:1 ratio.

 

Valid points, but people were frowning on nuclear power long before Chernobyl.

The Three Mile Island accident in the 1970s could be considered a precursor to Chernobyl, and by that time most people were aware of the idea of the China Syndrome (even more so after the film). Now, I think that many people (despite knowing what happened at Chernobyl) believe that an accident at a nuclear reactor will result in a nuclear explosion.

There is also the environmental issue of what to do with the waste products (especially since fast-breeder reactors are no longer popular or economically viable), which causes a lot of controversy and negativity towards nuclear power.

All sad, but true, especially given the figures you quote above.

Now, what were we talking about?

 

wifi, wether it fries your balls or not (at least that's the part i remember).

electricity hums. perhaps some people who claim they get effected by wifi, actually "pick up" the electric hum and react to it whenever they see the router or expect there is a router about.
this would in a way explain why some are so persistant in claiming that they get effected by wifi, when studies clearly show that they don't.
electric hum i ignored by the majority as the brain only registers about 2% of all the impressions it recieves giving us the ability to focus on the important stuff (if the brain was to register more than that, it would probably melt. certain "enhancing drugs" such as psilocybin, raise the amount of impressions that the brain registers, which is one of the reasons that when you "land" you're utterly exhausted).

sometimes i wish we were still in the 60's, where, in the name of science, you could just give a group of people some drugs, and see what happens. i imagine giving the people who claim they get effected by wifi, some drugs (lsd or psilocybin) they would report seeing the waves of radiation hitting them.

 

If you ever get it past the research ethics committee, I'll be happy to be your co-researcher.