I would suggest going there with some "pretty pictures". You can tell anyone anything, and they may say they understand, But as House says "people lie". Go there with some graphs of Spectrum Analysis of things like a AP at 25' versus a Microwave at 25'. Ask the parents how many of their kids care cell phones. Even go there with a sweep of the a large spectrum of some area. People that are worried about wifi "poisoning" probably got the concern citizen look from some other source, (News Media/tabloids, etc) and are oblivious how what else puts out "Radiation".
Ryan On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 10:31 -0500, Jonathan Schmidt wrote: > It is clearly a logical quandary to prove a negative and it is known by > those who have other agendas as a technique to inject fear, uncertainty, and > doubt. > > Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation has the "death" word, "radiation", > and easily causes fear due to the lack of response to the request to "prove > that it isn't harmful." > > However, so is a lit match, and with a lot more electromagnetic radiation > power than an access point...and, in fact, a flashlight, too. > > The exercise that some, as in the "case study", go through to "prove" that > the levels are safe just feed the FUD since no level is unsafe up closer to > the levels found inside a kilowatt microwave oven, most of which leak more > into a kitchen than an AP does at 1 foot and at the same frequency. > > It apparently cost Motorola millions to counter the mischief makers over > cell phones who tried to bring it to its knees with pseudo-scientific mumbo > jumbo that got lots of press. > > It doesn't appear that any satisfactory response can be mounted to those who > use these techniques...except time...time as taken by the coffee industry > when the nut cases finally gave up and the power industry who are on the > back side, now, of the power-line problem. > > . . . j o n a t h a n > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Peter R. > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:36 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ? > > Smith, Rick wrote: > > >I plan to use an FCC Certified solution. That's not the issue. The > >issue is, is "standard" documentation from Ubiquiti good enough as to > >radio strengths, etc for the documentation to prove "it's not harmful" > >? > > > >isn't there a standard FCC document that states all this ? > > > > > No standard FCC doc on this. > > There was a alarge study done in the UK recently. > (Google would be your friend) > http://airbears.berkeley.edu/wlan.shtml > http://www.wlana.org/learn/health.htm > www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/Comsearch_whitepaper_*health*care_wp_TP-100322-EN.pd > f > www.red-m.com/downloads/case-studies/BAA%20Case%20*Study*.pdf - > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
