Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
sciencedirect.com
Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
#2Can I get an ELI5 summary?
Re: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
#3Can I get an ELI5 summary?
Magic internet radio bad.
But seriously I’m waiting for someone more knowledgable to take this paper to task. There have been numerous WiFi and cell phone studies that have found no evidence of harm.
Re: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
#4posted before and flagged
Re: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
#5Having read a number of these studies, incl those done on cellular masts, its concerning. An early warning was a connection between digital signals (incl wifi) and baby-sleeping patterns where babies reliably cried more at night if a digital signal was present, but this touches on so many factors that Im tempted to cut all wifi while they finish their studies.
Re: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
#6posted before and flagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17338109
Yeah, this sciencedirect article was posted but on nih.gov, but someone decided to post with the sciencedirect website
Re: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
#7TL;DR: No it isn’t
Re: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
#8Can I get an ELI5 summary?
Guy read a bunch of papers, combined them into one big paper, and claims electromagnetic radiation (in the Wifi range) is bad.
There is no new data here, only a combination of old data.
Re: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
#9posted before and flagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17338109
my apologies I did not see the previous post - I wanted to review what this article suggests is correct and incorrect Wi-Fi testing.
This article states that many previous studies tested: (from the article)
It uses a large chamber surrounded by 1 mm aluminum mesh wire mesh to provide reflections of the EMFs. The chamber in which animals are exposed on a platform at its center, is also surrounded by antennae in all 6 directions (up, down, all four horizontal directions) such that each antenna is broadcasting with one polarization is opposed (at 180°) by another broadcasting with the 180° opposite polarization, as well as by four other antennae, broadcasting with 90° different polarization in each of the four possible directions. This produces a field that is more like a non-polarized EMF rather than the usual polarized artificial EMF"
is this a fair test of modulated polarized Wi-Fi?
Re: Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health
#10posted before and flagged https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17338109
my apologies I did not see the previous post - I wanted to review what this article suggests is correct and incorrect Wi-Fi testing. This article states that many previous studies tested: (from the article) It uses a large chamber surrounded by 1 mm aluminum mesh wire mesh to provide reflections of the EMFs. The chamber in which animals are exposed on a platform at its center, is also surrounded by antennae in all 6…
the second group of papers mentioned in the article was commented on as follows:
"Laudisi et al. (2012) used a different exposure system, that of Ardoino et al. (2005) where the vast majority of the exposure is produced from reflections off a long cylindrical surface in a TEM cell, where the curvature of the cylinder will also produce a largely non-polarized EMF and different reverberation paths and consequent destructive interference, may both be expected to occur. Consequently the predicted low biological activity of EMFs produced by the Wu et al. (2009) system may be expected to also occur from this TEM exposure system Ardoino et al. (2005). It is not possible to study biological effects of EMFs from Wi-Fi, cell phones or any other important exposures using such exposure systems because of the polarization changes they produce from the original polarized EMFs and because of destructive interference."