“Invisible Killer” – so called Wi-Fi by some world scientists. The main thesis against wireless Internet is the constant radiation in which residents of large cities are located. Is Wi-Fi really that dangerous?
This question is not something new, but people are more and more worried. With the advent of another super-powerful Zyxel router for corporate use and Lexand portable routers (the manufacturer relies on “dacha” use), comments like “… and so there’s no Wi-Fi anywhere else on the forums or blogs” I heard it is bad for children! ”
Portable routers, to the words of our country, can very much become the trend of 2013. 3G coverage can not be called uniform. And in the dacha settlements there is often a situation when, in order to find a stable reception, you have to climb to the second floor of a house or to the attic.
A portable router (the very device Lexand), where a 3G modem is connected, solves this problem by distributing the Internet via Wi-Fi to the whole house and to all devices. Plus, some models can even charge other mobile devices with a removable 5,200 mAh battery or 7,800 mAh – another reason to take a Lexand device to the country, to hike or to travel by car. But then it turns out that even far from civilization, we will continue to be under the influence of “harmful” radiation. Or is it harmless? Let’s try to sort out all the pros and cons to find an unequivocal answer.
Case of life
To understand the full scale of the issue, it is enough to go through the network on the topic of Wi-Fi-fob. There is enough of such in the world. In the US, there is a whole settlement of Green Bank, where on an area of 33 thousand square kilometers it is prohibited to use not only wireless networks, but any electronics. “Wy-fay infected” move here from all states. Separate alarmists are building themselves hats, raincoats, foil walls – supposedly, protection from radiation.
Smart entrepreneurs even released wallpapers that block the signal from Wi-Fi for $ 800 per roll. They allegedly work with on the surface. In Amsterdam, the producers of popular chocolate as an advertising campaign set up benches with a sign Free No-WiFi Zone, that is, literally “There is no free Wi-Fi here.” The traditional formula: that for some – fear and horror, for others – a good profit.
Ministry of Health warns
But what the doctors threaten. There are many publications based on research that, at the end, present all the negative from the use of Wi-Fi. Fear number one – the effect on the potency in men and the quality of sperm. Fear number two – the impact on human brain activity. Under the third number – harm to children, because their skull box at times thinner.
It is enough to give a few figures that are available and known to almost everyone: the peak power of the cellular signal reaches 8 W, the signal of a household Wi-Fi transmitter is 100 mW. The permissible energy flux density (according to SaNPiN 2.1.8 / 2.2.4) is 0.1 W / m2. And the energy flux density is a physical quantity that is numerically equal to the energy flux through a single area, perpendicular to the direction.
The conclusion is obvious: the radiation of wireless Internet does not exceed the established norms. The best protection against unwanted exposure is distance. Moreover, 1 m is enough (but scientists “insure” and recommend 3.5 m). A much greater danger (and in figures this is 10 times more radiation) is represented by the same 3G modems, since they work on cellular signals. Hence another conclusion: Wi-Fi routers even reduce the risks of exposure, allowing them to maintain the required distance. And if you do not apply the router to the head and other parts of the body, then obviously Wi-Fi will not harm the brain or the sexual system.
And how to relate to the data presented by the same WHO many experiments and experiments? With a considerable degree of skepticism, because for any scientifically based conclusions, the observation of the “experimental” should last about three decades, and preferably several generations. Wi-Fi has been widely used for less than 20 years.