# Wireless internet opposed due to health risks

1. Feb 23, 2006

### Mk

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
2. Feb 23, 2006

### Cyrus

I guess they walk around with CAT-5 extension cords on spools.

3. Feb 24, 2006

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
And they, do, in fact, have a science department. :uhh:

- Warren

4. Feb 24, 2006

### TheStatutoryApe

The man apparently has a degree in biology and zoology.

5. Feb 24, 2006

### Pengwuino

Anyone remember 'the jury is still out on evolution'?

6. Feb 24, 2006

### rachmaninoff

:surprised:

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
7. Feb 24, 2006

### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
And I thought I had to deal with crazy beaurocratic rules about IT here! Why is it that the person who makes the final decision on these things is always someone who doesn't understand the technology and who doesn't understand the users' needs either?

8. Feb 24, 2006

### Alexander Demets

Well, then this President should ban cell phone either.
Because the have a trasmitting power of about 5 W, while WLAN has about 25 mW !
So beeing surrounded by by >100 cell phones is much more risky than those few acces points.

And with Quadband or even UMTS also the frequenzy is relativly equal, isn't it?
What I can't understand is, that the frequenzy of those devices is so high, that the energy is maybe high, but they're just going about 1 cm into our body. So what could those things influence besides some thermic values?

I would appreciate to see a study which says with 100 % that electromagnetic fields are or are not a health risk! I simply don't like running in a world around without knowing those kind of things.

Alexander

Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
9. Feb 24, 2006

### franznietzsche

As far as I know, they'd affect absolutley notihng. Even lithium, one of the most easily ionizable metals takes 3.6 eV to be ionized. At 2.4 GHz each photon is still onle $$9.9 \times 10^{-6} eV$$. I'm pretty sure that there is no atom that will ionize with so little energy. So, there should be zero cancer risk. In fact, the random neutrons flying around from cosmic ray collisions are far more dangerous to you. As is the C-14 in your body.

10. Feb 24, 2006

### DrDeath

i wonder if he has banned them sunbathing on the campus lawns during sunny periods, as this can also cause cancer! does he ban them drinking alcohol as it can cause liver damage, has he banned them driving as there are many ways this can kill someone.

the list is endless, but the common sense in the man is non-existent

11. Feb 24, 2006

### franznietzsche

Oh, for comparison:

2.4 Ghz WLAN EM radiation: $$9.9 \times 10^-6$$ eV / photon
300 nm UV (can cause cancer): $$4.14$$ eV /photon
Gamma ray emitted by your body naturally every time a hydrogen atom in your body absorbs an ambient neutron: $$0.511 \times 10^6$$ eV / photon

The second one can ionize atoms in your body, which can cause cancer. The first, can't do much of anything. And the third, which occurs naturally all the time is far more dangerous than either (although far less common than ambient UV radiation from the sun).

12. Feb 24, 2006

### DrDeath

so he should infact be allowing them to have wirless connections and mobile phones, but force them to stay constantly indoors with curtains closed to avoid the sun

13. Feb 24, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

Hippies piss me off. Especially hippies who are supposed to be scientists.

14. Feb 24, 2006

### DrDeath

where are hippies mentioned? the man is obviously some kind of buffoon, possiably even a technophobe, but i wouldnt call him a hippy

15. Feb 24, 2006

### Pengwuino

Ohh ohh!! We just had some crap with our IT department here. They found out we had a wireless router in our undergraduate study room allowing the 1 ethernet port to serve teh whole room instead of just 1 computer. Well they found out and demanded we get rid of it. Then they said if we wanted more IP's, they would charge us like \$300 per IP. And it's stupid because if you walk right ouside our door, you can pick up the campus's wireless network thats available for student use.

16. Feb 24, 2006

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
These are the reasons my engineering design department almost never calls our actual corporate IT monkeys (unless we have to have a laptop replaced, etc.). They almost invariably make things worse. Our design department actually employs two "CAD engineers" who essentially comprise our own private IT department without being called one, and they actually have some sense.

- Warren

17. Feb 24, 2006

### franznietzsche

This guy isn't in the IT department though, he's a beaureaucrat.

18. Feb 24, 2006

### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Yeah, that's the problem I'm running into...the IT department isn't a problem, it's the beaurocrat who has to give authorization for something I need who is holding up the process because he can't understand why I'd need what I'm asking for...grr...I know what I need, the director of IT knows why I need it (yep, went all the way to the director...phew...next level up would have been another beaurocrat, which would have killed me), and IT is willing and able to give me what I need, but the beaurocrat, in his little mind, can't quite figure out why that's important and won't authorize it. :grumpy:

19. Feb 25, 2006

### DrDeath

beaurocrats are simply people not good enough to be real politicians, they have big egos but not enough power to satisfy the ego. hence they become hacked off with everyone else and take it out on the good guys like us.

20. Feb 25, 2006

### Pengwuino

The only beaurocrat that's a good beaurocrat is the one that doesn't like his job.