i'm buying and moving into a house with some hippies and they think wifi radiation is bad meaning we are going to have pay to get ethernet ports installed all around the house.
what are some things i could say to them to convince them that wifi has no effect on your health?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
they're right.
ZAIZAIDevlin 1 day ago
"Two things...
1, We have been using radio for more than 5 generations but we are still here?
........
Dear "ZaizaiDevlin",
These are two very important issues, and I hereby try to answer them to the best of my capacity.
1. To begin with, radio has not been used for 5 human generations but in most countries only for one - or at most two - full generations. Actually, the radio and TV exposures of our populations have possibly left an unwanted mark on us. For instance, Dolk et al (1997) found that there was significant decline in skin and bladder cancer incidence among adults in England as distance from a frequency modulation (FM) broadcasting tower increased. In the second part of the study, these investigators reported a similar trend for individuals who lived various distances from FM and TV towers, but the effect was less pronounced than in the first study. Furthermore, cancer incidence has also been associated with proximity to television towers (Hocking et al. 1996). We have studied the incidence of melanoma which has been increasing steadily in many countries since 1960, but the underlying mechanism causing this increase remains elusive. The incidence of melanoma has been linked to the distance to frequency modulation (FM) broadcasting towers. Using exposure--time-specific incidence extracted from exposure and incidence data from 4 different countries, compared with reported age-specific incidence of melanoma, we could show a correlation between melanoma incidence and the number of locally receivable FM transmitters (Hallberg & Johansson 2002). Of course, further studies are needed to unfold the mechanisms and factors behind these observations.
>it's in a scientific paper so it has to be true
I bet you think cello scrotum is real too.
>the pedo elite love me so it cant be true
>it has to be true because I'm ignorant of how technology works and refuse to learn
>i know as much as neuroscientists with PHD's who dedicate their entire life to studying the subject
>i dont agree with their conclusions so it's untrue
>the science is settled because of one paper that agrees with me
are you gonna black out the sun, Mr Burns? That's a lot of radiation, some even ionizing (unlike wifi etc).
I agree with these scientists
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19758659/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14628307/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15007865/
Also
>PHD's
>'s
>possessive
These studies have nothing to do with the health risks of wifi. This is like saying knives are safe because surgeons use scalpels.
This is not a peer reviewed paper, this is a YouTube video of some clips taken out of context by a concerned parents organization. You could have at least linked the paper referenced in the video: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9261543/
The paper is not written by Johansson and does not trivially apply to humans. All the research I could find from pulling that thread was either extremely specific or inconclusive (a correlation between RF exposure and cancer doesn't narrow things down, RF exposure correlates with urbanization and urbanization correlates with a billion other possible health factors).
That said, there isn't much conclusive evidence about the health risks of microplastics but it's still not smart to assume they're safe. Limiting your exposure to poorly understood artificial environmental factors is not a bad idea, so long as you don't let it control your life. If you actually read a comprehensive list of all the things that have been linked to cancer, you'll very quickly find that there is more there than any mortal being has time to care about.
When it comes to health, your best bet is not to worry about all the millions of things that may or may not be a risk, that way lies madness. Instead you should focus living a healthy lifestyle: eat healthy, sleep soundly, exercise regularly, get plenty of sunlight. There's no magic bullet, there's no boogeyman, general health and wellbeing is always the most important factor.
As far as technology solutions, you could try hiding the SSID, using those powerline adapters, or meeting them halfway and using a bunch of low power access points rather than one high-power one.
>wifi isn't radio
>pay to get ethernet ports installed
Do it yourself of you can't afford it.
why do you want wifi? wired is better
also you are your own person, if not having WiFi is a deal breaker then don't move in with them?? can't imagine sharing a house with other people that arent immediate family / my kids personally. people need space
none of them have mobile phones?
>why do you want wifi? wired is better
this is true too, until you want to move around at least
>this is true too, until you want to move around at least
Stop being so device addicted kek
ethernet is better for opsec
unironically the superior choice
also medium access scheme with wifi doesnt work so well with multiple users due to collisions and cluttering with neightbour wifis
Not really. They're not gonna break encryption, OK it tells people that there is something out there to hack, but in a city that could be anyone, and if your firewall is correctly set up you can just restrict access to LAN to all WiFi clients, you also isolate clients and you should be golden even with security (the only purpose of a WiFi password is to prevent others from taking up your bandwidth).
>wireless
enjoy your cancer
you better get some sex from those morons, OP
paranoia or not, it's still an upgrade to move to a wired network
Do they also not use microwaves because they also operate at 2.4ghz? Try to spin it like you agree with them that wifi is bad but only that 5ghz shit that's small enough to penetrate the human skull then enjoy based long range wireless g/n.
your house is being bombarded with all kinds of radiation all the time whether you generate any yourself or not
>your house is being bombarded with all kinds of radiation all the time whether you generate any yourself or not
Inverse-square law. Distance matters, not having transmitters in your house is still an improvement.
The entire genre of argument that goes "I don't know the mechanism of action for how this could cause harm so it's safe" is a complete non-starter for anyone with a brain. Novel exposures should be assumed dangerous unless proven otherwise
How about they show data that supports their claims instead of shifting the burden of proof to you?
Also please ask them to always have airplane mode active on all mobile phones, tablets and laptops. No microwave, no artificial lights.... all those things are man-made gadgets that radiate waves.
How does their logic only apply to WiFi and none of these other things? Demand sources.
the very basic data shows that "thermal heating of soft tissue" is apparent in every form of wireless energy transfer
its up to you if you believe the government, who used asbestos filters in army ration cigarettes amongst other things
>who used asbestos filters in army ration cigarettes
jesus christ
not him but asbestos was used /everywhere/ back in the day, it has a lot of practical uses and is a naturally-occuring minable resource
you may only know of it as house insulation, but that's only because that's about the only place you can still find it in the developed world, owing to it being difficult to remove and also reasonably safe for that purpose provided the house doesn't get damaged (in which case you have no choice but to get rid of it, by any means)
I know that it was pretty ubiquitous because I've worked around it in industrial settings, but I had not heard that it was used in fricking cigarettes. that's insane and not at all a surprise to me.
>hippies and they think wifi radiation
this doesn't happen often: the morons are right
just hide an AP somewhere, set its transmit power low enough that it's usable but is low enough that it can be passed off as being in another building, and give it an indistinct name
or just hide the SSID since they're obviously not technical people
>we are going to have pay
Why is this not 'they are going to have to pay'? - They're the fgts with the extraordinary demands.
I would even one up it and have them pay you to spend 90 minutes running, splicing cables and putting in jacks.
>and then just put an ap in your room anyway.
I would consider making other housing arrangements - housemates with that many brainworms are liable to genital mutilate you in your sleep.
I have opposite question as OP
Are there even routers anymore that I can use with an internet provider that will not be giving off any wifi signals?
I'm sharing wifi from neighbor at the moment and want to get my own setup but I don't want to create any more signals in my suite.
It's amazing how it can penetrate through the hallway, apartments are fricking awful for this type of radiation.
I imagine if I try to ask the people who will be setting this up they will look at me like I'm crazy.
you could just open whatever modem/router you get and unplug the antennae
You can just set it up as a private network so nobody can connect to it without knowledge of it.
im pretty sure all modern routers let you turn off the 5g and 2.4g radios independently
You can disable the radio on a wifi enabled router through its config page. You can also often buy prosumer and routers that as a matter of standard completely lack wifi interfaces, as the router usually goes in a telco closet, and the infrastructure instead uses access points dedicated to offering wifi up for the local network, which then takes you to the router/gateway. Any general purpose computer with at least 2 interfaces can be a gateway router.
My question is. If you're worried about electromagnetic radiation that is less than a watt from a wifi router appliance, why aren't you worried about electromagnetic radiation in the form of visible light emitting many watts from your light bulbs? What about electromagnetic radiation in the form of microwaves, infrared, visible, and UV light from the sun?
Are you one of those people who conflate electromagnetic radiation with ionizing radiation from radioactive decay?
The dangers of electromagnetic radiation only show up in very high doses- high power UV from the sun or from a tanning bed for extended periods of time, or mayybe 2.4Ghz, but only with power outputs completely contained within a microwave oven, which does not cause cancer, but only energizes water and sugar bonds which generate thermal energy. 2.4GHz Wifi which is now out of favor anyway cannot put out this kind of power, and does not radiate it all in one direction anyway, so observing it at any one point a meter away from the antenna you only see a microwatt of power. Not 800 directed watts like the microwave oven.
Prosumer and enterprise routers*
>why aren't you worried about electromagnetic radiation in the form of visible light emitting many watts from your light bulbs?
The sun and light are natural. They have been around us for millennia.
Cavemen sleeping next to a fricking fire exposed themselves to way more electromagnetic radiation than whatever you sleep next to at night. You'll be fine calm down.
it's been shown that small lights in our room can have drastic effects on our sleep quality. maybe its the same for radio signals
complete non-sequitur congrats
for our whole primate existence there has never been vast quantities of electro-magnetic radiation surrounding us as we sleep. Not until now.
I'm not saying it necessarily causes drastic health issues, but What if our body's cells feel slightly better without all that noise while we sleep?
what is known to you as a router is actually multiple seperate components combined into an AIO device: modem, router, wifi access point. Just get modem and router but no wifi access point. Or get AIO device and just disable wifi
>i'm buying and moving into a house with some hippies
Forget all the schizo arguing about wifi. Why the frick are you buying a house with some hippies?
What about cell phones? LTE bands range from about 700MHz to 2600MHz, with 2600 (basically the same as wifi) being common in the US
wait until they hear about the 1000 watts per square meter of far higher frequency radiation they receive every time they go outside
>hurr on the day there is the sun so that means radar is safe
Are you for real? The sun is dangerous. If it looks at you for too long, you get cancer. If you look at it for too long, you go blind
If you do nothing and wait, it blows you up....BOOM!
do they have cell phones
Ethernet ports are better anyway.
They're right. Even if there wasn't data backing it up, you should be suspicious of wireless data. The fact that it is not jammed by natural radiation is enough to tell you that it is not like natural radiation which makes it inherently risky.
>nearly all of the studies linking cancer to radio waves had a minuscule data set, poor controls, and were done by absolute nobodies
Do you gays not realize being published means nothing?
You can't expect much from people who have grown up in a world saturated with the idea that "A NEW STUDY SHOWS X" and "EXPERTS SAY X" are indicative of actual science.
>and were done by absolute nobodies
This bugs me alot.
This is basically saying only established scientists can produce valid studies.