|
|
|
|
|
|
by onoj
2731 days ago
|
|
|
my apologies I did not see the previous post - I wanted to review what this article suggests is correct and incorrect Wi-Fi testing. This article states that many previous studies tested: (from the article) It uses a large chamber surrounded by 1 mm aluminum mesh wire mesh to provide reflections of the EMFs. The chamber in which animals are exposed on a platform at its center, is also surrounded by antennae in all 6 directions (up, down, all four horizontal directions) such that each antenna is broadcasting with one polarization is opposed (at 180°) by another broadcasting with the 180° opposite polarization, as well as by four other antennae, broadcasting with 90° different polarization in each of the four possible directions. This produces a field that is more like a non-polarized EMF rather than the usual polarized artificial EMF" is this a fair test of modulated polarized Wi-Fi? |
|
|
"Laudisi et al. (2012) used a different exposure system, that of Ardoino et al. (2005) where the vast majority of the exposure is produced from reflections off a long cylindrical surface in a TEM cell, where the curvature of the cylinder will also produce a largely non-polarized EMF and different reverberation paths and consequent destructive interference, may both be expected to occur. Consequently the predicted low biological activity of EMFs produced by the Wu et al. (2009) system may be expected to also occur from this TEM exposure system Ardoino et al. (2005). It is not possible to study biological effects of EMFs from Wi-Fi, cell phones or any other important exposures using such exposure systems because of the polarization changes they produce from the original polarized EMFs and because of destructive interference."