Electromagnetic radiation EMR

No, but I'll keep the foil hat on just in case.... 🙂

tonefox wrote:

No, but I'll keep the foil hat on just in case.... 🙂

Considering where most people would place the iPad, is it really a hat you need?

Stedman

I am of sufficient years to not have to worry about that area. 😁

Given that no one has published a "Safe" SARS level (or a dangerous level for that matter) what difference would knowing the level make?

Interesting question, but I would worry more about your cell phone giving you a brain tumor....

Youc an check out some video of ipads being tested here .

http://riskofradiation.com/radiation-exposure/radiation-effects-of-the-ipad/

You are right . cell phones are even more dangerous.read more here

http://www.riskofradiation.com/radiation-exposure/cellphone-radiation-are-you-po inting-a-loaded-phone-at-your-head/

I found a section in the Important Product Information Guide about the FCC & IC SAR.

I too was paranoid about high frequency non-ionising radiation from iPads and mobile phones so I bought all the meters and did quite a bit of testing. First off, a mobile phone gives out a massive amount of radiation when in use in comparison to an iPad (using wifi, didn't test a 3G) - although I wasn't particularly scientific in my testing I found a mobile gives out hundreds sometimes thousands times more than iPads. Also, your exposure is directly proportional to distance and drops quite dramatically when held even a meter from your head - you get a lot more from a bluetooth mouse albeit in short bursts.

There also seems to be a consensus that it is long terms exposure over months/years, particularly at night when you're asleep, that is the problem as this lowers the immune system leading to all sorts of problems.

What I would say, and this is only my opinion, is to restrict how much kids use the iPad when WIFI is on (3G might be more worrying as this is more like a mobile phone) and keep it at a distance from them. I'd also keep it in another room at night and switch of the wifi when possible.

Dynamicworm wrote:

There also seems to be a consensus that it is long terms exposure over months/years, particularly at night when you're asleep, that is the problem as this lowers the immune system leading to all sorts of problems.

I don't believe there is any such scientific consensus at all.

Sorry, let me clarify. The consensus amongst scientists who think there is a problem is that it doesn't cause cancer etc. directly but indirectly through a lowered immune system.

There are of course scientists who disagree including many who are sponsored by mobile phone companies themselves.

I suppose it's up to the individual to decide. The decision is much harder of course if your whole life revolves around wifi and mobile phones.

"your exposure is directly proportional to distance"

That's not true at all. Your exposure is proportional to the square of the distance. That is, if you double the distance, your exposure is only 1/4th of the original. The expert in the referred video, is anything but. "Look! That's voltage! That's amperage! That's frequency!" This guy has no idea of what he's talking about. Interestingly, the video is for voltage frequency from 20-1000Hz and RFI/EMF - what you're interested in - is in the gHz range. BT has linked an informative Apple document, and it should be required reading.

"I'll keep the foil hat" An excellent idea for some. Until the mid-1960s, tanker trucks carrying gas had to have chains attached to the rear axle. The belief was that the chain would be a method to ground the truck, preventing static electricity and the possibility of explosions. Unfortunately, as the chains were dragged across the road surface, they created sparks...and those caused several tanker explosions. The chains were later removed by federal mandate. I'm suggesting that some users attach chains to their ankles, along with their tin foil hats. You can't be too safe.

"Your exposure is directly proportional to the distance" is a normal person's way of saying "your exposure is proportional to the square of the distance" which is a pedantic and rather anal response.

How exactly can these not mean the same thing to the man in the street ?

The meters I use measure from 50Mhz rto 3.5Ghz which nicely accommodates the 2.4Ghz of wifi plus the range of mobiles..

I have another low frequency meter which measure 50Hz - this obviously doesn't pick up wifi or mobile radiation.

Dynamicworm wrote:

Sorry, let me clarify. The consensus amongst scientists who think there is a problem is that it doesn't cause cancer etc. directly but indirectly through a lowered immune system.

There are of course scientists who disagree including many who are sponsored by mobile phone companies themselves.

Not all scientists who disagree with your "consensus" are in the thrall of the mobile phone industry. To imply that is insulting to the scientific community.