Guest guest Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 > But if I didn't, would I be right to assume that WIFI would be a big problem? > I assume not everyone has it, but wonder, the more people that access it, would > that increase the effect or is the full effect just there to be tapped into? Wi-Fi setup by your neighbors *is* a big problem. I think that the last time I checked, there were around 20 neighbor wi-fi systems that my laptop could see in my living room! This is why you should try to find a place with a lower population density -- the fewer people, the fewer wi-fi, cellphones, cordless phones, smart meters, and plasma TV's you'll have to tolerate. Also, I think wi-fi systems being actively used are more harmful than wi-fi systems not in use. Although you see people here complaining about wi-fi systems that are left on overnight, so inactive wi-fi systems are still a problem. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Hi Debbie, > I remember a good post recently that said cordless phones were 5GHZ and WIFI-niehgbors was 2.4 GHZ?? How many GHZ would your own wifi be? > WiFi is only 13 channels between 2401 and 2483 MHz, the same as the 802.11b/g protocol. And because of the overlap, it reduces the effective separate channels to 3 or 4. Yes it shares the same spectrum as microwave ovens and several cordless and DECT phones. Personally, I can't see anyone with ES staying in an apartment, unless all agree to reduce their emissions. For shielding to be a solution, all sources of emitters must be turned off inside the cage, and there must be no leaks to let in outside waves. Otherwise they can bounce, amplify, and just be complicated. > I assume not everyone has it, but wonder, the more people that access it, would that increase the effect or is the full effect just there to be tapped into? > Yes a big problem. The more WiFi equipment, the more transmitters. That increases the power density, and the effect. There is nothing to tap into, unless somebody nearby is running a WiFi hotspot. (Unsecured that is) -- http://seahorseCorral.org/ehs1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 Absolutely agree with marc. I live in a semi detatched house with only 1 neighbour adjoining and I can pick up 6 signals and that is bad enough. I think appartments with dense concentrations of people are a really bad idea. Ads From: Marc <marc@...> Subject: Re: WIFI IN APARTMENTS? Date: Tuesday, 13 September, 2011, 0:03 Â > But if I didn't, would I be right to assume that WIFI would be a big problem? > I assume not everyone has it, but wonder, the more people that access it, would > that increase the effect or is the full effect just there to be tapped into? Wi-Fi setup by your neighbors *is* a big problem. I think that the last time I checked, there were around 20 neighbor wi-fi systems that my laptop could see in my living room! This is why you should try to find a place with a lower population density -- the fewer people, the fewer wi-fi, cellphones, cordless phones, smart meters, and plasma TV's you'll have to tolerate. Also, I think wi-fi systems being actively used are more harmful than wi-fi systems not in use. Although you see people here complaining about wi-fi systems that are left on overnight, so inactive wi-fi systems are still a problem. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.