Read this yesterday morning and thought it was pretty interesting. I'd really be interested in seeing how they came to the conclusion that wifi is causing the health issues described in the article. Has anyone ever encountered opposition to wifi like this before?
I wonder how many of these "alarmist parents" have wifi routers at home, maybe sitting right on the desk where their kids are doing homework?
Trying to describe RF transmission strength from an AP and the actual EIRP looks like a challenge here. Guess their school system needs a CWNP certification holder to present the facts of RF at a school board meeting.
I for one do not believe that the power levels used in indoor Wi-Fi systems pose any significant health threat.
Even in outdoor links, you'd literally have to stick your head in front of a parabolic for a long, long time period before "anything bad' would start to occur.
One reason I reckon so many kids are getting headaches etc (and I've heard this from many parents all over the country) is the amount of time they are spending glued to a screen of some form or another during the course of a day. The incidence of "dry-eye" syndrome (which can be very painful) is increasing dramatically. People blink much, much less when sitting in front of a screen than when engaging in "other activities".
If they want to have a bandwagon to get on, they should look at cellphones. Yes, we all use them, but people who have them "welded" to their necks for hours a day should perhaps rethink. They are relatively powerful radio transmitters, and the problem is that most people jam them right up against their ears to make calls (for obvious reasons).
Bye the way, for people who "cradle the phone" between their neck and shoulder. Not a good idea. A bunch of nerves come from the neck through the scalene muscles. When those muscles get tight (from being in a contracted position for too long), they can cause neck pain, shoulder pain, tingling in fingers etc. In extreme cases, the nerves can become damaged. I have seen the effects of this, and it is not good.
We all "have to use" cell phones, but I for one limit the amount of time I spend on them. I have seen way too many RF engineers and riggers with all sorts of cancers of the eyes and neck and brain from years of prolonged exposure to "safe levels of RF". The average user who is on the phone for an hour or so each day for a few minutes at a time should not have anything to be concerned with. However those who spend hours and hours a day on them.... well that's up to them. One of the problems is that each person's biology is different. What may be a "safe" level of RF for one person may be a potentially damaging amount for another.
The problem here with SAR ratings and health concerns of RF in general is the definition of SAR; specific absorption rate which obfuscates the major issue with RF transmitters, that being EMF. For years this issue has been ignored by both the equipment manufacturers and the FCC. In the 80?s when Joe Elder worked for the FCC he wrote a new standard for the broadcast industry (TV/radio) concerning workers health, it was later shot down by industry, however when he later became employed by Motorola he stated that a SAR level 4 times higher than what he recommended when employed by the FCC was a safe limit for cell phones. This doesn?t even account for the huge difference of EMF from a 50KW AM transmitter vs. a 1W cell phone or the difference in frequency. If you don?t think EMF is a big deal, on a late night stand under some high voltage power lines with an 8? fluorescent light and watch it glow!!! The other issue that is ignored is that exposure is cumulative, it?s just like radiation, which the government has established limits for; so much per quarter, so much per year, and lifetime, exceeding these limits which in reality are quit large terminate your ability to work let?s say in the nuclear power or nuclear weapons industries. I understand that every piece of modern life that operates either from AC/DC power and creates EMF, but I?m not naive enough to believe everything that the government/industry say concerning human health, dioxin (agent orange) used to be considered a safe defoliant until Vietnam.
Btw spent 5 years on a nuclear submarine, so the little bit of stuff I get from RF is immaterial to me, but people need to know the truth.
Sounds more like Carbon Monoxide poisoning and not RF.
Symptoms of mild acute poisoning include headaches, vertigo, and flu-like effects; larger exposures can lead to significant toxicity of the central nervous system and heart, and even death.
Been around RF with much more power than WIFI since I was a kid and now i'm old. I even have kids and all :-)