How to turn on secret WEP protocol for Wi-Fi sharing of Ethernet

[SlCKB0Y]

I think he is being sarcastic - his thread starts out with a icon in the subject bar. At least I HOPE he is being sarcastic.

Ahahaha. It's late here and my sarcasm meter has already gone to sleep for the night but yes, I hope they weren't being serious!

 

[VinegarTasters]

I find it funny. I really don't care that much about this issue. As I said, it is not my fight. But what is interesting is that people pay more attention to criticism or ridicule rather than objectively trying to find the truth. No one seems to want to read from the doctorate degree's findings. No one seems to want to read the National Institute of Health links. But people pay more attention when Sickboy uses ridicule and personal attacks to silence people.

It is obvious that a suntanning machine is non-ionizing. But everyone knows it is dangerous to stay in there too long. Your meat is gonna get cooked. So this goes back to the start of this long thread. Having two hotspots is gonna increase the chance of the EM doing damage to you. Just like increasing the power. In fact, you can stick your hand in a Microwave oven and put it at low power. You won't feel a thing. But it would be crazy to leave it in there for a long period of time. In fact, if you left this microwave oven door open and leave it always on in your room, it is EXACTLY the same as a Wi-Fi hotspot. Same frequency. Same waves bouncing around in a larger box (your room).

As for directional or non-directional, that is nonsense. A microwave is not directional. The waves actually bounce in that box (the microwave oven), similar to EM will bounce around inside your home. The only thing that matters is power output, and the number of sources, and how long you stay in there. And I think this is the sticking point... cellphones emit very high power. Cell towers are sometimes miles away and EACH phone needs to send back that far away every 2 two 3 seconds just to remain on.

Ok. This subject is getting boring. I am sure the telecom and other industries will use the same techniques as the cigarette companies to keep making a profit. The World Health Organization already categorizes it as "carcinogenic". So it is a battle between the doctors and the telecom. One trying to protect your health. The other trying to make money. And from looking at the cigarette companies, I think they are still making money, even though you know by now it causes cancer.

 

[pdjudd]

It is obvious that a suntanning machine is non-ionizing. But everyone knows it is dangerous to stay in there too long.

Of course. Light from the Sun can cause heat. We have a known mechanism.

Your meat is gonna get cooked. So this goes back to the start of this long thread. Having two hotspots is gonna increase the chance of the EM doing damage to you.

Nope. That has never been established period.

Just like increasing the power.

No. That is not true at all.

In fact, you can stick your hand in a Microwave oven and put it at low power. You won't feel a thing. But it would be crazy to leave it in there for a long period of time. In fact, if you left this microwave oven door open and leave it always on in your room, it is EXACTLY the same as a Wi-Fi hotspot. Same frequency. Same waves bouncing around in a larger box (your room).

Stop the comparison with microwaves. They operate very differently at extremely higher amounts of power.

As for directional or non-directional, that is nonsense. A microwave is not directional. The waves actually bounce in that box (the microwave oven), similar to EM will bounce around inside your home.

EM is everywhere, but the microwave is indeed directional - it emits from one point and is restricted to the box itself

The only thing that matters is power output, and the number of sources, and how long you stay in there. And I think this is the sticking point... cellphones emit very high power. Cell towers are sometimes miles away and EACH phone needs to send back that far away every 2 two 3 seconds just to remain on.

It is not enough to raise the temperature around the device. This can be directly observed.

Ok. This subject is getting boring. I am sure the telecom and other industries will use the same techniques as the cigarette companies to keep making a profit.

Non sequitor straw man.

The World Health Organization already categorizes it as "carcinogenic".

That is a misleading statement. First the WHO classification has nothing to do with Wi-Fi but Cell Phones. Second, their classification is based on a possible risk, not an actual risk. That is what the classification actually means. It includes things like:

Bracken fern
Coffee
Gasoline
Nickel
Lead
Safrole (sassafras oil)
E-glass fibres
Talcum powder

Source

And if you want to quote the WHO you should actually read what they say on the subject:

...Current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields.

Source

This guy has a great article backed up by several sources. He says the same thing I do - Wi-Fi doesn't produce enough heat and is not focused.


Seriously. I hammer this point, since the idea of Wi-Fi sickness is Junk Science. Pure and simple

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Of course WEP is practically the same as no security anyway, so why bother?

Not really. Sure, anyone who really wants break wep will get in but it would prevent the kind of opportunistic usage of his wifi access which I believe would be by far the most common. Eg, Neighbour or passerby sees an open access point and thinks "why not?".

 

[Paradoxally]

You are right!. A lot of people were just "mind controlled" by the mainstream. I must admit I was until several years ago when I started to question and began looking for answers. ...

What the hell are you on?

 

[VinegarTasters]

Here we go again. I think some people are so exposed to media that they can't think for themselves. NIH links are there for you to read. Please read them before continuing. I believe the original person who started this wi-fi argument wanted published. Those are published. Ignoring those links won't make you right.

About tanning machines... They increase your cancer risk. Remember... Tanning machines are non-ionizing. If they only heat your skin, why are
people getting skin cancer?

Here...
http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/DrLen...rice-We-May-Pay-For-Ignoring-The-Message.aspx


A microwave uses a magnetron. It is not directional. Similar to a Wi-Fi. BECAUSE it is not directional, microwaves uses a waveguide, but the majority of the radiation heating is from waves bouncing back and forth everywhere in the box. If it doesn't bounce back and forth in the box, like wi-fi bouncing in your room, you won't be able to heat your food, like you won't be able to connect to your wi-fi. The food must meet the waves. Just like your computer needs to meet the wi-fi in whatever corner of the room you are in.

If no one here is scientific enough to read papers, maybe I can provide a mass media link (youtube) people are more used to. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7VetsCR2I

A blind test shows (near the 5:30 mark) shows there are people who are sensitive to Wi-Fi and can detect it and affects his heart. Children, being more sensitive, are affected greater. Remember, the amount of power that is considered "safe" is arbitrary... It is DIFFERENT around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjjbgBstnj4

A microwave is the same frequency as wi-fi. The only difference is power level. And the power level considered safe is different around the world. So it is definitely ok to compare.

I don't understand why you must feel heat to think wi-fi is dangerous. You don't feel x-rays, but you know that is dangerous. Look, I provided the NIH links. If you want to continue arguing but not even look at the links, it looks like this argument already ended (you are denying facts).


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19464814
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19407555
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17351512
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17130668
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16836875
http://www.neilcherry.com/documents.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15875777
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15750583
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14635193
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8722117
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9933863
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1626106

If you don't take respond to those links, there is no point in arguing. Just swinging back and forth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPq_9qlEdaQ