Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: Lewis Thomson on 17/10/2022 15:32:48
-
Sue is curious to find the answer to the following question.
"How bad is wi-fi to the environment and should we not be putting mobile phones in our pockets?"
Can you help them?
-
Why do you think WiFi, which is used by billions of people daily is dangerous?
-
How bad is wi-fi to the environment?
Compared to what?
Rather than flying 1,000km (each way) to visit a customer in the next city, it is far better for the environment (and my time, and the cost to my employer and ultimately the public) for me to do a videoconference over WiFi.
Of course, only the first and last couple of meters of that videoconference are carried over WiFi.
- I assume that you mean telecommunications in general
- The mobile phone in your pocket only uses WiFi while it is in the house. Once you get outside it switches to a cellular mobile network - similar technology, but on different frequencies (and financed differently).
- There is increasing interest in using satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to provide data and other communication services to people living in remote areas, plus planes and ships
In general, to send a signal farther, you need more power.
- Sending data 2 - 10 meters to a WiFi hotspot in your house uses very little energy
- Sending the same data 100-1000 meters to a cell tower takes more power
- Sending the same data 400km to an orbiting satellite takes even more power, and a much larger antenna at both ends
- That's why most data today is transmitted most of the way via optical fibers - the refractive index of the fiber redirects the laser beam into the core of the fiber, so that the signal is confined, and it travels farther with less loss and interference than wireless systems.
- Optical fibers are better for many purposes than wireless - except for the last couple of meters to where you are now. You don't want to be tethered to an optical fiber all day!
Electronics requires mining various minerals - but so does making a car or a home. The electronics in your pocket has advanced by a factor of a million in the past 40 years, and is far more environmentally friendly than the same functionality back then (as well as being thousands of times cheaper).
In contrast, cars and houses have improved their environmental credentials a bit - but at best by a factor of 2.
should we not be putting mobile phones in our pockets?
The signal levels put our by mobile phones are milliWatts for WiFi, and closer to a Watt for cellular mobile when you are far from the base station. Satellite communication takes even more.
- But all of this is negligible compared to the intense radiation from the Sun every time you walk outside.
Overall, I suggest that (where possible), rather than commuting an hour each way to work, you work from home (over WiFi), and at lunchtime you take your mobile phone with you, and go outside for a walk in the Sun - that is good for you and the environment.
-
Thanks for publishing these details. I simply wish to let you know that I just look into your site and also I locate it really fascinating and useful. We also help people who are stuck in their online dissertation must know about [[/a].
As you can see, our command of English is poor, but we will happily take your money in exchange for a pile of spam.
-
Radio engineers have been working with radio for a century, and so have groups of professional users, if it were harmful they would have showed some signs of increased morbidity & mortality by now, but I'm not aware of any evidence of that. Concerns about safety didn't start to gain any currency until mobile phones put radio into the hands of lay people.
-
On the other hands, early radiologists working with X-Rays were not aware of the risks, and suffered from cancer and amputations as a occupational hazard.
Now, the hazards of electromagnetic radiation are recognised, and appropriate limits set for acceptable exposure, so this is not a problem.
- Acceptable limits are also set for WiFi, 5G, microwave ovens and your fitness tracker
- This is much easier for wireless electronics, because their low-energy photons do not break chemical bonds = "non-ionising radiation"
- X-Rays and Ultraviolet (eg from the Sun) do break chemical bonds, and can cause cancer = "ionising radiation"
- In general, visible light is the border: Humans can handle exposure to about 500 Watts/m2 of visible light
- Lower frequencies (IR & below) are non-ionising radiation
- Higher frequencies (UV and above) are ionising radiation
-
I worked for several years very close ( ~22metres ) to a 50kw am( 846khz ) transmission tower and never felt any problems. The only precaution needed was not to pick up any piece of bared wire longer than a couple of metres as the initial light contact would result in a burn. We had a Potomac brand signal strength meter that I refused to risk at that close range so the local field strength was never measured.
-
signal strength meter that I refused to risk at that close range
You could have taken a series of measurements at longer ranges, and extrapolated...
-
Multiple distant measurements were made( more than were ever needed ) but it never occurred to me to extrapolate as the local field was not a major concern. It was actually a twin tower with 1/8λ separation and the parasitic tower phased to give a meagre 1•4db gain in one direction. Both towers grounded and shunt fed.
-
As I know, there are no risks for humans.
But does wifi really hurt the environment? Does it cause a negative impact like car engines?
I don't think so. There are many more dangerous things than that.
-
I just know that we have to turn off the wifi when we go to bed or avoid sleeping in the room where it is located.
-
should we not be putting mobile phones in our pockets?
Thanks to digital compression allowing video calls, you should put your phone in your pocket to avoid walking into lamp posts or the roadway when out and about. Or switch it off and enjoy real life. It's very sad to see humans staring at a screen whilst their dogs romp about and chase squirrels.
-
Completely agree, Alancalverd. The number of people I see everyday walking around, glued to their screen and totally oblivious to their environment is surely a depressing sight. This virtual living is bound to have repercussions on mental health.
-
Research shows that trees, plants, pollinators and wildlife are harmed by wireless radiation.
The use of Wi-fi has increased rapidly in recent years. Through the use of this technology, electronic devices are connected to a computer network wirelessly using radio waves, or radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME), thereby eliminating or reducing the need for network cables. A common example is a laptop connected to the internet using a wi-fi modem at home. Wi-fi access points can also be found in schools and many public areas. People in a wi-fi enabled environment will be exposed to low level RF EME from time to time when using the network on computers and also from the access points. There is some public concern about potential health effects associated with RF EME emissions from wi-fi in homes, schools and other places.
-
should we not be putting mobile phones in our pockets?
Thanks to digital compression allowing video calls, you should put your phone in your pocket to avoid walking into lamp posts or the roadway when out and about. Or switch it off and enjoy real life. It's very sad to see humans staring at a screen whilst their dogs romp about and chase squirrels.
Yes, I see by my example how I go to college with my friends and they talk to me but I don't hear them because I lose focus on the phone.
-
Research shows that trees, plants, pollinators and wildlife are harmed by wireless radiation.
Please present that evidence here.
-
I just know that we have to turn off the wifi when we go to bed or avoid sleeping in the room where it is located.
Why?
-
I just know that we have to turn off the wifi when we go to bed or avoid sleeping in the room where it is located.
Why?
Idk exactly why, but people say it can affect the quality of our sleep.
-
Research shows that trees, plants, pollinators and wildlife are harmed by wireless radiation.
Please present that evidence here.
It seems that was spam.
-
Don't know about signal towers but WIFI seriously
-
people say (WiFi) can affect the quality of our sleep.
If you spend most of the night on social media (via WiFi), that will definitely affect the quality of your sleep!
-
The first thing to look at is the effects of electromagnetic radiation. Its a known health issue linked to cancer suicide and damages DNA among other things. Prior to 2000 there was mostly natural radiation now there are cell towers blasting signals cell phones computers TVs routers all pulsing out this electromagnetic radiation you really can't get away from. The question will be what kind of long term effects will this have on humans. We will find out in the next 20 to 40 years.
In a modern home everything is putting out a signal the lights the oven the fridge the vaccum the cell phones the alarm and I could go on so its not just the router.
Some people have taken to shutting it down at night and claim to sleep better.
-
electromagnetic radiation.... damages DNA
It is true that electromagnetic radiation at UV and higher frequencies does damage DNA by breaking the chemical bonds; sometimes that damage cannot be repaired by your cells. That's why you should use sunscreen if you are going to spend a long time in bright sunlight.
However, visible and Infra-Red radiation have too low energy per photon to break DNA bonds.
- The frequencies used by WiFi and 5G cellular towers are much lower again, and cannot break bonds in DNA
- Your phone can get hot, and the radiation can also heat the skin; if you feel your ears burning, it's time to switch to hands-free.
-
How about the high suicide rate half the children want to kill themselves startling numbers.It has been linked to suicide and severe depression.I don't think we know what the effects will be its a wait and see thing keeping fingers crossed that there are no long term effects.We are taking about being continuous exsposed some kids have been continuously exposed since birth in todays world.To write it off as nonsence is a mistake this world runs off money and there is way too much money involved to ever admit theres a problem money comes first over people.
There is not much scientific evidence because very few studies have been made because the use is recent.They are doing studies now that people have been exposed long term.The jury is out until a proper study is done. But with a huge amout of money involved a bad review could disappear or put on the bottom of the pile.
-
Peter11, if there is any data concerning depression/suicide rates I would strongly suggest it is caused by the content these young people are accessing rather than any non-ionising radiation. Also the bizarre practice of living a "virtual life" by means of a screen will undoubtedly have severe downstream mental health consequences. Tv and radio transmitters have blasted the environment with megawatts of power over a long period with no adverse reactions. Uhf tv signals are close enough in frequency to wifi. I classify this idea as yet another unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
-
Wi-Fi operates at 0.1 watts. There's no known harm at such low levels. A cell phone transmits on the cell phone frequencies at up to several watts. There is some evidence of issues if you hold a cellphone to your head while making phone calls.
-
half the children want to kill themselves
https://xkcd.com/285/
-
Follow up Question :-
How far can We go, before it starts getting Harmful?
10G?
100G?
1000G?
📵
-
'<X>G' is just the generation of the standard used to communicate. It's got nothing to do with increased danger. There's no reason to think that 5G is more harmful than 3G or 4G or that 6G would be more dangerous either.
-
Follow up Question :-
How far can We go, before it starts getting Harmful?
10G?
100G?
1000G?
📵
Among the things that takes you from one generation to the next is dropping the power (strictly, the energy) needed to transmit a given bunch of data.
On that basis the "harm" (measured, for no good reason as RF energy emitted) actually falls.
-
How far can We go, before it starts getting Harmful?
10G?
100G?
1000G?
Around 7x1014 Hz. which is about 70,000GHz.
Above that, the photons have enough energy to disrupt chemical bonds, including DNA.
-
Hmm...so a pretty long way to go then.. Considering 6G is limited between 95GHz - 3000GHz.
By the way, on what " G " then does NASA operate?