DECT phones 'bad' - WiFi 'bad'?

Discussion in 'Wireless Internet' started by __spc__, Feb 7, 2006.

  1. __spc__

    __spc__ Guest

    Articles yesterday in the British press raised again concerns relating
    to the hazards arising from DECT phones and their continuous microwave
    emissions.

    Should similar concerns apply to a home with several WiFi routers in,
    'pumping out' 2.4GHz 24/7??
     
    __spc__, Feb 7, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. __spc__

    Bigguy Guest

    And the sky might fall on our heads - some folk just aren't happy without
    something to worry about.... :)
    It's even funnier when you see some chain smoker complaining about mobile
    phone masts - clueless...

    Guy
     
    Bigguy, Feb 7, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Crivvens. The articles probably appeared in the National Enquirer and
    the Sunday Sport.
    Similar concerns should indeed exist. Which is fine, since the
    sensible concerns level for DECT phones is zero.

    But if it worries you, wear a tinfoil hat... :)

    Mark McIntyre
     
    Mark McIntyre, Feb 7, 2006
    #3
  4. Uh-uh! Some folks at MIT (iirc) actually researched the effects of tinfoil
    hats on radio waves. They found that you got higher energy levels _under_
    the tinfoil hat than you did if you didn't use one :)
     
    Derek Broughton, Feb 7, 2006
    #4
  5. __spc__

    __spc__ Guest

    [snip]

    Eeek - aluminium foil? Alzheimers, no?! ;-)
     
    __spc__, Feb 7, 2006
    #5
  6. I'd love to work somewhere that gets grants to do this sort of
    research. I mean ,can you imagine the application form, or the
    interview board? :)

    Mark McIntyre
     
    Mark McIntyre, Feb 7, 2006
    #6
  7. Only if you eat the hat,

    Which is perfectrly reasonable I guess......

    Mark McIntyre
     
    Mark McIntyre, Feb 7, 2006
    #7
  8. __spc__

    Doz Guest

    This makes sense .. the "hat" is a parabolic reflector.. it concentrates the
    radio waves into your head... nice
     
    Doz, Feb 8, 2006
    #8
  9. I'm sure they did it on their own time :) Also, iirc, they actually tested
    tin vs aluminum foil. I can't remember how that worked out.
     
    Derek Broughton, Feb 8, 2006
    #9
  10. __spc__

    Bob II Guest

    Very tongue in cheek.
    http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
    Build your own:-
    http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
     
    Bob II, Feb 8, 2006
    #10
  11. On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets:
    An Empirical Study
    http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
    No calibrated antennas. No field measurements. No specific
    absorption models. No NEC2 or NEC4 models. No grandoise conclusions.
    No inflamatory comments about other researchers. No footnotes. No
    requests for additional funding. Obviously, this is not a
    professionally prepared research paper, is incomplete, and is a
    disgrace to the American higher educational system. Also, the math is
    seriously deficient as the obsolete Agilent 8714ET network analyzer
    was only about $35,000 new (with a typical options mix) and not
    $250,000. Disgraceful, methink.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Feb 8, 2006
    #11
  12. Derek Broughton, Feb 8, 2006
    #12
  13. __spc__

    Bob II Guest

    I would like to have seen the presentation for the budget for this
    http://www.darpa.mil/spo/programs/snow.htm

    Bob
     
    Bob II, Feb 8, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.