are wireless laptops dangerous?

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.
28 answers Last reply
More about wireless laptops dangerous
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 24 May 2004 15:11:51 -0700, jm wrote
    (in article <c67e4bdd.0405241411.71995218@posting.google.com>):

    > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.

    A decision you have to make for yourself. You'll find data to support both
    conclusions: that it may be harmful, and that it may not be.

    The majority of data that I've seen show that not enough studies have been
    done to draw a conclusion. So while I can't say conclusively that the
    technology is dangerous to human biology, I can't say that it's completely
    benign, either.
    --
    DaveC
    me@privacy.net
    This is an invalid return address
    Please reply in the news group
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    john_20_28_2000@yahoo.com (jm) wrote in news:c67e4bdd.0405241411.71995218
    @posting.google.com:

    > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.

    Not to sure about the effects of prolonged exposure to very small amounts
    of RF energy, but....

    I was working on the road deploying a private wireless network, and the
    tower sites were leased from several different companies, so there was
    other equipment at these sites as well. Some of the other gear was a few
    kiloWatts, compared to the low power (4 watts) stuff I was deploying.

    There was one particular site that I was inside the 20 x 40 foot building
    working around all of this other equipment, and after about 30 minutes I
    started to feel sick.... my nose started running, I began to become light-
    headed. After an hour there, there was extreme nausea, and I felt like I
    was really drunk, without the slurring speach (and w/o having all the fun
    that usually precedes that end-of-the-night feeling). It was lunch-time, so
    I left for lunch and in 20 minutes I felt fine again, which is when I made
    the connection to the RF. I was getting paid to do a job, so I did go back,
    to finish up what I was doing, but was out of there in 20 minutes.

    Unless you're way out in the boonies, everone's getting bomarded anyway
    with RF energy from all types of places like TV, radio, cell phones, CB's,
    satellites, cordless phone's, microwave ovens, paging system's, trunking
    radio system's, police and 911, airport and weather radar.....

    Can 50 milliwatts of 2.4 GHz RF energy cause any damage to the human body ?

    Maybe.


    DS
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    jm wrote:

    > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.

    While there may be debate about this, the simple answer is "No, it's not
    dangerous." If it were, there'd be a lot of folks in this group who
    would have roasted nuts, popped eyeballs, split infinitives and all
    sorts of ills.

    --
    Not to mention the court systems would be clogged with 'lawsoots' about
    radiation from laptops.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:30:39 -0700, Rôgêr wrote
    (in article <CqqdnSkFidArPC_dRVn-hg@pghconnect.com>):

    > While there may be debate about this, the simple answer is "No, it's not
    > dangerous." If it were, there'd be a lot of folks in this group who
    > would have roasted nuts, popped eyeballs, split infinitives and all
    > sorts of ills.

    Cataracts, memory problems, trouble with mental acuity, weak immune systems,
    and poor health in general?
    --
    DaveC
    me@privacy.net
    This is an invalid return address
    Please reply in the news group
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 05/24/04 09:30 pm Rôgêr put fingers to keyboard and launched the
    following message into cyberspace:

    >> I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    >> the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    >> machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    >> facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    >> pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.

    > While there may be debate about this, the simple answer is "No, it's not
    > dangerous." If it were, there'd be a lot of folks in this group who
    > would have roasted nuts, popped eyeballs, split infinitives and all
    > sorts of ills.

    So that's why correct grammar is so difficult to find these days! I bet
    you that the increase in RF radiation is the cause of the abominable
    spelling too.

    MB
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Minnie Bannister wrote:

    > On 05/24/04 09:30 pm Rôgêr put fingers to keyboard and launched the
    > following message into cyberspace:
    >
    >>> I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    >>> the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    >>> machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    >>> facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    >>> pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.
    >
    >
    >> While there may be debate about this, the simple answer is "No, it's
    >> not dangerous." If it were, there'd be a lot of folks in this group
    >> who would have roasted nuts, popped eyeballs, split infinitives and
    >> all sorts of ills.
    >
    >
    > So that's why correct grammar is so difficult to find these days! I bet
    > you that the increase in RF radiation is the cause of the abominable
    > spelling too.
    >
    > MB

    This was posted in 24hoursupport.helpdesk by Toolman Tim tonight:

    THE PAOMNNEHAL PWEOR OF THE HMUAN MNID

    Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in
    waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht
    the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl
    mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the
    huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

    Amzanig huh?

    (Eplaixns smoe of the pstos on tihs gourp)
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Using your mobile phone or sticking your head next to your microwave oven is
    more dangerous.

    The power levels are extremely low - people have a tendency to demonize new
    technology, especially if there's an aerial involved.


    "jm" <john_20_28_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:c67e4bdd.0405241411.71995218@posting.google.com...
    > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    jm <john_20_28_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Is this dangerous that it is
    > facing directly at the user?

    Studies of institutes of high reputation have proven this to be very
    dangerous. I know one study that has followed people using these type of
    laptops for over 5 years and they found that in this group there were
    significant more people that developed serious mental deficiencies. Also
    there were quite a number of cases of people experiencing suicidal
    tendencies.

    My advice to you? Get rid of this device immediately, don't even take
    the risk of first saving your data!

    --
    Groeten,

    Antonio (Voor email, verwijder X)
  9. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I keep reading keep that card eight inches away from body parts.
    I have noticed the numbers on my watch are still brightly glowing at 6am and
    my card is on the wrist watch side of the laptop. I do have two callous
    like bumps on my judo chopper but they might just be some kind of new diet
    soda induced psoriasis. Man I'm thirsty all the time lately.

    "jm" <john_20_28_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:c67e4bdd.0405241411.71995218@posting.google.com...
    > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Enviromental whackos and scare mongers would like you to believe there is,
    but MANY tests have failed to detect and damage at all. Some tests have
    purported to do so but upon careful investigation you find one of two
    things - The tests were not done correctly - or you can't find out how they
    were done (very convenient).

    On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:43:15 -0700, DaveC <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    >On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:30:39 -0700, Rôgêr wrote
    >(in article <CqqdnSkFidArPC_dRVn-hg@pghconnect.com>):
    >
    >> While there may be debate about this, the simple answer is "No, it's not
    >> dangerous." If it were, there'd be a lot of folks in this group who
    >> would have roasted nuts, popped eyeballs, split infinitives and all
    >> sorts of ills.
    >
    >Cataracts, memory problems, trouble with mental acuity, weak immune systems,
    >and poor health in general?
  11. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Tue, 25 May 2004 00:08:17 +0100, "K. Bibis" <kbibis@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Using your mobile phone or sticking your head next to your microwave oven is
    >more dangerous.
    >
    >The power levels are extremely low - people have a tendency to demonize new
    >technology, especially if there's an aerial involved.

    How can you say using your cell phone is more dangerous than wi-fi ? The
    power is nearly the same. More at the AP. Don't forget to consider the freq
    differences as well.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 05/25/04 02:48 am NoSpam@anywhere.com put fingers to keyboard and
    launched the following message into cyberspace:

    > Enviromental whackos and scare mongers would like you to believe there is,
    > but MANY tests have failed to detect and damage at all. Some tests have
    > purported to do so but upon careful investigation you find one of two
    > things - The tests were not done correctly - or you can't find out how they
    > were done (very convenient).

    And you could probably say the same for many of the tests that purport
    to find *no* damage.

    MB
  13. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    DS wrote:

    > john_20_28_2000@yahoo.com (jm) wrote in news:c67e4bdd.0405241411.71995218
    > @posting.google.com:
    >
    >
    >>I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    >>the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    >>machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    >>facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    >>pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.
    >
    >
    > Not to sure about the effects of prolonged exposure to very small amounts
    > of RF energy, but....
    >
    > I was working on the road deploying a private wireless network, and the
    > tower sites were leased from several different companies, so there was
    > other equipment at these sites as well. Some of the other gear was a few
    > kiloWatts, compared to the low power (4 watts) stuff I was deploying.
    >
    > There was one particular site that I was inside the 20 x 40 foot building
    > working around all of this other equipment, and after about 30 minutes I
    > started to feel sick.... my nose started running, I began to become light-
    > headed. After an hour there, there was extreme nausea, and I felt like I
    > was really drunk, without the slurring speach (and w/o having all the fun
    > that usually precedes that end-of-the-night feeling). It was lunch-time, so
    > I left for lunch and in 20 minutes I felt fine again, which is when I made
    > the connection to the RF. I was getting paid to do a job, so I did go back,
    > to finish up what I was doing, but was out of there in 20 minutes.
    >
    > Unless you're way out in the boonies, everone's getting bomarded anyway
    > with RF energy from all types of places like TV, radio, cell phones, CB's,
    > satellites, cordless phone's, microwave ovens, paging system's, trunking
    > radio system's, police and 911, airport and weather radar.....
    >
    > Can 50 milliwatts of 2.4 GHz RF energy cause any damage to the human body ?
    >
    > Maybe.
    >
    >
    >
    > DS

    That is a well-known problem inside buildings with neon signs for "Bud".

    And, paint and other chemical fumes can do the same; I once got kinda
    high painting in a confined space (specifically, the chain locker). There
    have been many cases of sick building syndrome caused by new carpet. And,
    don't forget Legionaire's disease. My point is that the first suspect
    in your sick building should not be RF, when there are lots of other
    possible causes.
    --
    Cheers, Bob
  14. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 25/5/04 2:37 pm, in article ssi6b0p6d6oakk1o9tg1antf2h13cu0tkt@4ax.com,
    "Mark" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    > On Tue, 25 May 2004 00:08:17 +0100, "K. Bibis" <kbibis@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Using your mobile phone or sticking your head next to your microwave oven is
    >> more dangerous.
    >>
    >> The power levels are extremely low - people have a tendency to demonize new
    >> technology, especially if there's an aerial involved.
    >
    > How can you say using your cell phone is more dangerous than wi-fi ? The
    > power is nearly the same. More at the AP. Don't forget to consider the freq
    > differences as well.

    All laptops are dangerous if you drop them from a great height on someone's
    head.

    By implication you seem to think WiFi and Mobile base stations are similar ?

    Define "power nearly the same"

    100mW for a WiFi AP and 1W peak for a GSM900 handset are not even similar.
    One is continuously transmitting and another is in burst mode, with a low
    duty cycle. The difference in power output is a lot more then x10

    As to frequency difference, what do you conclude ?

    2.4GHz cell size is tiny (less than 100m normally) so it must have less
    power at any given distance from the AP - so unless the AP transmitted
    radiation doesn't obey the universal inverse square law (probably unlikely)
    its transmitting a lot less power.

    Since when do you stick an AP to your head while using it ? Or put your
    laptop on your head while using it.

    The situations are totally different, in frequency, power output, and
    physical relationships.

    IMO, the only thing we can be sure about is that tests on mobiles are not
    relevant to WiFi , and that to every set of data you'll find an expert on
    both sides with differing conclusion.

    Make up your own mind - do I want to use it or not ?

    If it was unhealthy, bad for the environment, potentially dangerous with
    long term detrimental effects for all of us, it would be Taxed ......
  15. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, DS mused:
    |
    | Not to sure about the effects of prolonged exposure to very small amounts
    | of RF energy, but....

    Yeah, forget what the sun exposes us to on a daily bases. :-p
  16. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Graham summed it up.
    I was referring to power and the fact your mobile is closer to your brain
    cells than your WiFi aerial.


    "Mark" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:ssi6b0p6d6oakk1o9tg1antf2h13cu0tkt@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 25 May 2004 00:08:17 +0100, "K. Bibis" <kbibis@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Using your mobile phone or sticking your head next to your microwave oven
    is
    > >more dangerous.
    > >
    > >The power levels are extremely low - people have a tendency to demonize
    new
    > >technology, especially if there's an aerial involved.
    >
    > How can you say using your cell phone is more dangerous than wi-fi ? The
    > power is nearly the same. More at the AP. Don't forget to consider the
    freq
    > differences as well.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    wifi laptop radio is usually pretty close to all of your unborn childs
    cells.

    "K. Bibis" <kbibis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:CwPsc.475$Kz5.118@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net...
    > Graham summed it up.
    > I was referring to power and the fact your mobile is closer to your brain
    > cells than your WiFi aerial.
    >
    >
    > "Mark" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
    > news:ssi6b0p6d6oakk1o9tg1antf2h13cu0tkt@4ax.com...
    > > On Tue, 25 May 2004 00:08:17 +0100, "K. Bibis" <kbibis@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    > >
    > > >Using your mobile phone or sticking your head next to your microwave
    oven
    > is
    > > >more dangerous.
    > > >
    > > >The power levels are extremely low - people have a tendency to demonize
    > new
    > > >technology, especially if there's an aerial involved.
    > >
    > > How can you say using your cell phone is more dangerous than wi-fi ?
    The
    > > power is nearly the same. More at the AP. Don't forget to consider the
    > freq
    > > differences as well.
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Are you sure this was the antenna poking out from the laptop and not the
    other way around?
    Which direction is this thing pointed?
    What is on the laptop screen?

    "jm" <john_20_28_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:c67e4bdd.0405241411.71995218@posting.google.com...
    > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Harold Starr" <dd@sodfa.net> wrote in message news:<SZqdnbjw_ai0BindRVn-vA@comcast.com>...
    > Are you sure this was the antenna poking out from the laptop and not the
    > other way around?
    > Which direction is this thing pointed?
    > What is on the laptop screen?
    >
    > "jm" <john_20_28_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:c67e4bdd.0405241411.71995218@posting.google.com...
    > > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.

    Yeah, I am sure it is the antenna. It is right where the Ir port is.
    Right next to it Acer C100 Travelmate. It *always* pointing at the
    user because it is at the keyboard bottom next to where the mousepad
    is. Laptop screen? I guess you were joking...
  20. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Cellular phones have a typical power of 2 watts (up to 8 watts in cars).
    Wifi ranges from 100 to 200 milliwatts... so lower power (also lower
    range)

    --
    Interested in mobile mesh ?
    http://mark.cabiling.free.fr/mobilemesh/

    Mark wrote:
    > On Tue, 25 May 2004 00:08:17 +0100, "K. Bibis" <kbibis@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Using your mobile phone or sticking your head next to your microwave oven is
    >>more dangerous.
    >>
    >>The power levels are extremely low - people have a tendency to demonize new
    >>technology, especially if there's an aerial involved.
    >
    >
    > How can you say using your cell phone is more dangerous than wi-fi ? The
    > power is nearly the same. More at the AP. Don't forget to consider the freq
    > differences as well.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 27/5/04 12:34 am, in article 40b52960$0$12752$636a15ce@news.free.fr,
    "Mark Cabiling" <mark.cabiling@gmail.com> wrote:

    > Cellular phones have a typical power of 2 watts (up to 8 watts in cars).
    > Wifi ranges from 100 to 200 milliwatts... so lower power (also lower
    > range)
    >
    > --
    2 Watts peak = 0.25Watts average ....
  22. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On 25/5/04 10:40 pm, in article j3Psc.50$XN2.8@nwrddc03.gnilink.net,
    "bumtracks" <user@unknown.org> wrote:

    > wifi laptop radio is usually pretty close to all of your unborn childs
    > cells.
    >
    My wife will be very surprised I'm pregnant then ...

    Keep taking the tablets !
  23. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Graham in Melton <nota@nospamplease.net> wrote:

    > Keep taking the tablets !

    Indeed. Apparently there has been a breakout of some lunatic asylum!


    --
    Groeten,

    Antonio (Voor email, verwijder X)
  24. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    In article <BuJsc.4583$eT4.2832@attbi_s54>, "mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailŠPäM.com> wrote:
    >Taking a moment's reflection, DS mused:
    >|
    >| Not to sure about the effects of prolonged exposure to very small amounts
    >| of RF energy, but....
    >
    > Yeah, forget what the sun exposes us to on a daily bases. :-p

    If I'm not mistaken, people die daily from over exposure to the sun. Is
    you statement therefore inteneded to make us feel better?

    fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Taking a moment's reflection, Rico mused:
    |
    | If I'm not mistaken, people die daily from over exposure to the sun. Is
    | you statement therefore inteneded to make us feel better?

    No. It is intended to bring some perspective into the discussion. The
    sun subjects us to far more RF waves than does a wireless NIC in a laptop.
    Most people *still* don't think twice about spending hours in the sun
    without some amount of SPF lotion. So, why worry about a laptop ... it's
    not like it's a radar gun.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    jm wrote:

    > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.

    It depends on what picture the laptop is showing

    If the antenea has sharp edges the user can seriously cut
    himself.

    >>I was referring to power and the fact your mobile is
    >> closer to your brain cells than your WiFi aerial.

    Blonds have no problem then.

    regards
    hans
  27. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Rôgêr" <abuse@your.isp.com> wrote in message
    news:CqqdnSkFidArPC_dRVn-hg@pghconnect.com...
    > jm wrote:
    >
    > > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.
    >
    > While there may be debate about this, the simple answer is "No, it's not
    > dangerous." If it were, there'd be a lot of folks in this group who
    > would have roasted nuts, popped eyeballs, split infinitives and all
    > sorts of ills.
    >
    > --
    > Not to mention the court systems would be clogged with 'lawsoots' about
    > radiation from laptops.

    There is still time :-) The lawyer haven't awakend yet.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    john_20_28_2000@yahoo.com (jm) wrote in message news:<c67e4bdd.0405262003.184d093@posting.google.com>...
    > "Harold Starr" <dd@sodfa.net> wrote in message news:<SZqdnbjw_ai0BindRVn-vA@comcast.com>...
    > > Are you sure this was the antenna poking out from the laptop and not the
    > > other way around?
    > > Which direction is this thing pointed?
    > > What is on the laptop screen?
    > >
    > > "jm" <john_20_28_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > > news:c67e4bdd.0405241411.71995218@posting.google.com...
    > > > I have a wireless notebook that has the antenna right at the edge of
    > > > the PC that faces the user (next to the mouse at the edge of the
    > > > machine). It is a c100 travelmate acer. Is this dangerous that it is
    > > > facing directly at the user? Sometimes the antenna is directly
    > > > pressed up against the user who is holding it in his lap. Thank you.
    >
    > Yeah, I am sure it is the antenna. It is right where the Ir port is.
    > Right next to it Acer C100 Travelmate. It *always* pointing at the
    > user because it is at the keyboard bottom next to where the mousepad
    > is. Laptop screen? I guess you were joking...


    Antennas typically are dipoles or folded dipoles and they radiate
    more in a direction perpendicular to the antenna than in the
    direction the antenna is pointing. So, if you can see the entire length
    of the antenna, you are getting as much exposure as you likely can
    (to the head).

    If you are looking at the antenna as though it were the barrel of a gun,
    your exposure probably is minimal (to the head).

    Even though the power is low, it probably is a good idea not to
    let the antenna touch you. The farther away you are, the better.

    The UK NRPB at http://www.nrpb.org/radiation_topics/emf/wlans.htm
    points out that there is no way to be sure a WiFi dose is
    within safe limits if the antenna is in the lap.

    Even though the power is low, exposure depends on the irradiation
    of tissue, and if all of 100 mW is absorbed in a small
    volume of tissue, the 100 mW might exceed US FCC limits.

    John
    jwill@AstraGate.net
    John Michael Williams
Ask a new question

Read More

Wireless Laptops Wireless Networking