[kwlug-disc] To WIFI or not to WIFI

Thu Oct 6 16:49:41 EDT 2022

Since it's on topic (somewhat), I thought it'd be fun to share the small
fun (but crude) Wi-Fi and cellular radiation experiment we do as an extra
in our Wireless Infrastructure Administration & Design course.

Basically, I introduce that radiation is energy that travels. All radiation
will pass through various materials. Nonionizing radiation doesn’t affect
the materials that it passes through (light & radio waves). Ionizing
radiation DOES affect the material that it passes through by creating
charged particles in the materials called ions (x‐rays, gamma rays,
lasers). All high-voltage devices create at least a small amount of
ionizing radiation, and we even have background ionizing radiation due to
cosmic rays & rock (e.g. Colorado and the Canadian Shield).

Today, it is considered bad if you absorb more than 20000 uSv of ionizing
radiation per year
1 year = 8 765.81277 hours
20000 uSv per year / 8765.81277 hours year = 2.28159105 uSv per hour

Background radiation is well known for all parts of the world (Kitchener is
0.15 uSv per hour)
2.28159105 uSv per hour / 0.15 uSv per hour = 15.210607
So, 15X background radiation in Kitchener would be bad.

So let’s do an experiment:
1. Get a cheap ($15) radiation dosimeter
2. Measure the background radiation (e.g. ticks/minute if it doesn't have
an LED readout)
3. Put it next to a cell phone playing a video across cellular data (4G/5G
LTE) & measure the ticks/minute
4. Put it next to a cell phone playing a video across WiFi (802.11n/ac/ax)
& measure the ticks per minute
5. See whether 4G/5G LTE and/or 802.11n/ac/ax generate more than 15 times
background radiation.

Results?  They’ve been pretty consistent:
Background radiation = 13 ticks/minute (baseline)

Playing YouTube video on cellular data (4GLTE/5G) = 140-150 ticks/minute
(>10 times the background radiation)
*5G was a bit less! (lower power than 4G)
Playing YouTube video on Wi-Fi 802.11n connection = 13 ticks/minute (=
background radiation)
Playing YouTube video on Wi-Fi 802.11ac connection = 14 ticks/minute (=
background radiation)
Playing YouTube video on Wi-Fi 802.11ax connection = 13 ticks/minute (=
background radiation)

So cellular is definitely worse than Wi-Fi, but you'd probably have to be
on a cellular connection all the time to get close to the recommended bad
dosage per year.

On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 16:06, Doug Moen <doug at moens.org> wrote:

> I know somebody who got brain cancer from a RIM cell phone, and who
> received hush money from RIM.
>
> Whether cell phone radio wave frequencies are "safe" is not a yes or no
> question, in the sense that either the frequency is ionizing or non
> ionizing. What matters is intensity and duration. In the case I mention
> above, the design of the phone and its antenna, the frequency and duration
> of use, and the way it was held, were all relevant factors.
>
> Drinking water is not "safe" in an absolute sense: an overdose will kill
> you. Magnetic fields are not "safe": a high enough intensity will kill you.
> Black pepper and cloves are known carcinogens (I still use them). There was
> a case last year of someone dying from an overdose of licorice candy (which
> I occasionally eat).
>
> Some people are more sensitive to environmental stressors than others. If
> your immune system is compromised, for example, then minor cellular damage
> that would be cleaned up and repaired in a healthy person could turn into
> cancer. This is just one way you could be sensitive to environmental
> stressors, there are many others.
>
> So don't be making absolute statements about the safety of something and
> calling it "science".
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 1:51 PM, Steve Izma wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 12:26:19PM -0400, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
> >> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] To WIFI or not to WIFI
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 10:52 AM Federer Fanatic <nafdef at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi, There are various hypothesized issues regarding exposure
> >> > to wifi
> >>
> >> There is no science behind any of those claims.
> >
> > The great thing about science and its doctrines is that there are
> > so many to choose from.
> >
> > The problem is that most of the choices are expensive, in that
> > published peer-reviewed science mostly comes out of institutions
> > whose funding is geared towards commercialization of research. I
> > have spent nearly fifty years in scholarly publishing (mostly
> > social science) and I know what kind of research doesn't get
> > sufficient funds for making it through the process. It's usually
> > the counter-intuitive ideals that challenge the peers who hold
> > the reigns of acceptable publishing.
> >
> > In respect to electro-magnetic radiation, even the capitalists
> > and militarists are needing to consider a revision of past
> > assumptions:
> > <
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/09/14/cockpit-electromagnetic-fields-are-harming-pilots-the-us-military-fears
> >
> >
> > Microbiological research has shown that cells of all organisms
> > use some sort of electro-magnetic radiation for communication
> > (among other processes, such as chemical signalling and mRNA).
> > <https://deheynlab.ucsd.edu/research/em-communication/> It's
> > likely that cells learn to adapt to interference from external
> > EMR, but obviously such a process depends on many factors, many
> > of which won't help a lot of people exposed to them.
> >
> > The problem, as shown by the concern with pilots' cockpits, is
> > that the accumulation of electro-magnetic energy is such
> > situations is easy to measure, but the effect of smaller amounts
> > on particular cells, still living within a human body, is very
> > hard to measure. Also the kind of effects that need to be
> > measured on a celluar level isn't well defined. It's easy to
> > argue that observable short-term damage can give strong clues to
> > causation, but detecting the connection to long-term damage is
> > much more expensive research -- and in whose interest would it be
> > undertaken? Think about how long it took to scientifically
> > connect cigarette smoking to cancer.
> >
> > I worry that a statement like "there's no science" assumes that
> > the only legitimate science is that coming out of well-funded
> > institutions. There is a great deal of marginalized research that
> > raises doubts and questions about the dominant theories, and when
> > the major communications corporations and most governments
> > denounce such research efforts and ridicule questions about
> > things like 5G, we would do well to wonder what's behind this
> > apparent unity of scientific and political thinking.
> >
> > Anyway, that's one of the reasons I quote from Stephen Jay Gould,
> > below.
> >
> >       -- Steve
> >
> > --
> > Steve Izma
> > -
> > Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada  N2H 1W6
> > E-mail: sizma at golden.net  phone: 519-745-1313
> > cell (text only; not frequently checked): 519-998-2684
> >
> > ==
> > The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and
> > therefore never scrutinize or question.
> >     -- Stephen Jay Gould, *Full House: The Spread of Excellence
> >        from Plato to Darwin*, 1996
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > kwlug-disc mailing list
> > kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> > https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> https://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20221006/208f33b6/attachment.htm>