Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Turn off your WIFI router before bed

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Turn off your WIFI router before bed

    Go to youtube and type in this subject "Turn off your WIFI router before bed" shocking information. Check info on WIFI electrical meters too, bad things happening to people.

  • #2
    My WiFi router is in one end of the house in the office with the computer. Bedrooms are at the other end of the house, well beyond the 20' radius. I think folks should be more concerned about sleeping with the "precious" cell phone on the night stand that's turned on 24/7. And there's WiFi signals coursing through the air from other sources besides your personal router. I fire up my tablet and it gets a dozen WiFi signals from all around me. Last night I saw a neighbor's unsecured thermostat pop up on the list. How about those WiFi enabled light bulbs? What about that internet connected refrigerator? Gonna shut it down at night? Maybe I should shut down my security system that uses WiFi for the cameras? Have you had your home checked for radon? more deadly than the router.
    Jim Frye
    The Nut in the Cellar.

    Comment


    • #3
      Does this mean the Apple Watch and other FitBit types of watches are dangerous too?

      I like data, but misunderstood and misused data draw wrong conclusions. On the other hand, peanut butter can kill some people, just the odor of it, in spite it being a healthy food for 99% of the people. Do WiFi signs really cause health issues? Probably, but only for a minuscule number of people, which is sad for them. The point being that milk, peanut butter, trace elements in water, sunlight, bread, beef, pork, fish, are all dangerous to some. All can have a case for eliminating them from our lives, but it would be unhealthy to do so.

      I went to a conference with my mission organization ins SE Asia in the early 2000's. I roomed with a guy who was serving in another country. I asked him what he did. He said he was on a short term research in the field of data collection. I asked what field. He said "QUALIFYING data". That got my interest real fast. I asked him to explain. He said. Data shows: the number of churches, temples mosques per capita, (QUANTIFYING Data), but it does NOT show the actual "use"- how many per capita actually attend or use the temples, churches or mosques in a week or month. His job was to see how effective "QUALIFYING" the locations were in the area. I replied "Exactly!." I was often arguing with my supervisors on their data observations and the mis-use of it.
      Hank Lee

      Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted!

      Comment


      • #4
        I think you need to worry a lot more about that cell phone up to your temple when talking. You're going to get a tremendous dose of RF in that practice compared to what you might receive from your WiFi router. Much of course depends on the wavelength (frequency) of the device, and it should be noted that I don't know exactly where WiFi routers are in the wave spectrum, but I believe they are much lower than cell phone frequencies. It is my understanding that it is the higher frequencies that offer more danger, but I confess that I may not be up to date on that.

        In today's overly "tek'd" house, you've got to potential of RF energy everywhere, and even those touch lamps, that have been out for years emit such energy. I've been a shortwave listener for decades and a Ham Radio operator since the early 90's. One of the first things I encountered was those lamps, which caused RF interference three lots away. The airwaves are full of RF energy emissions and has been for some time. All those cathode ray tubes in old televisions to poorly maintained/designed power lines all emitted RF. While those old TV's are mostly gone, we've filled up our environment with everything from "smart" appliances to body wear, like watches and cell phones. Even our cars are transmitting, along with almost everything we buy for our homes, from alarms to cameras, to entertainment systems, and certainly our computers and printers. Even the digital camera that I have is capable of WiFi connection.

        While I used to consider myself a "Tek" guy, I'm not so much anymore. My cell phone is mostly turned off, as is my tablet and my laptop and printers. The router is on all of the time though, secured, but on. It's no where close to where we sleep though, and frankly I have little use for any of those "smart" appliances and though our son gave us an Echo Dot a year ago, it's never been taken out of the box.... just don't want the noise of it, or for that matter, wanting to have anything 'eavesdropping'. (I also keep those little cameras on my laptop and tablets, taped over too, and likewise my DSLR WiFi function is turned off.

        But honestly, I question the concerns over a WiFi router when the situation exists where I think a majority of people, young and old, appear to be addicted to having that cell phone in constant use... right up there next to their brains!

        CWS
        Last edited by cwsmith; 09-30-2018, 12:21 PM.
        Think it Through Before You Do!

        Comment


        • Slik Geek
          Slik Geek commented
          Editing a comment
          WiFi is either 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands in the USA, cell phones are usually at lower frequencies, 0.6 GHz, 0.7 GHz, 0.8 GHz, 1.9 GHz, and moving higher for 5G technologies.

      • #5
        While I'm not an "expert" in RF radiation exposure, I have to calculate the exposure in my work as an engineer in order to ensure public safety, so I am familiar with this topic.

        A few principles that are helpful to understand this topic:
        The risk of exposure is related to the RF power of the exposure (see comments about the risk of power levels below).
        The RF power drops by the square of the distance. Twice the distance results in 1/4 the radiation exposure.
        The frequency of the signal affects the radiation exposure risk. (As well as modulation / duty cycle / antenna gain, etc.)

        The FCC published a document to guide the allowable (safe) RF exposure levels, OET Bulletin 65, if you want to investigate this further.

        Given that a lot of people sleep some distance away from their WiFi router, but sleep with their cell phone nearby... If you are concerned with your RF radiation exposure for long periods, I would be more concerned about your cell phone by the bedside (or perhaps your laptop or to a lesser extent, other WiFi-related devices if it close by and powered). Your cell phone can operate at a higher power level than your WiFi. For that matter, your risk is likely much greater if use a cell phone frequently (less than an inch from your head) than from hours of much longer distance exposure from your WiFi router.

        For example, suppose the WiFi router emitted the same energy as your cell phone (the WiFi is likely emitter lower energy than the cell phone). And suppose your cell phone is two feet from your head (on your night stand), while your router is twenty feet from your head. For simplicity, lets assume that the frequencies are also identical.
        • The cell phone is radiating you with 100 times the power of your WiFi router. The router radiation is insignificant compared to your cell phone radiation over night.
        • While using your cell phone, the distance to the cell phone antenna is likely 0.4 inches away from your head. Hence, you are receiving 2,500 times more power than the WiFi router in our example.
        In each of these instances, the RF exposure is imperceptible. Equating the energy from these three scenarios, we have:
        • 8 hours of 20 feet away WiFi exposure equals
        • 5 minutes of 2 feet away (night stand) cell phone exposure, which equals
        • 12 seconds of 0.4 inch away (phone to ear) cell phone exposure
        Using the cell phone appears far more risky than any of these other scenarios.
        Note that this analysis is very simplified, and ignores frequencies, modulation, antenna type and radiation patterns, signal duty cycle, etc. - so this is at best a rough approximation.

        Also, the guy in the video totally ignores the fact that the human tissues attenuate the energy significantly as it penetrates deeper, both by attenuation of the tissue, as well as losses due to transitions between different layers of tissue (changes in dielectric constant results in transfer loss between tissues). Hence, the ovaries are better protected from the RF radiation than one's skin surface.

        Also, his claim that the lower power levels of RF are the bigger concern wasn't explained. (Frankly, he avoided explaining a number of things). The only thing that makes sense to me is that he is saying this: if the power level is high enough to cause perceptible heating of the skin, then the individual would be motivated to move away, reducing the time of exposure, and thus would be safer. A lower power level is more dangerous because there is no perception of radiation exposure and extremely long exposures may be achieved.


        Comment


        • cwsmith
          cwsmith commented
          Editing a comment
          Excellent explanation, and one that even I could well understand... Thanks!

          CWS

      • #6
        I'm inclined to agree with Slik Geek on every point he made.
        Routers have very low power (200 ft range) compared with Cell phones which not only have WiFi but the cell signals which are powerful enough to go 2 miles or so 10,000 feet which given the inverse square law will be 2500 times as strong. and a lot more likely to be close to your head than a router,
        Most routers use 2.5 GHz, some use 5 GHz, 4G Cell phones use 2,4,5,12 GHz.

        Loring
        EE for 45 years and Sr. Life member of Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

        Loring in Katy, TX USA
        If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to treat all problems as if they were nails.
        BT3 FAQ - http://www.sawdustzone.org/forum/dis...sked-questions

        Comment


        • #7
          Thanks to both Slik Geek and Loring for their knowledge and explanation. It is always a pleasant experience to get an education here. While I know some basic electronic and radio stuff, it's not always exact, and I've often found myself in need or some correction.

          I grew up in a time when even a simple AM transistor radio measured 6 x 4 by 2 inches and that was a tremendous advance over those big consoe AM/FM my parents and grandparents had; today's technology is almost science fiction by comparison. When I was teen I built a 2-meter transceiver (Heath Kit) it was the size of a lunchbox. It was only AM and had a max output of about 2-watts. Today's cell phone (or even a 2-meter HT) is far ahead of that, in every possible way.) But like a cell phone, an HT (Handy Talkie, like "walky talkie") is handheld and used close to the head and ear. I found that the early units which produced around five watts or so gave me an almost instant headache and I stopped using them almost immediately. Today, I simply only use them occasionally and then on low power.. Cell phones are, as mentioned earlier, on relatively low power, but at a much, much higher frequency.. Frequent users have always given me a bit of concern though, especially when it appears that my son and grandsons don't appear to be able to exist without their constant use.


          CWS
          Last edited by cwsmith; 10-01-2018, 08:05 PM. Reason: correction in structure
          Think it Through Before You Do!

          Comment


          • #8
            LOL, googling "turn off your wifi router" results in a great deal of conspiracy nut rambling with no connection to reality. I've worked with radio in some way since a child. I got my ham license at 14, have been microwave certified, and trained/certified in a number of mid-frequency telecom radios. Several of my customers connect to our network via microwave. My best friend is right now using my binoculars to put up radios for our state DOT because he broke his. I can say I have a bit of exposure to radio work, and can't find any credible evidence that a wifi router does anything.

            Also, I've never heard of an electrical meter with wifi, and believe they do not exist. I asked my friend who is operations director for an electric company in FL, and he has never heard of one either. "That would be unusable."

            There's an incredible amount of crossover between the people who talk about wifi danger also being people who claim that the earth is flat and/or that vaccines are dangers. Two other things that are well disproven as crazy.

            Comment


            • #9
              The gas meter and the water meter on our home are read via RF. The utility vehicles drive slowly down the street to record the meter readings. I don't know the method, but they seem to use a transponder in the vehicle to trigger the meters to send out the reading. Our backwards electric utility can't muster the funds to make their meters remotely readable, so every month a worker slogs through the neighborhood manually reading the meters.
              Jim Frye
              The Nut in the Cellar.

              Comment


              • #10
                There are many different ways they talk, but none are wifi. Ours are 900MHz automatic meshing, meaning that meters can repeat a farther signal from another meter, and get it to a local point where it's received and processed. The 900MHz band is shared with things like cordless phones, many RF remote controls (commonly 433 and 900), and other similar consumer products. Those older cordless phones emitted a crazy amount of radiation too.

                Wifi is short range and not auto-connecting, so it would be useless to randomly stick a meter up and expect it to work.

                Jim, it may or may not be poor planning or lack of funds. In some areas, putting it the local receivers is just so expensive that it is not worth it. It works here because although we're outside the city, there's reasonable house density and a local substation about 3/4 mile away (with homes within 1/8 mile of it, repeating the signal out to us).

                It is VERY useful to have instant usage readings. I also have smart wifi thermostats, and they told me the AC run times were unusual. I looked the electrica usage, and it was WAY up for a few days. Call my AC buddy, he confirms the motor is trying to fry due to a bad cap. We saved electricity, saved the motor, and maybe saved a fire.

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by Jim Frye View Post
                  The gas meter and the water meter on our home are read via RF. The utility vehicles drive slowly down the street to record the meter readings. I don't know the method, but they seem to use a transponder in the vehicle to trigger the meters to send out the reading. Our backwards electric utility can't muster the funds to make their meters remotely readable, so every month a worker slogs through the neighborhood manually reading the meters.
                  Around here, they first tried the remote readers that call via a phone line. As cell phone usage increased and people started dropping their home phone line, they moved to the RF readers for the gas and electric meters but kept the manual read for the water meter. As personnel costs and technical reliability become more of an issue, they eventually moved to IoT wifi readers, and electric, gas, and water meters are all read that way now. Gas, electric, and water all eventually did that. Our service fees have dropped and our meter readings are more accurate and consistent, since they are automatically read. It has been a benefit for the customers.
                  --------------------------------------------------
                  Electrical Engineer by day, Woodworker by night

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Originally posted by woodturner View Post

                    moved to IoT wifi readers, and electric, gas, and water meters are all read that way now.
                    I don't think so, and can't find anywhere that's true. Source? City?

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      Gas company meter reader was on the street yesterday, so I stopped him and asked what they use. It's a 900 MHz, frequency-hopping, spread-spectrum RF technology and he said the water utility was using the same tech,, but from a different vendor. I have no idea what that is, but it seems to work fine.
                      Jim Frye
                      The Nut in the Cellar.

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        Yup, I expect that's what they are using nearly everywhere. It would be nearly impossible to do an IoT/wifi system for the general public.

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          Originally posted by Jim Frye View Post
                          Gas company meter reader was on the street yesterday, so I stopped him and asked what they use. It's a 900 MHz, frequency-hopping, spread-spectrum RF technology and he said the water utility was using the same tech,, but from a different vendor. I have no idea what that is, but it seems to work fine.
                          That is what we used to have, worked pretty well but still requires a person to drive by to scan, can only be read within 1000 ft of the meters. That's the main advantage of the wifi/CDA type we have now, they can read them from a central location automatically rather than having to be near the meter.

                          The utility also provides an app so the customer can connect to the wifi on the meter to monitor usage. That's how they complied with the mandate to provide real-time usage information to customers.
                          Last edited by woodturner; 10-05-2018, 03:40 PM.
                          --------------------------------------------------
                          Electrical Engineer by day, Woodworker by night

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X