Are wireless frequencies harmful to you, and is it dangerous

no they're not but theres nothing we or you can say to convince your deluded mother.

Stress is harmful. Lots of things can cause stress, like fear of the unknown and having tumors in your tit. So I think it's dangerous for your mom to sleep near a wireless router. At least until the stressors in her life can be reduced.

File: 1472397006237.png (348KB, 675x1209px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 675x1209px

>>61923334
definitely. always wear a hat with a faraday-cage in it.

>>61923334
Your mother sounds like she is part of a circle of people who believe in new age woo-woo crap. You're making sure she's getting actual medical treatments, right? Don't let her die because of some alt-meds quack that told her she doesn't need chemo.

>>61923334
show her a wireless spectrum chart and tell her that most of those frequencies are going through her house, every hour of every day

>>61923378
This, OP.
Google non-ionizing radiation & then read up on ionizing radiation.

Set it straight for her. Stress is something you want to keep low when you're fighting like that.

>>61923334
They're too low-energy to cause ionization, so no, they're not harmful.

>>61923334
That's simple to answer by asking different question: are those frequencies correspond to ionizing radiation? No, they don't, they're far from it. Your mom is safe.

>>61923379
The best part about this is that it's basically a radio wave resonance chamber, amplifying the signal.

>>61923450
>I know nothing about EM fields
the post

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: It wouldn't hurt. But I don't think going "tinfoil hat" is healthy either. Cancer....as I'm sure people know better than me is complicated........ Eating healthy, happiness, having purpose, can greatly outweigh things such as EMF radiation.......

>>61923379
>A TINFOIL HAT
If it's not closed it's not a faraday cage, it's an antenna.

>>61923485
> I'm too stupid to understand, how Faraday cages work and why an open dome can amplify EM field
I don't envy you.

>>61923334

no,

your computer monitor, tv, radio and electrical circuitry in your house are more cancerous than wifi.

However none of these things matter at your mothers age. Negative effects of electronics take decades to build up, taking precautions against it would be more relevant for a newborn child. Since your mother is already half way though her life + has cancer being around or not being around electrical appliances would have absolutely zero negative or positive effect on her health

>>61923334
Putting your phone next to your brain for hours and hours a day MIGHT be harmful because it heats up your head.

Anything else is perfectly safe.

>>61923334
>she has friends that can "feel" wireless frequencies.
I think they might be mistaking their tinnitus for it, or something. All commonly used radio frequencies lie far below the visible spectrum of electromagnetic waves. They cannot be seen or felt by us. Dunno about converting them to sound waves.

>>61923395
This was a real concern of mine when I was diagnosed, and she was pretty open to the idea of chemotherapy treatment. She believes in astrology and feng shui and lots of other things but she also understands that western medicine can have real benefits as well, especially since I went through cancer, did chemotherapy and I'm doing a lot better now.

She believes in vaccines as well, thank god. I would have been screwed with a more hippieish mother. Thanks for the concern.

>they somehow """"feel"" WLAN (2.4 GHz), but are completely immune to virtually omnipresent GSM (800 MHz), LTE (2.2 GHz) and microwaves

Some people should the killed so don't spread their bullshit anymore

>>61923786
I meant when "she" was diagnosed, not "I". But yeah, same thing basically

>buy a wifi router
>gut it and install blinking LEDs, nothing else
>install it in the house
>wait for the complaints to come
>open the router to show it only contained lights

It is too early to say if wifi/EM signals don't cause anything, because nearly all the studies to date that do show something usually involve very high doses for very long periods of time.

>>61923825
Going to play devil's advocate, maybe they can't feel them BECAUAE they are omnipresent. Anyways, they're most likely full of shit, get them in nature, have a some king of device transmitting signal at 2.4GHz (since they "can feel it") and ask them something along the lines of "isn't it nice here without all the why-fys". Guarantee they won't even mention feeling anything.

>>61923882
Those types of experiments are fun.

The backtacking usually involves "I must have felt it from nearby then!"

Yes

>Hurr what you can't see can't hurt you
Get RF burns and die, shitheads

>>61923904
it would be easy to get around that.

Have them sit in front of it, you control the power switch to the router.

You have it off, ask them to describe how they feel etc.
You turn it on, ask them the same questions.


Maybe if you are clever enough you could design a "blind" experiment in a way so that you pretend to hide the router out of her sight, but purposely leave a possible way for her to see the blinking LEDs somehow
and go through the same on/off procedure.

She will likely not report being able to physically see that the router is on/off but will come back to you with a smug "I told you so, I can sense it" garbage.


You could also setup two routers on opposite sides of the room (both are rigged so that their LEDs can be disabled and one is a dummy router) and ask her to tell you which one is the one that is emitting the wifi.
If she can truly sense wifi signals than she should be to distinguish which one is emitting wifi by a larger margin than just chance alone.

>>61923568
Do you know what the word amplify means?

>>61924032
People have done double blind versions of that experiment.

Turns out people can't feel EM waves better than a coin flip.

Reminds me of the story how people complained about visible wireless tower that wasn't even on, how they have headaches and what not, but they stopped when they hid it from their sight and actually turned it on. People are retarded.

>>61924101
of course not, we have no receptors to feel EM at all.

No more than we can feel magnets

>>61923334

>Are wireless frequencies harmful

yes, bombarding anything with photons is going to alter it in ways that would be different if you otherwise left it alone, and organic matter, such as DNA, is ridiculously sensitive and dependent on homeostasis

the smallest perturbations in a biological system can increase stress, and photons affect matter, insisting that radio waves are harmless is simply science denial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(electromagnetic_radiation)

>>61925221
Is this Dunning-Kruger in its purest form?

>>61925313
Can't be synthetised, glaze upon the glory of stupidity that has the veneer of wisdom.

The US Navy already did a study on this and said yeah decades ago. >>FUCKING DECADES AGO

>>61925313

le Betteridge's Law XD

>>61925406
[citation needed]

File: stanley.jpg (26KB, 490x360px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 490x360px

>>61925406
I know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment

Basically any oscillating EMF has an effect on the body's calcium channels. From 50/60 hz mains to radio and microwaves.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

However, rat fetuses are not grown ass women in size or composition, so your mother's mileage may vary.

>>61923334
Trust me, if there were any evidence that showed radiofrequencies could harm your mom's tits, I am sure your doctor would've warned her.

>>61923334
>Are wireless frequencies harmful to you, and is it dangerous to sleep near a wireless router?
No

All wireless frequencies are radio waves in terms of wavelength and all are non-ionizing meaning they're harmless

Any fucking retard who thinks that their cell phone "radiation" is giving them cancer should be euthanized

>>61923379
You realize that these "faraday cages" are actually really good antennas

>>61923334
I heard that your jeans may affect you getting cancer. Get your mom fresh new jeans.

>>61925313
literally the entire /sci/ board is like this, they are just as bad as /x/ but on a different spectrum

>>61923379
You need to ground your faraday-cage for it to have any effect.
>its grounded through your body!
I thought you didn't want the wireless frequencies going through your body.

Household devices hardly put out any power if they conform to FCC regulations. I build kilowatt+ RF amps for a living and don't have cancer yet so...

>>61924058
I can forgive them since a key performance metric for both amplifiers and antennas is gain.

>>61926262
Faraday cages do not need to be grounded. They just need to not have openings close to or larger than the wavelengths you want to keep out. An incident field will mosrly be scattered and reflected. Depending on the incident power and frequency, you may need about three layers of foil to be adequately thicker than the skin depth.

t. M.S in Electrical Engineering

File: snek.jpg (47KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x640px

>>61925605
I was going to say the same thing.