Radiation. Reason to go wired?

cormie

I have a friend who is easily convinced by anything that suggests otherwise to what most people are doing, and putting themselves in toxic environments etc etc. This includes putting his phone on speaker and holding it away from his head and lately wanting to switch off wifi on the router in the shared accommodation he lives in and hooking everyone up to ethernet cables instead. Now I know connection wise it's better, but my thoughts are that if I'm in the house, yeah I can get the best signal off their router, but I can also pick up the signal of about 10 other routers from nearby houses etc too so the difference he's making to the overall radiation levels surrounding him by just turning off one device is minuscule and do the typical radiation levels one might be exposed to in a city environment even have an affect on us?

He spent about 2 hours with a modem last night trying to sort it out to accomplish this and I'm just wondering is this just extreme precaution or is there any sense to it?

Any facts, figures and sums to show that this is a worthy or unworthy goal?

Alun

http://questionablemotives.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/should-we-ban-wi-fi-from-schools/

EGriff

You are being constantly bombarded by various radio waves these days, in fact if you could see them you wouldn't be able to see anything else.

Turning off you own router is like holding a fag box over your head in the rain and thinking its gonna keep you dry i.e totally pointless.

gctest50

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijfr/2010/836278/

EthicRanger

http://whyfry.org/facts-research-science/
Loads of concerns even from authorities!! We are on great experiment

It's not about WiFi, yet it's mini tower you can say, which close than decades of meters from you. And as you know, distance has square effect:
http://www.naturalnews.com/040905_cell_phone_towers_radiation_cancer.html

EthicRanger

I also think:
1) WiFi which is closest to you is most impactful, so why not to switch it off?
2) Usually internet through cable works 50-100% quicker rather through Wi-Fi
3) 1% effect is a lot or not? Depends how you will look. I think if we getting cancers, chronical ilnesses at age of 30 and more and more cases of kids, it means the breach of normal environment ( internal or external) is on average at 70-80% (Some of us reach unaceptable 100% and gets chronical illnesses). So it means we have 20-30% left to reach the illness? How is that 1% stands now? If i can control it, why not to do so?
4) By doing so, i am jumping in moral position to share info with neighbours and maybe they will do the same. But yes again, the closest source has massive effect because of law of impact decreasing in square effect with every length
5) waste of energy
6) known and unknown effects ( concerns are held or pushed for later review by companies paid clever lawyers in the name of need more research ) especially to brains

gctest50

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9619514/Mobile-phones-can-cause-brain-tumours-court-rules..html

gctest50

Nice chart of same:

gctest50

Just star light :

Pressure of the star's light significantly repels the dust in the reflection nebula, and and smaller dust particles are repelled more strongly.

As a result, parts of the dust cloud have become stratified, pointing toward Merope. The closest particles are the most massive and the least affected by the radiation pressure