http://www.canada.com/health/Cold+weapons+expert+warns+could+cause+generational+birth+defects/3437356/story.html

However, the percentage of the population likely to experience anxiety around one of these devices is quite small, and I wouldn’t think it would be sensible to embark on an expensive process of replacing CRTs with LCDs just for them. (And I say that despite being one of those people who *can* hear CRTs.) The main problem with altering the environment to suit a few is that you’ll never be finished; there will always be someone with another problem. So you just find a solution that will fit most, and try to find ways of helping the remainder make do with it.

If true, an interesting commentary on how some people panic about new technology. As noted above, sewer gas and grocery store laser scanners proved anxiety. CRTs in offices seemed to be another one back in the 1980s. Of course televisions and microwave ovens unsettled a lot of people.

In the 2.4 GHz band, the maximum transmit power allowed by the FCC is 1 watt (+30 dBm). However typical routers transmit at around +15 to +20 dBm, which corresponds to about 0.1 watt.

So, the maximum theoretical transmit powers are roughly equal, depending on which standards and frequencies you pick.

However, there’s a huge difference in exposure. A typical phone is, say, 10 cm away from your brain. A typical router is, who knows, maybe 500 cm away? Let’s choose 500 cm for the sake of argument. Even if both the wifi transmitter and cell phone were transmitting at the maximum of 1 watt, the difference in exposure between an average distance of 10cm vs 500 cm would put the signal at 500 cm at 1/2500 the strength of your cell phone. (This calculation is simply (r1/r2)^2 = (10/500)^2 = 0.02^2 = .0004 = 1/2500)

Feel free to plug in whatever distances you like into the above equation…

In reality, I believe most routers limit power output to about 1/10th watt, so the exposure difference would be more like 1:25,000 cell:wifi.

Also, as for the comment that G vs. N have different frequencies, that’s incorrect. Both 802.11 g and 802.11n use the 2.4 GHz band. We do know for sure that these wavelengths (3e8 m/s / 2.4e9 = .12m = 5 inch) *do* interact strongly with water. That’s why microwaves heat up food. Microwave oven’s work at about 2.4 GHz as well, which is why your microwave can knock your wifi networks off the air if your wifi radio is nearby.

802.11a uses the 5 GHz band, with a wavelength of about 2.5 inches. I don’t know whether these frequencies do much to heat up water efficiently.

She has even invented a new type of diabetes. Type 3 diabetes. She claims as evidence for the existence of this disease an analysis of 4 case studies that ‘show’ changes in blood sugar due to exposure to ‘dirty electricity’.

She even gives advice to people with diabetes and those who know people with diabetes to inform their doctors that they have the condition! What is a doctor going to do with that information?

This woman is obviously trouble and she is treading a very thin line between being a kook and being culpable for something far worse.

She has a lot to gain from this publicity. I question her motives here. Her research is obviously itself questionable.

Yes, and i’m sure that once one kid got to go home early with such pathetic symptoms, there was no doubt quite an epidemic the next day.

Tell the kids they will have to lose their mobile phones, computers and tv’s too. Then we will see what happens to this so called effect.

I think I am going to take on Magda Havas. As Katie pointed out, Havas is no scientist and has much to gain.

Conflict of interest much? For a science prof, its really weird that I couldn’t find a way anywhere to apply to her lab as a grad student, she is the only author on almost all her papers, and she only puts out 1-2 peer reviewed papers a year (and from what I could see, they’re not-experimental, mostly case studies).

This stinks.