Is there something that affects our health about what we don't

>>7666018
women

>>7666018
Wifi devices don't put out that much power. There's a bunch of other stuff that would (probably) be worse for you if wifi was harmful, like fluorescent lighting even.

>>7666108
Wifi penetrates through cement and therefore through the skull altering brainwaves. Having no idea how brainwaves operate.

>>7666108
I'm tired, and got tired of providing near myriad individual papers. Here's a decent review I happened to stumble on which summarizes present observation and data, of how radiation affects biological systems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013569/

Some women put their phones in their bras so they can get them out easily.

turns out it gives them breast cancer

>>7666127
>>7666129
Sorry for not being clear. What I was trying to get at is fluorescent lamps give off RF, and more of it. Not at the same frequencies though of course.

>>7666108

You can tell a lot about a person simply by observing their brainwave patterns. For example, anxious people tend to produce an overabundance of high beta waves while people with ADD/ADHD tend to produce an overabundance of slower alpha/theta brainwaves.
"Researchers have found that not only are brainwaves representative of of mental state, but they can be stimulated to change a person's mental state, and this in turn can help with a variety of mental issues." http://www.transparentcorp.com/products/np/brainwaves.php

Wifi operates within the 2.5GHz range.

So you have 2.5hz - 40hz permeated by different neurons in applicable situations being affected by an even more energy dense 2.5Ghz being propelled via wifi.

The stability of our internal network is derived via the neurons' constant output of brainwaves being derived from the neurons' masses. There's a steady flow derived from the mass.

How frequently those electrical impulses create new brainwaves has to do with how cataclysmically wifi's able to alter our brainwave patterns. The amount of Wi-Fi waves would also have to be taken into account because of the 2.5Ghz wave packets' frequencies of bombardment vs. the neurons' frequency of generating new 2.5hz-40hz waves.

More wifi waves equals more interference in terms of how frequently those waves being propagated by the neurons are being interfered with by the wifi waves.

>>7666158
Because of how often the neurons generate new waves.

Someone correct me.

>>7666158
This is gibberish, I hope you're aware.

>>7666158
This makes little sense, anon. For starters, brainwaves measured with electrodes on the scalp are indicative of what the brain is doing, but they themselves are not how the brain functions.

Secondly, the magnetic fields involved with wifi, or cell phones, are not intense enough to potentiate (or outright force) an action potential in a given neuron.

You're probably trolling. If not, I recommend reading the review I posted above. The specifics of how biological systems interact with magnetic fields is one of those awkward areas that requires a bridging of physics, biochemistry, and more general medicine. It's poorly studied on a number of fronts. Any effect is more bluntly mechanical, and that reviews goes into a lot of what is known.

>>7666127
brain waves aren't even remotely the same as EM waves and interact in no such way. Besides WiFi frequency is so low it interacts with nothing in a harmful way. Visible light is literally 1000x more dangerous, not to mention UV light or the x/gamma rays you are exposed to daily.

>>7666210
Stop repeating what you've always heard echoed back to you, and do some legitimate research.

In this lawsuit-happy society, if we, the public, knew something that caused serious heath and hazard risks, you can bet there'd be lawsuits up the ass about it.

So the short answer is we don't know. And the long answer is you shouldn't care.

>>7666171
>For starters, brainwaves measured with electrodes on the scalp are indicative of what the brain is doing, but they themselves are not how the brain functions.

"...not only are brainwaves representative of of mental state, but they can be stimulated to change a person's mental state..."

If they're generated via electrical impulses, then they're electromagnetic.

The waves of the Wi-Fi sources in some way interfere with the waves being emitted by the human brain, though the density of the Wi-Fi wave packets would have to outweigh the brain's ability to produce new waves for there to be any significant impact.

>Secondly, the magnetic fields involved with wifi, or cell phones, are not intense enough to potentiate (or outright force) an action potential in a given neuron.

No I get that. I'm just saying the overall field and the chances of Wi-Fi waves permutating that if even to a non-noticeable degree.

>>7666102
Kek

>>7666210
I can see how they might be misinterpreted as mechanical, however the neurons are too dense for the energy to really do anything. No yeah Wifi can't be dangerous lol Not to flesh or matter.

Visible light's dangerous? I've heard UV rays are bad for you, but a lightbulb hurts me?

Maybe he's aware of something I'm not idfk

>>7666270
>Visible light's dangerous?

Any frequency is dangerous at high enough intensity...

>>7666018
>Is there something that affects our health about what we don't know/care in daily life?

Of course.

>Should I care about wifi in a commie block where every-one has access to the internet and uses wifi?

Absolutely not.

Has no one ever read any of the literature on this topic?

All the answers and general attitudes I see here, or anywhere else, are actually fairly shallow. Closer inspection always finds them wanting. Why must I be the one to do that inspection, when I know damn well you're able to see it yourselves?

This needs a legitimate discussion, and at the very least some marginal engagement with the actual data.