Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 31 May 2007 16:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Durkin
Spotted in the Times last Sat. 26th:"The intensity of wi-fi radiation is 100,000 times LESS than that of a microwave oven" quoted:Professor Malcom Sperrin(presume that is with the oven door closed?)Reason to mention this is that School headteachers in my area have raised this form of radiation as an issue, re: previous threads:William compared using wi-fi for a year equivalent to using a mobile phone for 20mins.Are there any other useful comparisons I can use?
Regards, Paul
Admin  
#2 Posted : 31 May 2007 16:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murphy
You may find this link of interest:

http://www.itweek.co.uk/...lth-risks-clouded-static

Regards

John
Admin  
#3 Posted : 31 May 2007 16:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs
Have a look at living in Edinburgh with the granite ... fair bit of background radiation from memory. Different type, granted - but same risks.

Likening it to 100,000th of a microwave oven is not a good comparison, as no-one would stand in a working oven, and no-one even knows what 100,000th looks like.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 31 May 2007 19:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Different type of radiation, different risks (if any).
Ionising radiation (x-rays, uranium etc) is harmful to living cells (well, if there's enough of it !)
Non-ionising radiation (radio....up to ultraviolet) does not present the same risk. Especially in the low levels used by 2.45 ghz transmitters such as WiFi and mobile phones (900mhz to 2100 mhz)
100,000 times lower than a microwave ?
Errr....about 8 thousandths of a watt ?
We're all going to be decomposing in the streets with that power level.
Radio frequency emissions just don't have the necessary energy to affect cells....wrong radiation. But, to put it in proportion: If wifi is dangerous, you'd better turn off your (crt) tv. Xrays and high magnetic fields. You'd better junk the microwave (even a good one leaks around the door seals)(and the frequency is almost the same as wifi) and move out of your house and into a tent (radon) don't even go near granite (potassium 40) and DEFINITELY avoid medical xrays....which is the largest dose of radiation many will ever have....
Admin  
#5 Posted : 06 June 2007 11:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Homer
The concern follows the supposedly BBC flagship program Panorama that tried to undermine the values set by ICNIRP. This was done by finding a simple mobile phone base station with only a few antenna panels, taking a measurement at the assumed location of the maximum beam intensity, then saying, while a laptop down loaded files for a few seconds, the RF level was 3 times higher than that found near to the base station.

So What!

The base station will be operating may hundreds, if not thousands of times within the ICNIRP guidelines. I have measured enough to know this.

At these frequencies, the power density is time averaged over a period up to a maximum of six minutes. The spectrum analyser used on the program appeared to be set to 'peak hold' in the classroom. This always produces a pessimistic result as the time average cannot be determined as the screen fills with the highest values while the measurement time continues.

The program makers were led up the garden path and they eagerly followed the mantra of the many protest groups. It is the sole focus for all anti-mast and other pressure groups to try and rubbish the ICNIRP guidelines, for without casting doubts upon the integrity of the scientific review process it used, they know they would not have any purpose in life. The presenter singled out one researcher and tried to smear his name, something some protest groups have been doing for years.

The program was good for the anti anything RF brigade and raised unnecessary anxiety. It was equally good of course those who need the business for their anti-RF products such as; paints, curtains, instrument hire and sales etc.

On instruments: As it can cost around £600 to check the calibration of a single RF instrument, what can you expect to get for your money if instruments are produced that cost less than this to buy?

The only problem some wifi users find is that in Victorian built homes of substantial construction, the signal strength is too weak to reach all the computers in the house. Then they have to go out and buy new antennas to boost the signal level.


Garry
Admin  
#6 Posted : 06 June 2007 12:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By AjSaunders
This has been the bane of my existence since the panaroma report...thankfully the scaremongering is beginning to wane..

THE definitive risk from wifi can be found here.........

http://www.wellingtongre...ut-wireless-devices.html
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.