: The best approach is point to the cellular issue. As you know wi-fi emits : considerably less RF than cellular and their is an exponential factor : reduction the further you move away from the body...most wi-fi is used at
Definitely and the power of the signal falls off, roughly, as one over the radius squared. Graph p = 1/(r^2) and you can see the power falls off very rapidly on the positive side of the graph. The WAPs are feet away, not fractions of an inch... scott : arms length, unlike cell phones.. : Attached is the latest on the cellular issue... : : : : : : Court Upholds Cell Phone Cancer Suit Dismissal : By Mark Rockwell : October 23, 2003 : WASHINGTON--A federal court dealt another blow yesterday to the plaintiffs : in a fading $800 million cancer liability case against the wireless phone : industry. : : In a ruling yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in : Richmond, Va., backed a previous ruling by a U.S. District Court in : Baltimore that there was 'insufficient evidence to support allegations that : wireless phones cause brain cancer.' : : The ruling was probably inevitable, says Rebecca Arbogast, analyst at Legg : Mason in Washington, because the circuit court is fairly conservative and : likely to uphold the district court's decision. Probably more important, : says Arbogast, is a class action suit making its way through the same : district court that's seeking modifications of wireless handsets to shield : against radio waves. The plaintiffs in that collection of cases are arguing : that the district court unfairly kept the suits from the federal court : system, which is considered a more favorable environment than state courts : in class actions. : : The Richmond court of appeals issued a short ruling on the $800 million : cancer case brought by Christopher Newman, who alleged that prolonged use of : a wireless phone caused his brain cancer. In the ruling, the court said the : previous court's reasoning that there was insufficient evidence in the : phone's contribution to the disease was sound. : : The court's action marks yet another blow to the case that has been fading : since last year. Last October, District Court Judge Catherine Blake, who had : presided over the case for months, granted a summary judgment--essentially : dismissing the case. Blake said there wasn't enough evidence to prove the : wireless phone was responsible for the cancer. : : Verizon Wireless, one of the defendants in the case, said in an official : statement that it 'was pleased the appellate court upheld the district : court's decision' that the plaintiff's expert witnesses 'failed to provide : any scientific support' for their assertions that wireless phones cause : cancer. : : A fellow defendant, Motorola, also heralded the decision in a statement. : 'The courts have spoken and again the message is loud and clear: These : claims of health risks from mobile phones have no basis in accepted science. : Anyone pursuing such claims at present or considering them in the future : should take careful note.' : : Newman's attorney John Angelos didn't return phone calls concerning the : case. CTIA hailed the appeals court decision as a reaffirmation that there : is insufficient evidence to support cancer allegations against wireless : phones. : : ------------------------------------ : E.J. von Schaumburg : Executive Vice President : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : 3175 Route 10 East : Suite 300 : Denville, NJ : tel: (973) 659-9009 : mobile: (973) 879-4408 : ------------------------------------ : : : -----Original Message----- : From: Steve Blair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:09 PM : To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] wireless health risks : : : As I understand it 802.11b wireless LAN technology emits : non-ionizing radiation. Several years ago I looked for reports : of non-ionizing radiation on the human body. At that time there : wasn't any conclusive evidence of any negative effect. I have : not kept up with this issue so I cannot say if more conclusive : data is now available. : : -Steve : : Michael Griego wrote: : : >My standard response to something like that goes something like this: : > : >A standard wireless NIC in your laptop computer transmits at roughly : >30mW, a miniscule amount of energy. Your cellphone, on the other hand, : >transmits up to 600mW. That's 20 times the energy being radiated right : >next to your brain. How worried are you about holding that cell phone : >near your head? : > : >Not only that, our wireless LAN access points also transmit at the same : >30-60mW range. Cell phone basestations, on the other hand, routinely : >transmit at around 100 WATTS (not milliWatts). : > : >The biggest of the two points, though, is the first one. The amount of : >radiated energy is much less from a standard off-the-shelf wireless NIC : >than your cell phone. Many many people are using cell phones these : >days. : > : >-- : > : >--Mike : > : >----------------------------------- : >Michael Griego : >Wireless LAN Project Manager : >The University of Texas at Dallas : > : >********** : >Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent : Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/. : > : > : : -- : : ISC Network Engineering : The University of Pennsylvania : 3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A : Philadelphia, PA 19104 : : : voice: 215-573-8396 : fax: 215-898-9348 : : sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : : ********** : Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent : Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/. : : ********** : Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/. : ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/cg/.
