How Much Radiation Does the eDGe Emit?

I was reading an article in the New York Times this morning about the release of a study on the "link" between cell phone usage and brain tumors. I'm now wondering how much radiation the eDGe emits. Anyone know?

The eDGe has no cell phone transmitter inside.

The emission of the wifi radio would be the same as pretty well any Wifi device, like a laptop.

Wifi is probably really really weak in comparison, since the range is maybe 100 feet, while cell phones have to reach towers maybe a mile away.

Good to know. Thanks!

Hey! You're a guru. Congratulations! *and the crowd roars*

Finally! Someone noticed!

if you are talking about radiation i do have 2 wifi spots at home and there are another 7 in the close neighbourhood. I bet this is more than what our entourage can do, or any mobile phone. anybody thought of this?

The debate about cell phone use and cancer has been going for 10-15 years, and even this latest very extensive study still can't say there's a definitive link. A million things cause cancer, not the least of which is the very food we eat and the air we breathe, if you ask my opinion...

True, many things cause cancer, but some are worse than others. I wouldn't put smoking in the same category as, say, cell phone usage. But there does appear to be some link between cell phones and gliomas. I think the problem is that all the contributing factors have not been identified. That's why the nature of cause and effect between the two can't be discerned.

But vicnic's idea is interesting. Suppose the study didn't factor in the added radiation of wifi and other such devices? I don't often put my cell phone to my ear, but at any given time, there are at least 12 wifi networks crisscrossing my office. There are even more at my apartment. So I might not develop a glioma, but exposed to the same conditions, someone who puts their phone to their head a lot more just might.

I have also 2 dect phones (one is also Skype). Alson wimax is coming ............. I use a pint a lager or stout a week to clean the radiation away. it worked until now...

Not all the cell phones emit the same amount of radiation. Most Motorola phones have been known to be more microwave emission intensive. As far as brain cancer and the cell phone use, it was established a long time ago that there is a connection. However, many independent studies have not received proper publicity and for people who learn about the world from main stream media it is still a debate.

Think of it this way, if you stick your head into the microwave oven and keep it there for awhile cooking would you have consequences? Please don't try to disprove me . Same applies with cell phones only on much smaller scale, but because of the extensive use and close proximity to the brain it still produces an effect.

I witnessed a following case. The president of the company I worked for went to a doctor because he started having chest pains that implied to heart conditions. Doctor inspected him and didn't find anything wrong but noticed that he carried a cell phone in his front packet (right on the heart level). He asked my boss not to carry it there and if problem will not go away see him again. The problem went away.

Interesting story but I still need to see hard scientific evidence to believe this. I hope you sue your neighbors for running wifi hotspots and also your company. My understanding is the WIFI radiation on wifi hotspots is much higher than a standard gsm phone.

Originally Posted by vicinc

I hope you sue your neighbors for running wifi hotspots and also your company. My understanding is the WIFI radiation on wifi hotspots is much higher than a standard gsm phone.

Dude, I live in New York. Unless all of Manhattan goes up in flames (goddess forbid), the WiFi hotspots crossing my apartment and office aren't going anywhere. And of course, not just scientific evidence (which we already have), but enough of the right evidence to clearly illustrate the factors that combine to produce a certain effect under specific conditions is the goal. My ancedote was meant only to illustrtate one possibility under which all of the causal impacts might not have (yet) been measured.

I find aluminum foil on my head works well. I kid I kid....

People I have an honest question. Does this seriously concern you? There is so much stuff out there that is bad for us how can you even keep track or prevent. I am not waving the white flag and giving up but what's the point. Not using a cell phone is not going to save you. Like what others have said there is so much stuff passing through the air who knows what it does to us. So I am really curious and not trying to bash you. Obviously I have zero concern over this. Diversity is a great thing and I am just trying to understand your perspective. Kinda like the people that believe in "Chem Trails" if you don't know what that is do a search. Guess what I fly a plane for a living and we don't spread chemicals like some claim. Sure we burn fuel and it is bad but we don't create spray patterns over major cities. Sorry for the drift. My perspective is people that are paranoid about radiation from phones don't make much sense. Anyway, I look forward to thoughtful responses.

Originally Posted by ckole

Guess what I fly a plane for a living and we don't spread chemicals like some claim..

The Men in Black implant false memories in you after every toxic run, of course.

The cynical side of me sees the delay in the release of the report as a fight between those who were fine with telling it how it is ("we didn't find anything") and moving on vs those who wanted to include enough doubt ("if you focus on this, ignore that, and turn it sideways...") to justify continued research funding.

I have absolutely no worries about getting a brain tumor from using my cell phone. As I mentioned earlier, smoking is far, far, far, worse as cancer-causing habits go. Sensibly, I don't smoke, and sensibly in the absence of evidence of a direct connection between cell phone usage and brain tumors, I use my cell every day with no plans to put it down.

I am, however, very curious. The data collected and published so far pose as many questions as they answer. There seems to be enough of an increase in certain types of tumors among those who use cell phones to warrant asking more questions. No study to date has answered those very reasonable questions. Something is causing an increased incidence of gliomas among a subset of cell phone users. It'd be really dumb (or just cowardly) not to continue to probe what distinguishes that subset from everyone else and what the exact nature of the causation is. It may turn out that Wifi, not phones, is the problem, but we won't know until we uncover all the links.

To link being paranoid with asking reasonable questions is, well, unreasonable. This type of academic inquiry is exactly why we all have cell phones in the first place. Someone(s) kept asking questions in defiance of conventional wisdom and people's emotional attachment to their habits. That's what pure research is, asking and answering questions just so that you know the answer and understand exactly how it works--or doesn't. And usually pure research with no practical application in mind up front leads to wonderful things, like e-ink and iPhones!

One problem with every study is who's funding it. Researchers are generally begging for money, so they wouldn't want to embarrass the corporate interest funding the study. Same goes for labs commissioned specifically to do a study (in this case, the results are more likely to be buried as the person paying for the study owns the data, which means the lab may not be free to publish the results).

So expect a study funded directly or indirectly by one or more cell phone manufacturers to conclude no definitive link, while studies commissioned by someone keen on proving a link to conclude there is some sort of link.

Call me cynical