Are Internet Router Waves Dangerous?

[U.Ho]

On 8/16/2016 at 10:09 AM, manikyath said:

1: i interpret their quite conclusive sleeping pattern changes. I'll reiterate once more since you seem to be unable to scroll up: " i can basicly make my dad unable to sleep by switching on an access point, and the moment i turn it off he's back to sleeping good, with pretty great accuracy."

3: because the main AP didnt move (and for good measure was on a differebt channel) as in, for them nothibg changed.

4: please dont tell me you made an alt called "u ho" to come insult me, its not gonna work.

1. Are you actually qualified to do that or is it just your common sense that you use to come up with the theory?

 

3. So he had the primary access point blowing those pesky EM waves all along, even when he slept well?

 

4. I'm not sure what I should say to this. It looks like it's not directed to me at all. However, I would like to know where the insult to you is? I'm looking at what you claim and making assesments based on what you say. That's hardly an insult.

 

BTW I did read the whole chain before answering. That's why you probably mix me up with someone else who probably also read the whole chain before answering.

[manikyath]

On 8/17/2016 at 3:03 PM, juretrn said:

the wavelength of 2.4 GHz EM waves is 12.5 cm (c/f=lambda). That has no effect on atoms or electrons, it's too long, and doesn't have enough energy to knock electrons out of their orbitals. Dangerous EM starts with high X-ray frequencies, somewhere around 1 keV. WiFi signals' waves have somewhere around 1*10^-6 eV of energy. 

How that is supposed to be dangerous is beyond me. 

The scare most people have about wifi is the reason wifi is on 2.4: microwaves.

 

And microwaves are on 2.4Ghz because it's a frequency really effective for heating up water molecules. Unfortunately this means the frequency is also really effective on human beibgs. (Although, low power enough to be essentially harmless. But then again, having the lights on in your bedroom is in essence harmless as well.)

[manikyath]

6 minutes ago, U.Ho said:

1. Are you actually qualified to do that or is it just your common sense that you use to come up with the theory?

 

3. So he had the primary access point blowing those pesky EM waves all along, even when he slept well?

1: i am qualified enough for taking conclusions for my own life based on first hand experience, and to listen to my doctor's advice

On that note, are you qualified to prove my experiences to be faulty?

3: the primary AP is downstairs, and a rather low power unit compared to the one i tested with.

 

To reiterate what you missed in 'reading trough the entire chain': i'm not telling people to turn off their wifi every night, i'm not telling people to buy snake oil products, all down the thread i've said 'its worth trying' moving the AP, especially if it is in the bedroom now.

 

It doesnt cost anything to try, and seeing it improved the sleep of my family and another forum user's family, i'd say its worth the cost of 0 rupees and 10 minutes of your time to try it out.

[U.Ho]

Having your lights on while you sleep is conclusively bad for your sleep. That's something that's not up for debate.

I do not care if you or your neighbor sleep just fine with lights on. Anecdotal information just doesn't compare to scientific studies.

 

That works by light receptors in your eye triggering the hormone melatonin when it gets dark. Melatonin is strongly linked to sleeping and sleepiness.

 

Now, there's wifi and there's the anecdotal case where you claim to have deduced that your .. was it dad or whoever slept better when an access point was not around.

What we need now to compare these two is a scientific study on wifi and sleep. Yup. A scientific study. Not your "but it's free to try" pseudo-quackery.

 

To reiterate what I am saying: You have no basis on your claims. "Why not" is not a reason why. "You can't disprove it" is not a reason why. Perhaps you've heard of Russell's teapot. There's no way to prove a negative, but the burden of proof is in fact on you, not on people who don't want to believe you based on your flimsy evidence.

 

 

I can say sleeping with a soap bar under my pillow has fixed all my back pain. As a soap bar is quite cheap, I could advertise it as a legitimate way to try and get rid of any back pain. Do you not see why that would be ridiculous? Can you imagine the conversation?

- You are pretty much in that conversation...

[TheCi]

@manikyath Did removing the WiFi influence your smartphone/tablet/laptop use in bed?

[manikyath]

Just now, TheCi said:

@manikyath Did removing the WiFi influence your smartphone/tablet/laptop use in bed?

no, since i dont use wifi

 

the laptop i use in my bed when i cant sleep (which defenately happens from time to time, because recent medical reasons) is connected to ethernet, and in case that cable is being an ass it still has connection to the downstairs wifi, which is located in a position where i still have 1-2 bars upstairs as compared to the full slam 5 bars the spare router used for the experiment gave.

 

my entire house is mostly concrete and brick, with the walls between the bedrooms being "gingerbread" (aka, wood frame, drywall, and some sound insulation stuffed inside)

[TheCi]

Hmmm, I'd devote an increase in sleep quality to a decrease smartphone/tablet/laptop use in bed. But that doesn't seem to be the case. I still don't think WiFi can cause any health issues or would disturb someones sleep, and I'll take the tons of research about EHS and WiFi over anecdotal evidence, frauduleus claims and con artist.

On top of that there are a lot more devices producing a lot more EM radiation throughout your house then a small AP.

[juretrn]

On 23. 8. 2016 at 0:58 PM, manikyath said:

The scare most people have about wifi is the reason wifi is on 2.4: microwaves.

 

And microwaves are on 2.4Ghz because it's a frequency really effective for heating up water molecules. Unfortunately this means the frequency is also really effective on human beibgs. (Although, low power enough to be essentially harmless. But then again, having the lights on in your bedroom is in essence harmless as well.)

I have not yet heard any concrete evidence (but I'm not up to speed on legitimate, peer-reviewed biology research) of microwaves having any tangible effect on large proteins or DNA. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it's all hearsay. 

[manikyath]

1 hour ago, juretrn said:

I have not yet heard any concrete evidence (but I'm not up to speed on legitimate, peer-reviewed biology research) of microwaves having any tangible effect on large proteins or DNA. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it's all hearsay. 

The thing is i'm not talking about cancer, any biological crap, or your brains exploding. My point of entry into this topic is i've experienced (and saw others experience) large differences in how "efficient" sleep is between wifi full tilt, and wifi at a much decreased signal strength. I have decided to listen to both said experiences and my doctor's advice, and keep wifi signal strength in the bedroom area reduced to a minimum. 

 

I have before made the comparison between an access point in the bedroom, and strong light or loud noises. Some people sleep trough any alarm you throw at them (i'm one of those, the only reason i hear my alarm is because i wake up before it goes off.)

Others just cannot catch sleep without silence or complete darkness.

 

It'd be a very interesting topic to do research on, but the scope is HUGE (it'd have to be hundreds of people, spread out around the world to eliminate variables, or to even find patterns in those variables) and people like we encountered in this topic over the past week or so will pull in doubt any scientist's credibility if they want to research this topic, and thus basicly stopping the research from happening at all...

 

My take on the topic is pretty simple: asbestus. We dont need it to happen again, be cautious with things not proven to be safe. And especially if you notice oddities with wifi around, dont be a self-entitled idiot, at least try and see if it helps, it may just save you from a life of popping pills. (Because of past medical issues, any normal person in my position would be on a combination of sleepers and wakers right now, i'm quite happy not to have to deal with that anymore...)

[Mornincupofhate]

It wouldn't matter much at all considering your neighbors are still going to be broadcasting theirs.

[dalekphalm]

9 hours ago, manikyath said:

The thing is i'm not talking about cancer, any biological crap, or your brains exploding. My point of entry into this topic is i've experienced (and saw others experience) large differences in how "efficient" sleep is between wifi full tilt, and wifi at a much decreased signal strength. I have decided to listen to both said experiences and my doctor's advice, and keep wifi signal strength in the bedroom area reduced to a minimum. 

 

I have before made the comparison between an access point in the bedroom, and strong light or loud noises. Some people sleep trough any alarm you throw at them (i'm one of those, the only reason i hear my alarm is because i wake up before it goes off.)

Others just cannot catch sleep without silence or complete darkness.

 

It'd be a very interesting topic to do research on, but the scope is HUGE (it'd have to be hundreds of people, spread out around the world to eliminate variables, or to even find patterns in those variables) and people like we encountered in this topic over the past week or so will pull in doubt any scientist's credibility if they want to research this topic, and thus basicly stopping the research from happening at all...

 

My take on the topic is pretty simple: asbestus. We dont need it to happen again, be cautious with things not proven to be safe. And especially if you notice oddities with wifi around, dont be a self-entitled idiot, at least try and see if it helps, it may just save you from a life of popping pills. (Because of past medical issues, any normal person in my position would be on a combination of sleepers and wakers right now, i'm quite happy not to have to deal with that anymore...)

The biggest problem with comparing it to Asbestos, is that it was in use BEFORE there were any studies on it, or on how it interacts with humans on a biological level. Once the properties of it became known, it was pretty damn obvious it was terrible for you.

 

With WIFI, there have been tons of studies on WIFI or EM "sensitivity", all of which indicated that it was the "Nocebo" effect. Basically, when done in a properly controlled Double Blind or RCS (Randomized Controlled Study), no participant could identify whether WIFI was present, and there were no physical reactions to indicate that the body could sense the WIFI waves. In those studies, it was 100% in their heads.

 

Does that mean that you're 100% wrong forever and could never be right? No. That's not how science works. But when every study done so far, is leaning towards "this shouldn't be possible", then that's why you get the reaction you do.

 

You're associating a false symbology when you compare WIFI waves to "some people can't sleep with the lights on". Yes, some people can, some people can't. But ALL PEOPLE are physically affected by lights on while sleeping. Same with sound. Whether that interaction is enough to disturb their sleep is down to a case by case scenario.

 

But regardless of whether it impacts your sleep or not, your body knows when the lights are on, and knows when sounds are being played, when you're asleep. It's a measurable physiological response.

 

Thus, it makes sense that some people will not get restful sleep with that MEASURABLE interaction happening.

 

There is no such measurable physiological response when dealing with WIFI.

[manikyath]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The biggest problem with comparing it to Asbestos, is that it was in use BEFORE there were any studies on it, or on how it interacts with humans on a biological level. Once the properties of it became known, it was pretty damn obvious it was terrible for you.

 

With WIFI, there have been tons of studies on WIFI or EM "sensitivity", all of which indicated that it was the "Nocebo" effect. Basically, when done in a properly controlled Double Blind or RCS (Randomized Controlled Study), no participant could identify whether WIFI was present, and there were no physical reactions to indicate that the body could sense the WIFI waves. In those studies, it was 100% in their heads.

 

Does that mean that you're 100% wrong forever and could never be right? No. That's not how science works. But when every study done so far, is leaning towards "this shouldn't be possible", then that's why you get the reaction you do.

 

You're associating a false symbology when you compare WIFI waves to "some people can't sleep with the lights on". Yes, some people can, some people can't. But ALL PEOPLE are physically affected by lights on while sleeping. Same with sound. Whether that interaction is enough to disturb their sleep is down to a case by case scenario.

 

But regardless of whether it impacts your sleep or not, your body knows when the lights are on, and knows when sounds are being played, when you're asleep. It's a measurable physiological response.

 

Thus, it makes sense that some people will not get restful sleep with that MEASURABLE interaction happening.

 

There is no such measurable physiological response when dealing with WIFI.

I've seen lots of these studies, and indeed they all follow the same tendency. I cant say if it's just my tp-link garbage being way out of spec (cant really measure that), these tests being done with less wattage than is the norm in belgium, or if my dad is just really hyper-sensitive to everything but the smell of his own breath.

 

With my dad it's pretty much a 1:1 corelation between strong wifi signal & no sleep or no strong wifi signal and good sleep. While i dont happen to live in a farraday cage to cancel out other elements, it's SO dead on accurate it's hard to ignore.

 

Then again, for all i can measure it's not the 2.4ghz but a " just outside of audible range" squeak in the power supply that the brain still somehow processes. (Which would explain my dad's super-sensitivity to the situation, he's one of those people that are driven insane by coil whine most cant even hear, although in theory our walls have sound dampening it them...)

 

Beyond that, i just wanna say you deserve a +1 because you're seemingly the only one here that's not coming in to attack my "obviously flawed methods" or call me a tinfoil hat freak.

[kirashi]

No more dangerous than eating bananas.....

[TheCi]

3 hours ago, manikyath said:

Then again, for all i can measure it's not the 2.4ghz but a " just outside of audible range" squeak in the power supply that the brain still somehow processes. (Which would explain my dad's super-sensitivity to the situation, he's one of those people that are driven insane by coil whine most cant even hear, although in theory our walls have sound dampening it them...)

Well, that would explain a lot. I have the same thing, I can hear coil whines, old tv's, shitty power supplies and all. And contrary to 2.4GHz, there's a lot of research about the influences of ultra- and infrasound on the human brain that have shown noticeable effects.Some of the symptoms are nausea and headaches. Although I only hear it when I'm in the same room.

[manikyath]

4 hours ago, TheCi said:

Well, that would explain a lot. I have the same thing, I can hear coil whines, old tv's, shitty power supplies and all. And contrary to 2.4GHz, there's a lot of research about the influences of ultra- and infrasound on the human brain that have shown noticeable effects.Some of the symptoms are nausea and headaches. Although I only hear it when I'm in the same room.

My dad could hear my old server whine trough the wall, but i've later found out it was the case 'emitting' whatever it was into the floor, once i put it on one of those vibration dampening mats it was completely gone.

 

That said, if i listen closely (and i'm sure everyone else here as well) i can hear a very slight whine from pretty much any power brick, but the tp-link ones seem to be the least whiny. (At least something they did good i guess...)

 

And one of the switches we have hanging aroubd somewhere whines like hell, and it never caught his attention. (And like, we're talkibg whine to the point i've replaced coponents trying to fix the issue...)

 

EDIT: before someone stabs me, with "vibration dampening mat" i'm not talking about snake oil nonsense products, they make mats to put under washing machines, compressors, and anything else that vibrates really.

[dalekphalm]

8 hours ago, manikyath said:

I've seen lots of these studies, and indeed they all follow the same tendency. I cant say if it's just my tp-link garbage being way out of spec (cant really measure that), these tests being done with less wattage than is the norm in belgium, or if my dad is just really hyper-sensitive to everything but the smell of his own breath.

 

With my dad it's pretty much a 1:1 corelation between strong wifi signal & no sleep or no strong wifi signal and good sleep. While i dont happen to live in a farraday cage to cancel out other elements, it's SO dead on accurate it's hard to ignore.

 

Then again, for all i can measure it's not the 2.4ghz but a " just outside of audible range" squeak in the power supply that the brain still somehow processes. (Which would explain my dad's super-sensitivity to the situation, he's one of those people that are driven insane by coil whine most cant even hear, although in theory our walls have sound dampening it them...)

 

Beyond that, i just wanna say you deserve a +1 because you're seemingly the only one here that's not coming in to attack my "obviously flawed methods" or call me a tinfoil hat freak.

Well there's no reason to personally attack you. Everyone was internal biases in their logic - it's part of being human. Rather then call you a tinfoil hat freak, it's better to discuss your points and - where appropriate - point out where research and studies have already looked at similar cases, etc.

 

The sensitivity to the power brick is definitely a possibility. Sensitivity to coil whine is an objectively measured and confirmed phenomenon. Though if that's the case, how does he sleep with anything DC plugged into his room? Basically anything but the lights would emit a similar "noise", to varying degrees.

[manikyath]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Well there's no reason to personally attack you. Everyone was internal biases in their logic - it's part of being human. Rather then call you a tinfoil hat freak, it's better to discuss your points and - where appropriate - point out where research and studies have already looked at similar cases, etc.

 

The sensitivity to the power brick is definitely a possibility. Sensitivity to coil whine is an objectively measured and confirmed phenomenon. Though if that's the case, how does he sleep with anything DC plugged into his room? Basically anything but the lights would emit a similar "noise", to varying degrees.

The reason why i never chased the power brick whine path is because my tp links are among the quietest i have (which in fact is one of the reason i still buy them every time one goes unreliable.)

 

He's indeed very picky on his alarm clocks, which is pretty much the only modern technology in said bedroom. Why he needs a fire extinguisher next to his bed is beyond my imagination tho...

[Biggerboot]

If you live in a populated area like I do you can't really escape a large concentration of radio waves.  But the kind of fatigue I experience is from staring at a monitor for too long, or other more practical things relating to eyes or sound.  Radio waves is just something a lot of us have to deal with in the information age, whether or not they're actually harmful (and I don't think they are, not as much as solar radiation).

 

If you're very worried about getting cancer, go for regular check ups.  It's not really worth the burden of thought though.

[Zack Brown]

Lol why the hell are there still replies to this post... And my god, 6 pages!