From: John McCormac (jmcc at domain hackwatch.com)
Date: Thu 25 May 2000 - 15:54:17 IST
Christian J van den Bosch wrote:
>
> Call me paranoid, but...
>
> Wireless is all very well, but I wouldn't be happy using something
> working at 2.4 - 2.5 GHz (given that 2.45GHz (resonant frequency of
> water molecules) is the frequency that manufacturers of microwave ovens
> go to great lengths to shield _into_ their devices). I'm led to believe
> that as the working frequency of a radio device approaches 2.45GHz, the
> severity of potential side effects (all the ones you hear about with
> mobile phones) increase exponentially for a given signal strength.
With all that molecular dancing, you wouldn't be at all surprised if
someone marketed as a safe replacement for E. ;-> Seriously though I
think the intensity of the RF signal follows the inverse square law.
Short hop point to point links may not be that powerful compared to the
unshielded output of a microwave oven. Sticking a microwave transmitter
of that frequency beside your head is just asking for trouble. One of
the things I remember about microwave technology is that you *never*
look into the waveguide when the power is on.
Regards...jmcc
-- ******************************************** John McCormac * Hack Watch News jmcc at domain hackwatch.com * 22 Viewmount, Voice: +353-51-873640 * Waterford, BBS&Fax: +353-51-850143 * Ireland http://www.hackwatch.com/~kooltek ******************************************** -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAzAYPNsAAAEEAPGTHaNyitUTNAwF8BU6mF5PcbLQXdeuHf3xT6UOL+/Od+z+ ZOCAx8Ka9LJBjuQYw8hlqvTV5kceLlrP2HPqmk7YPOw1fQWlpTJof+ZMCxEVd1Qz TRet2vS/kiRQRYvKOaxoJhqIzUr1g3ovBnIdpKeo4KKULz9XKuxCgZsuLKkVAAUX tCJKb2huIE1jQ29ybWFjIDxqbWNjQGhhY2t3YXRjaC5jb20+tBJqbWNjQGhhY2t3 YXRjaC5jb20= =sTfy -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:06:16 GMT