Quote:
Originally Posted by EowynCarter
Do you ?
|
Straw man! You're the one who at least seems to be claiming that your reader couldn't possibly do any harm; asking you on what basis you believe that is a valid question, and you're just ducking the issue by trying to deflect the question. Basically, the point is that if you think your particular electronic device is perfectly safe, then you ought to have some basis in fact for that. If you can't answer the question, then it remains merely an uninformed assumption on your part that your reader is indeed safe.
Not trying to be overly snippy here, but that is indeed why electronic devices are prohibited: because these devices have in the past caused random minor problems with equipment on airplanes, and these problems are random enough that Boeing and Airbus engineers along with various regulatory agencies have been unable to duplicate the problems reliably. Without being able to absolutely isolate specific circumstances, specific levels of EM radiation, specific transmission strengths, and on and on, that can cause these problems, and thus by inference be able to say that if your device doesn't meet those thresholds then it cannot cause a problem, it is simply the only responsible and safest course of action to prohibit electronic devices from being used close to the ground.
In reality, even if you were able to define some kind of EM threshold to reliably cause a problem, it likely wouldn't mean you could use your device, because that would only really define a single device in a specific location on the plane. When you start allowing multiple devices in random locations, it throws all your test data right out the window (and that's assuming you were able to reliably reproduce a specific problem in the first place).
Now, all that being said, I happen to agree with you that modern airplanes are hardly likely to have problems from EM fields on tiny little devices such as computers, iPhones, etc., and almost certainly not from your reader. However, the one time I certainly wouldn't want to take a chance with it would be in a very low visibility landing when the pilots are entirely dependent on the interior instruments of the airplane to be able to land because they cannot see out the windshield. Bad time to find out you were wrong about that reader...