On 22 Sep 2005 04:12:27 -0700,
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>It is still unclear if such non-ionising radiation cause dverse health
>effects or not. Until then, I'd rather use RJ45 in my home.
I'm afraid it will probably never be scientifically clear[1]. You
might consider the effects of inverse square law. Double the distance
and 1/4th the radiation. That's why cell phones are a problem,
because they are very close to the head. That's also why cell towers
are not a problem, because they're usually too far away.
If it's an issue, I suggest reconfiguring your system. You already
have a DSL or cable modem. Get a cheap ethernet router such as a
DI-604. Then configure your DI-614 as an access point and not a
router. I can supply instructions if you want to do this. The router
section of the DI-624 is essentially disabled and the DI-604 does all
the internet stuff. This allows you to turn off the AC power to the
DI-624 when not in use. This has the added advantage of allowing you
to place the DI-624 in a better RF location such as higher up in the
room for better coverage.
[1] One of my friends did some research on the effects of RF exposure
at near cell phone frequencies. She repeated some of the more
interesting microbiological experiments and found that RF did indeed
cause changes in cellular structure and growth patterns. She was
about to scribble and submit her findings when someone suggested it
best to have her RF source calibrated and tested. The test equipment
was working, but the home made coax cable going to the test chamber
was shorted inside the connector resulting in no radiated RF at all.
In other words, the test results were all worthless and the subtle
observed changes were hallucinations. Methinks you'll find a similar
lack of a non-RF exposure reference control in many of the published
RF exposure tests.
--
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