[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.

[giantg2]

"wifi access point conversely is 1/10th of a watt 30 meters away."

Not in the US I guess? Also 30m is a massive house. In the US routers are 1W (although I believe many could reduce it per device with the newer tech, but many still have set limits; although this is also true of the 2W you mention for cell).

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

My house is not 30m in any dimension. Probably about 5m router to bed, and that's one of the longest distance in the house. I don't think I am overestimating router power for my region. US limits are about 10x higher than Europe for wifi, while i believe Europe is about .4W higher for cell tx allowance.

You mention power and distance. What about time for cumulative exposure?

"15cm away"

I think this is underestimating speaker phone usage. Usually I keep it .75-1m away from me. 15cm is very close and not even worth using at that distance.

"I'm talking about the logical inconsistency of scheduling wifi to avoid exposure."

Not avoid, but reduce. The biggest point,since you brought up logic: baseline-5mW < baseline. There is a quantifiable reduction, at no cost (in my experience/situation, since I'm not using it at that time). Eliminating cell usage would require a cost (in my situation). So I accept that exposure with mitigating factors, like speaker phone and not sleeping with it next to my head. Likewise, I am a ham and except that exposure with mitigating factors (ground planes to limit RF back into the house, typically 1W but always QRP, and compared to cell phones it's about 1/2 the RF since isn't not full duplex), even though I don't use it very often.

[michaelmrose]

You could limit your exposure more by not putting your router in the same room as your bed more so than scheduling it.

Of course the whole exercise is somewhat like playing like the floor is lava and hopping from couch to chair as a kid nothing happens when you fall unless you break a lamp on the way down.

There is no evidence of injury by virtue of WiFi.

[giantg2]

"You could limit your exposure more by not putting your router in the same room as your bed more so than scheduling it."

It's not. I just don't have a huge house.

"There is no evidence of injury by virtue of WiFi."

The research seems to be mixed when searching PubMed. At the very least, there are confirmed biological effects for microwave RF for which we don't understand the mechanisms or their implications (eg increased cellular glucose metabolism). To me, these unknowns warrant some caution, especially if I can make reductions in exposure without any reduction in utility.