[kennywinker]

There are too many unknowns in biology for me to 100% dismiss the idea. I use a phone, I'm not worried about it - but it also wouldn't surprise me if there were mechanisms we are not yet aware of at play. e.g. specific frequencies that can do harm even at low levels.

I also know we don't have good quality baselines. Cell phones have only been here for 30-ish years, during a time when the resolution and detail at which we delineate and diagnose disease has gone up dramatically. There are diseases and conditions we know about today that didn't know about then. Until we understand all the mechanisms of those diseases - it's bad science to entirely dismiss EM radiation because of "inverse square law".

[giantg2]

Similar view here. No harm in using a phone and no harm reducing exposure using basic techniques like speaker phone, not talking on it in the car, scheduling your router wifi to turn off during the hours you don't plan on using it, etc.

[michaelmrose]

You are constantly bathed in your neighbors wifi, emf from nearly cell phone towers and even more intense from the sun. Scheduling your routers wifi to turn off is absolute nonsense.

[giantg2]

Not everyone lives close enough for their neighbor's wifi.

These comparisons are very sloppy. Different frequencies act differently, have different limits of exposure, and have different effects. First you need to establish which frequencies are comparable or fit the same category/type. Then you have to set exposure limits (acute and cumulative). Reducing one's RF exposure by 5mW (1W at 15 feet) while one sleeps could be significant in these respects depending on what those limits and baseline exposures are. The fact is, there is little known about the mechanisms and the limits. For example, why does glucose metabolism increase in the brain when exposed to cell RF and how does that increased glucose metabolism affect the rest of the biological system it's a part of? (Honest question. It's something that I found interesting but seems it's lacking research.)

My point was that it doesn't hurt to take basic steps like turning off wifi or using speaker phone. We can show that it measurably reduces exposure, but we don't know if it helps or makes a difference when it comes to outcomes.

[michaelmrose]

Who wants to when you have an inkling to use your computer go to the bother of going to a hard wired computer and turning on the network. It is an absolutely ridiculous workflow which we have absolutely no reason to believe has any benefit whatsoever. You might as well hop on one foot and turn in a circle while making the sign of the evil eye.

[giantg2]

"You might as well hop on one foot and turn in a circle while making the sign of the evil eye."

Any evidence to support that?

I've run my wireless on a schedule for about 10 years. I've never had any problems, nor has the workflow been ridiculous. The wired network stays on, which is what I primary use for everything except the phone or occasional laptop use. What exactly do you envision needing the wifi for when waking up in the middle of the night?

That's part of the logic - if you're looking to reduce exposure then designing your network to be primarily wired is part of that, which is usually easy. Generally it provides better performance (eg gaming) or options (PoE cameras) anyways.

[michaelmrose]

Oh I absolutely believe in wiring everything stationary. That doesn't need justification beyond reliability and performance.

I'm talking about the logical inconsistency of scheduling wifi to avoid exposure. Your phone used without headset or speaker is a cm from your brain putting out up to 2W and your wifi access point conversely is 1/10th of a watt 30 meters away. You are getting up to 180 million times less exposure than up against your head.

Comparing speakerphone usage 15cm away isn't much better. It's up to 800,000 times the exposure vs your wifi.

If that is dangerous enough to schedule your phone logically needs to go straight in the trash.

You are underestimating how low energy your wifi is and how much the difference the distance makes.

[ncmncm]

Relative nonsense, anyway.

[gruez]

>No harm in using a phone and no harm reducing exposure using basic techniques like speaker phone

...except if you're in a room/bus and you're disturbing everyone by being on speaker phone.

>not talking on it in the car

What's the point of this? Are you trying to avoid brain cancer or distracted driving?

>scheduling your router wifi to turn off during the hours you don't plan on using it, etc.

I mean, if you want to go through the effort to set this up, that's your prerogative. I'd probably put more effort into chucking out the 1200W microwave before worrying about the 0.1W coming from router.

[giantg2]

"except if you're in a room/bus and you're disturbing everyone by being on speaker phone."

You're likely disturbing everyone even if you're not on speaker. In general, I'm not going to talk on a phone in a crowded location unless I have to. This is one very small edge case which I don't see affecting my claim that it doesn't hurt to use speaker phone.

"What's the point of this? Are you trying to avoid brain cancer or distracted driving?"

Cars act as weak Faraday cages. Using a phone inside a car increases the power output required to reach the tower. Similar if you are in a low reception area.

"I mean, if you want to go through the effort to set this up, that's your prerogative."

It takes maybe 5 minutes to log into your router and set the schedule. Not much effort at all.

"I'd probably put more effort into chucking out the 1200W microwave before worrying about the 0.1W coming from router."

Why? You realize the microwaves are contained to to inside of the machine by it's shielding, right? The allowable lifetime escape limit is set at 5mW.

Routers can have much higher power output than that. I think the US limit is 1W. This is also something that runs almost continuously as compared to a microwave that runs for maybe a few minutes per day.

[gruez]

>You're likely disturbing everyone even if you're not on speaker.

yeah but in addition to one guy speaking normally half the time, you also hear a distorted voice coming out of the shitty speakerphone the other half of the time.

>Cars act as weak Faraday cages. Using a phone inside a car increases the power output required to reach the tower. Similar if you are in a low reception area.

That's partially canceled out by being able to use hands-free calling in your car, and placing the phone on the other side of the car. I suspect the inverse square law will cause you to get less radiation exposure than you holding the phone using your arms.

>It takes maybe 5 minutes to log into your router and set the schedule. Not much effort at all.

the "effort" also includes the time you have to fiddle with your router to turn it on when you need wifi during the night for whatever reason.

>Why? You realize the microwaves are contained to to inside of the machine by it's shielding, right? The allowable lifetime escape limit is set at 5mW.

yet, when I place my phone inside the microwave it still gets wifi reception (yes, I tested it with 2.4ghz wifi only).

>Routers can have much higher power output than that. I think the US limit is 1W. This is also something that runs almost continuously as compared to a microwave that runs for maybe a few minutes per day.

inverse square law applies here. chances are when you're operating a microwave you'll be standing near by. at the very least you need to be next to it to turn it on. meanwhile the router is probably tucked in some corner of your house.

also, I suspect you can apply the "runs for maybe a few minutes per day" argument to wifi as well. if you're not torrenting on your wifi 24/7, it's probably not pumping 1W 24/7.

[ncmncm]

Microwave oven leakage exposure, while it can be quite large compared to a cell phone's average radiated power, is not modulated. So, the small amount of research we have, which almost all tested wholly unmodulated radiation, suggests that it would have little or no effect.

About the phone, we don't have any good information. That doesn't stop people from insisting they, personally, know, without any.

[giantg2]

"Microwave oven leakage exposure, while it can be quite large compared to a cell phone's average radiated power,"

Is this really true under most circumstances? I think lifetime leakage limit is set at 5mW for microwaves and a cellphone is much higher during tx at around 800mW.

[giantg2]

"yeah but in addition to one guy speaking normally half the time, you also hear a distorted voice coming out of the shitty speakerphone the other half of the time."

True. I suppose what I'm saying is that with proper etiquette this shouldn't be issue, at least not often.

"the "effort" also includes the time you have to fiddle with your router to turn it on when you need wifi during the night for whatever reason."

This has never been an issue for me for 10 year of doing this.

"That's partially canceled out by being able to use hands-free calling in your car, and placing the phone on the other side of the car. I suspect the inverse square law will cause you to get less radiation exposure than you holding the phone using your arms."

True. However, if we are comparing being in a car to not being in a car, then you would still have more exposure (eg putting on the other side of the room vs other side of the car. Plus, many cars are no bigger than arms length, and of you can put it further than that, toad noise becomes an issue.

"yet, when I place my phone inside the microwave it still gets wifi reception (yes, I tested it with 2.4ghz wifi only)."

Perhaps you should have it tested and get a new one if it's not conforming to safety specs. However, my guess is that since it isn't causing interference with you or your neighbors phone that it's really just a slight difference in the frequency the shielding is designed for.

"inverse square law applies here."

As it does for the microwave. Im frankly tired of everyone going "inverse square law" with nothing substantive. How about you crunch the numbers for someone 3 feet from a microwave at 5mW and someone 15 feet from a 1W router and tell me what you get... just because a concept is true does not mean you are correctly applying it in your argument.

"also, I suspect you can apply the "runs for maybe a few minutes per day" argument to wifi as well. if you're not torrenting on your wifi 24/7, it's probably not pumping 1W 24/7."

Well, routers are generally transmitting multiple times per second just for the beacon/name (yes, probably at 1W since TX rate is gwnerally separate from TX power). How many minutes per day does your household use on wireless internet vs the microwave? I'm guessing it's a close to a factor of 10 difference. How many minutes do you use either during your typical sleep hours? Even if you're TX is 5% of the time during 6 core sleeping hours, that's likely to approach the amount of time you use your microwave.

[michaelmrose]

The act of having the discussion not just the act of pushing buttons or holding the phone is the primary distraction. Anyone using hands free for safety is doing safety wrong. You might as well be driving drunk for the duration of the conversation.

[gruez]

>There are too many unknowns in biology for me to 100% dismiss the idea.

You're moving the goalposts. "[not] being afraid of EM" =/= "100% dismiss the idea [of cell phones causing cancer]".

[kennywinker]

It’s not moving the goalpost to say that OP’s dismissal of risk (because inverse square law) is imo just a little bit too broad. I know it’s not moving the goalpost because there is no goal. I’m not trying to win or defeat anyone or anything - i’m just trying to talk about an interesting topic.