Radiation from Wireless LAN vs Bluetooth PAN

I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain. However, I
personally believe that the less radiation you are exposed to, the
better of you are. Therefore I'd like to use whatever technology would
create the least amount of radiation in my house.

I was wondering if anyone could provide me with details on radiation
levels produced by class 1 bluetooth devices (the ones that provide
100m range) and radiation levels produced by 802.11 wireless LAN
devices. I would also be curious to know which of the 802.11 standards
(a, b, g, etc.) produces the least amount of radiation or if they are
all the same?

Thanks for the help,
Harry

fake.e-(E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:

>I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
>to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain. However, I
>personally believe that the less radiation you are exposed to, the
>better of you are. Therefore I'd like to use whatever technology would
>create the least amount of radiation in my house.

A bit of trivia first:
- Sunlight generates about 1000 watts of power per square meter
(or 100 milliwatts/cm^2).
- The maximum RF exposure limit is 1 milliwatt/cm^2 for an
uncontrolled environment.
Therefore, standing in the sun exceeds the FCC exposure limits by 100
times.

>I was wondering if anyone could provide me with details on radiation
>levels produced by class 1 bluetooth devices (the ones that provide
>100m range) and radiation levels produced by 802.11 wireless LAN
>devices.

Sure. The FCC limits for SAR (specific absorption rate) is 1.6 watts
per kilogram. Most current cell phones run around 0.25 watts/kg. The
Class I 100meter headsets run about .005 watts/kg. The Class II 10m
Bluetooth devices run about 0.001 watts/kg. 802.11 devices are not
normally worn and are therefore not tested for SAR. Incidentally, the
reason the Class I and Class II are not exactly 10 times difference is
that the wearable Class I devices tend to be physically larger and
therefore support more sophisticated antennas.

802.11 devices are tested for RF field safety limits not SAR because
they are not worn. See:
| http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/rfsafety/
for a simple calculator. Use 0.035 watts for 802.11 xmit power and
0.010 for Bluetooth. Note that such field calculations assume a
continuous transmission as in broadcast FM/TV. This is not the case
with Bluetooth and 802.11 as the transmitters are not always on.
Actual 802.11 and Bluetooth exposure will be less as multiplied by the
duty cycle (% of time on the air). This is NOT the case with SAR
calculations, which include duty cycle.

FCC exposure guidelines:
| http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...et65/oet65.pdf
Broadcast Supplement:
| http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...t65/oet65a.pdf
Ham Radio Supplement:
| http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...t65/oet65b.pdf
Cellular Supplement:
| http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...t65/oet65c.pdf

>I would also be curious to know which of the 802.11 standards
>(a, b, g, etc.) produces the least amount of radiation or if they are
>all the same?

The real pity is that none of the 802.11 devices can reduce their
transmit power to the minimum required for adequate communications.
Every other technology approved by the FCC since about 1985 has
required transmitter power control, but not 802.11. This is to reduce
interference, but would have beneficial effects on reducing overall
radiation.

When the access point says +15dBm transmit power, that's the power
coming out of the coaxial connector on the access point. It's the
same no matter who manufactured the unit. My measurements show that
it can vary from +12 to +17dBm depending on manufacturer, but there's
no way to know that without a mess of test equipment.

What does have an effect on radiation is the antenna. The more gain,
the larger the field intensity, and therefore the larger the exposure.
Small antennas, with a gain of less than 8-10dBi aren't going to make
much difference in the safe area. Highly directional dish antennas
with 24dBi gain are obviously different. Since much of the indoor RF
exposure comes from reflections, it's difficult to pass judgment on a
given arrangement without also including the room in the calculations.

For example. My wireless access point is sitting on my desk about 2
ft in front of me. The 8dBi omni antenna is hanging from the ceiling
about the same distance but over my head. I'm not worried because
most of the radiation goes out the window and over my head. There's
plenty of RF, but it's not going in my direction. Worry about antenna
location and physical separation, not antenna size.

You may find this article quite informative:
| http://www.thirdbreak.org/pipermail/...ch/000846.html
It was written by a local RF Engineer who is far more knowledgeable
and experienced than most. It should give you some numbers as to what
to worry about, and what to ignore.

Also, thank you for asking the right question. Very few people asking
about RF exposure bother to ask for numbers. If you know the numbers,
you can make informed decisions. Anything less is just FUD. If I've
missed something or you have additional questions, please ask.


--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

fake.e-(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
>to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain.

I suspect you'll be disappointed. IME wired beats wireless by a large
margin. Some houses are more difficult than others, but there's
usually a way...

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>fake.e-(E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:
>
>>I'd like to install a wireless network in my home since running cables
>>to where the computers are going to be is proving a pain. However, I
>>personally believe that the less radiation you are exposed to, the
>>better of you are. Therefore I'd like to use whatever technology would
>>create the least amount of radiation in my house.
>
>A bit of trivia first:
>- Sunlight generates about 1000 watts of power per square meter
> (or 100 milliwatts/cm^2).
>- The maximum RF exposure limit is 1 milliwatt/cm^2 for an
> uncontrolled environment.
>Therefore, standing in the sun exceeds the FCC exposure limits by 100
>times.

And is known to cause cancer. So then the question is what happens at lower
levels of exposure but perhaps for even greater periods of time (ie
wireless is around us in winter when we tend to be out of the sun, and at
home, at night)? Not sure comparing with a known cancer causing agent is a
good comparison tool.

>
>>I was wondering if anyone could provide me with details on radiation
>>levels produced by class 1 bluetooth devices (the ones that provide
>>100m range) and radiation levels produced by 802.11 wireless LAN
>>devices.
>
>Sure. The FCC limits for SAR (specific absorption rate) is 1.6 watts
>per kilogram. Most current cell phones run around 0.25 watts/kg. The
>Class I 100meter headsets run about .005 watts/kg. The Class II 10m
>Bluetooth devices run about 0.001 watts/kg. 802.11 devices are not
>normally worn and are therefore not tested for SAR. Incidentally, the
>reason the Class I and Class II are not exactly 10 times difference is
>that the wearable Class I devices tend to be physically larger and
>therefore support more sophisticated antennas.
>
>802.11 devices are tested for RF field safety limits not SAR because
>they are not worn. See:
>| http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/rfsafety/
>for a simple calculator. Use 0.035 watts for 802.11 xmit power and
>0.010 for Bluetooth. Note that such field calculations assume a
>continuous transmission as in broadcast FM/TV. This is not the case
>with Bluetooth and 802.11 as the transmitters are not always on.
>Actual 802.11 and Bluetooth exposure will be less as multiplied by the
>duty cycle (% of time on the air). This is NOT the case with SAR
>calculations, which include duty cycle.
>
>FCC exposure guidelines:
>|
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...etins/oet65/oe
>t65.pdf
>Broadcast Supplement:
>|
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...etins/oet65/oe
>t65a.pdf
>Ham Radio Supplement:
>|
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...etins/oet65/oe
>t65b.pdf
>Cellular Supplement:
>|
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineeri...etins/oet65/oe
>t65c.pdf
>
>>I would also be curious to know which of the 802.11 standards
>>(a, b, g, etc.) produces the least amount of radiation or if they are
>>all the same?
>
>The real pity is that none of the 802.11 devices can reduce their
>transmit power to the minimum required for adequate communications.
>Every other technology approved by the FCC since about 1985 has
>required transmitter power control, but not 802.11. This is to reduce
>interference, but would have beneficial effects on reducing overall
>radiation.
>
>When the access point says +15dBm transmit power, that's the power
>coming out of the coaxial connector on the access point. It's the
>same no matter who manufactured the unit. My measurements show that
>it can vary from +12 to +17dBm depending on manufacturer, but there's
>no way to know that without a mess of test equipment.
>
>What does have an effect on radiation is the antenna. The more gain,
>the larger the field intensity, and therefore the larger the exposure.
>Small antennas, with a gain of less than 8-10dBi aren't going to make
>much difference in the safe area. Highly directional dish antennas
>with 24dBi gain are obviously different. Since much of the indoor RF
>exposure comes from reflections, it's difficult to pass judgment on a
>given arrangement without also including the room in the calculations.
>
>For example. My wireless access point is sitting on my desk about 2
>ft in front of me. The 8dBi omni antenna is hanging from the ceiling
>about the same distance but over my head. I'm not worried because
>most of the radiation goes out the window and over my head. There's
>plenty of RF, but it's not going in my direction. Worry about antenna
>location and physical separation, not antenna size.
>
>You may find this article quite informative:
>| http://www.thirdbreak.org/pipermail/...ch/000846.html
>It was written by a local RF Engineer who is far more knowledgeable
>and experienced than most. It should give you some numbers as to what
>to worry about, and what to ignore.
>
>Also, thank you for asking the right question. Very few people asking
>about RF exposure bother to ask for numbers. If you know the numbers,
>you can make informed decisions. Anything less is just FUD. If I've
>missed something or you have additional questions, please ask.

But we don't actually know the effects of prolonged exposure at any number
levels. Again I'm here, I use wireless, but my point is that we really
don't know. No one has studied the effects of say a 2,4Ghz at what 30
milliwatts on a young child in the house. (who would be monster enough to
do such an experiment, except of course a nerdy father wanting to use the
internet in various places around the house and he isn't checking the
impact on the kids) <wink/>.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:53:36 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless ,
(E-Mail Removed) (Rico) wrote:
>
>But we don't actually know the effects of prolonged exposure at any number
>levels.

To be fair, we also don't know the effect of prolonged exposure to a
vast array of things, including vegan yoghurt, teletubbies and
plasticine. There's a zillion modernish inventions we simply haven't
been around long enough yet, compared to say the effects of prolonged
exposure to volcanoes, the sun's rays and fish.

>No one has studied the effects of say a 2,4Ghz at what 30
>milliwatts on a young child in the house.

Actually, I'm pretty certain you're mistaken about this but its 22:30
on a sunday and my STFW fingers are tired.... :-)

>(who would be monster enough to do such an experiment,

Someone also studied the effect of living in high-radon areas,
ingesting aluminium salts, living under pylons and mobile phone
radiation. No animals were harmed in the making, because the studies
were in-situ, with pre-existing groups of people in pre-existing
exposure scenarios. You'd study the effect of 2.4Ghz radiation in much
the same way and you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere, some
poor b*gger is living next door to a massive radar-type installation.
Over here, it'd be some chavs, with any luck.
Mark McIntyre
--

(E-Mail Removed) (Rico) hath wroth:

>>Therefore, standing in the sun exceeds the FCC exposure limits by 100
>>times.

>And is known to cause cancer. So then the question is what happens at lower
>levels of exposure but perhaps for even greater periods of time (ie
>wireless is around us in winter when we tend to be out of the sun, and at
>home, at night)? Not sure comparing with a known cancer causing agent is a
>good comparison tool.

Actually, it's an excellent analogy if we ignore resonant and
frequency dependent absorptive effects. The sun belches most of its
energy in the visible spectra region, but spews considerable amounts
of noise at lower frequencies including the microwave bands.
http://www.spacewx.com/solar_spectrum.html
Looking at the above graph, the sun generates 10E-4 Watts/sq-cm or 0.1
milliwatt/sq-cm in the microwave region. FCC limit for uncontrolled
environments is 1 mw/sq-cm. Therefore, the sun generates 1/10 of the
FCC limit. If I compare this to a typical 35mw wi-fi radio, with the
stock 2.2dBi rubber ducky antenna, I get the same RF level as the sun
at a distance of 0.7ft. Therefore, you're getting the same amount of
RF from your laptop as from the sun.

It's also presumed that most of the biological effects of RF is due to
localized heating. The sun can certainly do much more IR heating than
a local RF source.

Incidentally, the standard method of calibrating microwave receiver
noise figure is to point the dish at the sun and compare it with
"empty" sky:
http://www.setileague.org/articles/g-t.htm
There's LOTS of RF coming from the sun.

As for comparing wireless exposure with a known cancer cause, isn't
that what all the FUD is about? The open question is "does RF cause
cancer" or more specifically "Do cell phones, Wi-Fi, BlueTooth, and
such cause cancer". If the sun can cause cancer, why not all these
others? In theory, all you have to do is simulate with RF the
exposure one gets from the sun necessary to cause cancer and you've
proven that cell phones cause cancer.

>But we don't actually know the effects of prolonged exposure at any number
>levels. Again I'm here, I use wireless, but my point is that we really
>don't know.

What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
radically different exposure standards.

>No one has studied the effects of say a 2,4Ghz at what 30
>milliwatts on a young child in the house. (who would be monster enough to
>do such an experiment, except of course a nerdy father wanting to use the
>internet in various places around the house and he isn't checking the
>impact on the kids) <wink/>.

Actually, I could probably find some animal tests of the sorts. I was
involved in one such study in an odd way. The researchers were
getting inconsistent results on exposing bacteria to RF fields. They
wanted my help calibrating the test setup. The RF source worked as
advertised, but the home made antenna and cable were a useless dead
short. They had generated months of test results without ever
exposing the target with RF.

When I fixed the feed and antenna, and corrected some RF field
strength calculations, the test proceeded on for months. Results
seemed to show internal structure effects on the bacteria after about
100 generations as compared to a non-irradiated control culture. They
were about to submit for publication when I suggested they compare the
results with with the original data. They were exactly the same. The
effects were eventually traced to contaminated glassware.

I'm not suggesting that all such studies are this bad, but it does
make me wonder. Incidentally, the last line of all such studies is
always "More research is necessary".

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) (Rico) hath wroth:
>
>>>Therefore, standing in the sun exceeds the FCC exposure limits by 100
>>>times.
>
>>And is known to cause cancer. So then the question is what happens at lower
>>levels of exposure but perhaps for even greater periods of time (ie
>>wireless is around us in winter when we tend to be out of the sun, and at
>>home, at night)? Not sure comparing with a known cancer causing agent is a
>>good comparison tool.
>
>Actually, it's an excellent analogy if we ignore resonant and
>frequency dependent absorptive effects. The sun belches most of its
>energy in the visible spectra region, but spews considerable amounts
>of noise at lower frequencies including the microwave bands.
> http://www.spacewx.com/solar_spectrum.html
>Looking at the above graph, the sun generates 10E-4 Watts/sq-cm or 0.1
>milliwatt/sq-cm in the microwave region. FCC limit for uncontrolled
>environments is 1 mw/sq-cm. Therefore, the sun generates 1/10 of the
>FCC limit. If I compare this to a typical 35mw wi-fi radio, with the
>stock 2.2dBi rubber ducky antenna, I get the same RF level as the sun
>at a distance of 0.7ft. Therefore, you're getting the same amount of
>RF from your laptop as from the sun.
>
>It's also presumed that most of the biological effects of RF is due to
>localized heating. The sun can certainly do much more IR heating than
>a local RF source.
>
>Incidentally, the standard method of calibrating microwave receiver
>noise figure is to point the dish at the sun and compare it with
>"empty" sky:
> http://www.setileague.org/articles/g-t.htm
>There's LOTS of RF coming from the sun.
>
>As for comparing wireless exposure with a known cancer cause, isn't
>that what all the FUD is about? The open question is "does RF cause
>cancer" or more specifically "Do cell phones, Wi-Fi, BlueTooth, and
>such cause cancer". If the sun can cause cancer, why not all these
>others? In theory, all you have to do is simulate with RF the
>exposure one gets from the sun necessary to cause cancer and you've
>proven that cell phones cause cancer.
>
>>But we don't actually know the effects of prolonged exposure at any number
>>levels. Again I'm here, I use wireless, but my point is that we really
>>don't know.
>
>What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
>accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
>radically different exposure standards.


This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
heavily influanced by the affected industry.

>
>>No one has studied the effects of say a 2,4Ghz at what 30
>>milliwatts on a young child in the house. (who would be monster enough to
>>do such an experiment, except of course a nerdy father wanting to use the
>>internet in various places around the house and he isn't checking the
>>impact on the kids) <wink/>.
>
>Actually, I could probably find some animal tests of the sorts.

And no doubt (at least in my mind) sopme short term studies have been done,
but people tend of course to live into their 70's. In my case I was an
adult when Apple first started selling micro computers, so my exposure
would be less then that of a new born today.

> I was
>involved in one such study in an odd way. The researchers were
>getting inconsistent results on exposing bacteria to RF fields. They
>wanted my help calibrating the test setup. The RF source worked as
>advertised, but the home made antenna and cable were a useless dead
>short. They had generated months of test results without ever
>exposing the target with RF.
>
>When I fixed the feed and antenna, and corrected some RF field
>strength calculations, the test proceeded on for months. Results
>seemed to show internal structure effects on the bacteria after about
>100 generations as compared to a non-irradiated control culture. They
>were about to submit for publication when I suggested they compare the
>results with with the original data. They were exactly the same. The
>effects were eventually traced to contaminated glassware.
>
>I'm not suggesting that all such studies are this bad, but it does
>make me wonder. Incidentally, the last line of all such studies is
>always "More research is necessary".

Of course not, I'm not saying any of the investigations done so far are in
error. I'm sure as you note above more then a few are shall we say not
100%, but I would say today they may be the minority. Again I'm not
suggesting even a moment here that we should not be using these nifty
gadgets they keep coming up with (well wireless mice and keyboards, but for
another reason then rf issues). I just wonder if in fact we aren't
impacting the genome (might be postive, kids a generation or three out
might end up smarter on average then we are or stronger).


fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

(E-Mail Removed) (Rico) hath wroth:

>>What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
>>accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
>>radically different exposure standards.

>This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
>Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
>heavily influanced by the affected industry.

Industry has an effect on the regulatory process? Methinks not. My
personal experience demonstrates that politics and legal issues far
outweigh any technical issues. If some industrial giant wishes to
influence regulations, they purchase, lease, or rent a politician, who
then uses his political influence to change the numbers. The very
last group with any effective input are scientists and technology
people.

I don't suppose mentioning that every county has a different cellular
tower ordinance would help you feel more secure.

>And no doubt (at least in my mind) sopme short term studies have been done,
>but people tend of course to live into their 70's. In my case I was an
>adult when Apple first started selling micro computers, so my exposure
>would be less then that of a new born today.

RF has been around since Marconi in 1902. Is that long term enough?
The problem with studying long term effects is NOT in the duration but
in the isolation of a suitable control group. Where on this planet
can you find an area that has a similar lifestyle to the typical urban
dweller, but without the exposure to RF fields? How can you maintain
such a control group for extended periods? Would you entertain the
possibility that the reason there have been no long term RF studies is
because they cannot be accomplished on this planet?

>Of course not, I'm not saying any of the investigations done so far are in
>error. I'm sure as you note above more then a few are shall we say not
>100%, but I would say today they may be the minority. Again I'm not
>suggesting even a moment here that we should not be using these nifty
>gadgets they keep coming up with (well wireless mice and keyboards, but for
>another reason then rf issues). I just wonder if in fact we aren't
>impacting the genome (might be postive, kids a generation or three out
>might end up smarter on average then we are or stronger).

You have a right to be paranoid. However, constant fear of the
unknown is not a great way to go through life. You could also take a
conservative position:
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3591071
It's when someone "warns" the rest of the world of their fears and
aprehensions, that I have problems. If you know something about RF
exposure, including anecdotal incidents, then I'm all ears. If you're
just afraid, it's not really very useful.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <9Aq3g.45066$(E-Mail Removed)> on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:43:22
GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Rico) wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>(E-Mail Removed) (Rico) hath wroth:

>>What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
>>accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
>>radically different exposure standards.
>
>This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
>Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
>heavily influanced by the affected industry.

I think that's a bad analogy and a huge leap. Do you have any real evidence
that radiation exposure limits have actually been "heavily influanced by the
affected industry"?

>>Actually, I could probably find some animal tests of the sorts.
>
>And no doubt (at least in my mind) sopme short term studies have been done,
>but people tend of course to live into their 70's. In my case I was an
>adult when Apple first started selling micro computers, so my exposure
>would be less then that of a new born today.

Long term studies have been done. It's unlikely that any really serious
effects would only show up after such long periods of time.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) (Rico) hath wroth:
>
>>>What we know, what's codified into regulations, and what's commonly
>>>accepted, are quite different. For example, different countries have
>>>radically different exposure standards.
>
>>This doesn't lend to a secure feeling when you consider one agency OKed
>>Vioxx etc. Seriousily these regulations at least in the US as you know are
>>heavily influanced by the affected industry.
>
>Industry has an effect on the regulatory process? Methinks not. My
>personal experience demonstrates that politics and legal issues far
>outweigh any technical issues. If some industrial giant wishes to
>influence regulations, they purchase, lease, or rent a politician, who
>then uses his political influence to change the numbers. The very
>last group with any effective input are scientists and technology
>people.
>
>I don't suppose mentioning that every county has a different cellular
>tower ordinance would help you feel more secure.
>
>>And no doubt (at least in my mind) sopme short term studies have been done,
>>but people tend of course to live into their 70's. In my case I was an
>>adult when Apple first started selling micro computers, so my exposure
>>would be less then that of a new born today.
>
>RF has been around since Marconi in 1902.

Was Macaroni sending microwaves in '02? I didn't realize, I thought it was
long wave stuff though indeed rf, but then he wasn't doing it in my
grandfather's house <wink>

> Is that long term enough?
>The problem with studying long term effects is NOT in the duration but
>in the isolation of a suitable control group. Where on this planet
>can you find an area that has a similar lifestyle to the typical urban
>dweller, but without the exposure to RF fields? How can you maintain
>such a control group for extended periods? Would you entertain the
>possibility that the reason there have been no long term RF studies is
>because they cannot be accomplished on this planet?

Again though, we are now bring the xmitters into our houses, not just in
the environment in general.

>
>>Of course not, I'm not saying any of the investigations done so far are in
>>error. I'm sure as you note above more then a few are shall we say not
>>100%, but I would say today they may be the minority. Again I'm not
>>suggesting even a moment here that we should not be using these nifty
>>gadgets they keep coming up with (well wireless mice and keyboards, but for
>>another reason then rf issues). I just wonder if in fact we aren't
>>impacting the genome (might be postive, kids a generation or three out
>>might end up smarter on average then we are or stronger).
>
>You have a right to be paranoid. However, constant fear of the
>unknown is not a great way to go through life.

We are supposed to be frightened, don't you watch the news etc. Terrorists
are hiding under the bed, bin Laden is lurking behind that tree in your
back yard etc. The terror alert level is purple... and on it goes. The
political system thrives on us being afear'd

> You could also take a
>conservative position:
> http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/columns/article.php/3591071
>It's when someone "warns" the rest of the world of their fears and
>aprehensions, that I have problems. If you know something about RF
>exposure, including anecdotal incidents, then I'm all ears. If you're
>just afraid, it's not really very useful.

I'm not afraid, but I think it is legitimate to ask these questions given
the number of gadgets now entering our lives and homes.

(ot), could you take a look at my DD-WRT question in the group?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.