Wireless Cable/DSL Router Safe?

[STONEISLAND]

I have my internet NTL connection upstairs in my now nursery. The socket is on the wall next to cot. I'm haveing my internet connection back up and running soon as I'm getting a new lap top. I will have a Wireless Cable/DSL Router so I can serf the net anywhere in my house. My concerns are is it safe to have a router under the cot? Is there radio waves that could damage my new born when it arrives?

TIA

[Jon M]

http://www.wlana.org/learn/health.htm
__________________

WLAN products use a "bursty" type of transmit/receive protocol, while Cellular transmits and receives constantly (connection oriented). As an example: If a user would transfer data on an average of 100 MB per day, the WLAN transmitter would be on the air for approximately 10 minutes. Moreover, a typical hand held-cell phone has a RF power output of 0.600 Watts (600 mW) or almost 20X more output power!

[STONEISLAND]

Originally Posted by Jon M

http://www.wlana.org/learn/health.htm
__________________

So in a words bad idea?
Back to the drawing bord then. Thanks for the link.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by skunk4u

So in a words bad idea?
Back to the drawing bord then. Thanks for the link.

Did you read it all the way through? As it seemed to imply it was relatively safe and benign as it was only transmitting for very short periods of time (unlike a mobile which is constantly collecting a signal).

Just my impression though

[punky]

Originally Posted by skunk4u

So in a words bad idea?
Back to the drawing bord then. Thanks for the link.

You could always buy a long coax/ethernet cable and move the router across the other side of the room.

If you were really concerned, you could build a Faraday cage around your baby's cot, but thats a bit extreme. Nonetheless it will protect your baby from radio waves. There are members of the tin-foil-hat-brigade that can probably cater for it.

[STONEISLAND]

Originally Posted by Angua

Did you read it all the way through? As it seemed to imply it was relatively safe and benign as it was only transmitting for very short periods of time (unlike a mobile which is constantly collecting a signal).

Just my impression though

Good point but is it a risk? Is it worth the risk?


__________________

Originally Posted by punky

You could always buy a long coax/ethernet cable and move the router across the other side of the room.

If you were really concerned, you could build a Faraday cage around your baby's cot, but thats a bit extreme. Nonetheless it will protect your baby from radio waves. There are members of the tin-foil-hat-brigade that can probably cater for it.

Like you say bit OTT.

long coax/ethernet cable and move the router across the other side of the room

Is a good 1

[littld]

I wouldn't risk it. They always say things are safe until people start making legal claims beacuse they have suffered. Usually takes 30 years or more to know the truth.

[patrickp]

Originally Posted by Angua

Did you read it all the way through? As it seemed to imply it was relatively safe and benign as it was only transmitting for very short periods of time (unlike a mobile which is constantly collecting a signal).

Just my impression though

Short periods of time? Someone (for instance) surfing the net or downloading would be be causing it to transmit almost constantly.

Notice, for instance, the example that "If a user would transfer data on an average of 100 MB per day, the WLAN transmitter would be on the air for approximately 10 minutes."

We have people in this forum sometimes chafing about 1GB per day caps, and people who are threatened with speed reductions for usage in excess of 100GB a month. These are somewhat extreme examples, but think about how much data transfer you're really going to put through that link on a daily basis. Even if your daily usage is only 100MB per day, that isn't going to be in one 10 minute hit; it's going to be on and off over longer periods of time, thus spreading the exposure.

The other factor to consider is that it seems clear that there are other ways you can receive damage from proximity to RF transmissions than the usually touted ones of cancer. In fact, I find it somewhat disturbing that there seems to be little or no research into these, despite some of them being considerably more likely to cause long term damage than the described cancer possibilities.

And, whether you consider that damage from from RF transmissions is likely or not, I think that putting a child next to a transmitter for periods of time is more than any reasonable person ought to consider acceptable. Bear in mind that the government now advises that children should be limited in their use of mobile 'phones.

Sorry if this seems very negative, but I, for one, believe that the dangers from proximity to RF transmissions are being considerably underestimated - just as the dangers from smoking were for a long time until the the weight of evidence finally became too obvious to ignore. Even if I was prepared to risk exposing myself to something like the danger of using a mobile 'phone or a wireless network transmitter (which I'm not), there is no way I would even consider risking a child in that way.

[jrhnewark]

Firstly, please don't worry about EMR (electromagnetic radiation). It is everywhere, your young son or daughter will be exposed to it all the time - most of us under a certain age will have been, especially in a country as densely populated as this.

The type of EMR associated with wi-fi is non-ionising, "e.g. the radiation isnââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t capable of separating and differently affecting positive and negative ions or of producing ions where they werenââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t there before".

Like mobile phones, another broadcast/receive type technology (unlike TV/radio, which is only receive), this EMR can have a heating effect on cells. The problem with these things that broadcast around our bodies is that the immediate power of the signals is that much greater than, say, a mobile phone tower a mile away!

To quote an acquaintance of mine at another forum, "some forms of EMR can and do alter the genes and chromosomes in the body - mostly in the blood - and the effect is cumulative rather than regenerative. The gross long-term effect is certainly carcinogenic. Thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the bit Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m frightened of.".

This is a man who makes his living from EMR. Something to think about.

All the same, it's not like I'm stopping using my 'phone and wi-fi. However, do consider that mobile phones are next to your brain and wi-fi enabled laptops are near your dangly bits... something your girlfriend/wife might have an opinion on!

I don't feel the same as Patrick, it seems. I'm a risk-taker, quite clearly!

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

Firstly, please don't worry about EMR (electromagnetic radiation). It is everywhere, your young son or daughter will be exposed to it all the time - most of us under a certain age will have been, especially in a country as densely populated as this.

The type of EMR associated with wi-fi is non-ionising, "e.g. the radiation isnââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t capable of separating and differently affecting positive and negative ions or of producing ions where they werenââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t there before".

Like mobile phones, another broadcast/receive type technology (unlike TV/radio, which is only receive), this EMR can have a heating effect on cells. The problem with these things that broadcast around our bodies is that the immediate power of the signals is that much greater than, say, a mobile phone tower a mile away!

To quote an acquaintance of mine at another forum, "some forms of EMR can and do alter the genes and chromosomes in the body - mostly in the blood - and the effect is cumulative rather than regenerative. The gross long-term effect is certainly carcinogenic. Thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the bit Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢m frightened of.".

This is a man who makes his living from EMR. Something to think about.

All the same, it's not like I'm stopping using my 'phone and wi-fi. However, do consider that mobile phones are next to your brain and wi-fi enabled laptops are near your dangly bits... something your girlfriend/wife might have an opinion on!

I don't feel the same as Patrick, it seems. I'm a risk-taker, quite clearly!

Even if it's non-ionising it can still do damage.

Wifi operates on a frequency of 2.4 GHz although less powerful that is the same kind of range as a microwave oven... which can cook food.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by nffc

Even if it's non-ionising it can still do damage.

Wifi operates on a frequency of 2.4 GHz although less powerful that is the same kind of range as a microwave oven... which can cook food.

But you have to bear in mind that it's only a certain frequency that will make the bonds in molicues streach/twist. Those in a microwave oven are set for the O-H bond in water.


"A microwave oven has in it a magnetron, which is a radio transmitter. If it was on a radio mast (don't try this) it would be able to send radio signals a long way. But it is inside a metal box which keeps the signal in. The frequency of the transmitter is 2450MHz (megahertz), which is a wavelength of 12cm (that's why it's micro waves, rather than short waves (several metres), medium waves (hundreds of metres) or long waves (thousands of metres). There's a good reason for the frequency being 2450 Megahertz, which I'll explain.

Food has a high percentage of water, and water is famously H2O. The molecule of water has the O (Oxygen) in the middle, and the two H's (Hydrogen) stuck on it like Mickey Mouse ears at a particular angle (105o). The H's are positive and the O is negative, so the molecule has a + and - end. It has "polarity".

Polarised molecules try to line themselves up with the electrical field, like compass needles trying to point at North.

But because the electrical field is changing 2,450 million times a second the molecules don't quite have time to line up one way before they have to try to line up the other way!

So, anything with water in it has all these molecules being moved this way and that by the electrical field, and heated up. The dishes, walls of the oven, etc, don't pick up radio, so don't get heated up.

Other things that pick up radio, anything approximately aerial-like such as the coily filament in a lightbulb, whether working or blown, will be energised if in a microwave oven. If you're silly enough to try any of this, I take no responsibility for what happens. You can take my word for it that the bulb lights up and then explodes. But in contrast, a glass full of petrol (at your own risk be it), which you might assume would explode, will go round and round and not get warmed up at all. That's because the molecules of petrol are long chains of carbon and not POLARISED like the H2O of water molecules. More about silly things to do with microwave ovens can be seen at the page of Microwave Tomfoolery!"

http://www.zyra.org.uk/microw.htm

[patrickp]

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

I don't feel the same as Patrick, it seems. I'm a risk-taker, quite clearly!

Nevertheless, jrhnewark, would you feel happy about putting a young child close to a transmitter for long periods of time?

[jrhnewark]

Originally Posted by nffc

Even if it's non-ionising it can still do damage.

Wifi operates on a frequency of 2.4 GHz although less powerful that is the same kind of range as a microwave oven... which can cook food.

I realise it still has a heating effect, on the same basis as a microwave oven cooks food. As pointed out below, though, microwave ovens are set to target the O-H bond and maximise effectiveness - not the same purpose as these devices!

Originally Posted by patrickp

Nevertheless, jrhnewark, would you feel happy about putting a young child close to a transmitter for long periods of time?

How close is close? 10"? No! 5ft? Maybe! 20ft? Yeah, probably. I think it's one of those things you've got to make a very personal decision on.

[SMHarman]

I would not be concerned, though as has been said, a 5m cat 5 lead will move it away.
What will cause you more problems is the curious 9 month old you will have in the blink of an eye pushing buttons and unplugging cables.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

I realise it still has a heating effect, on the same basis as a microwave oven cooks food. As pointed out below, though, microwave ovens are set to target the O-H bond and maximise effectiveness - not the same purpose as these devices!

Yes but there will still be other O-H bonds in babies!

And it's the same frequency so will have the same energy, and target the same bonds.