Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

LPF Donation via Stripe | LPF Donation - Other Methods

Links below open in new window

ArcticMyst Security by Avery

Microwave oven leak

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
2,431
Points
83
It just occured to me that a good way of testing the shielding of a microwave oven would be to put a cell phone inside it (with the oven turned off) and see if it loses the WiFi signal, which is 2.4GHz just like the magnetron.

Then I tested it... the signal got weaker but still got through!

A friend of mine also tested and his oven didn't block the signal.

Am I missing something or are our ovens leaking?

I found some detectors on DX and ebay, can anyone confirm that they work?

Is there any other test I can perform?
 





Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,894
Points
0
Wiki says that IEEE protocol 802.11 works off of the following frequencies:

2.4 GHz, 3.6 GHz and 4.9/5.0 GHz bands.

I believe additional bands were added because of the interference caused by wireless handsets and microwaves.

The faraday cage on the microwave will probably be built only for the 2.4 GHz band - and won't be as effective for the smaller wavelengths.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
4,364
Points
83
Bingo.

Set your router to 2.4GHz only and repeat the test.

If you have a fast enough scope you could make a 1/4wave vertical antenna and groundlane for 2.4GHz (it's tiny!) and probe around your microwave.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
756
Points
0
Is your phone using 802.11a?

EDIT: 802.11y would do it too, but no way your phone is using it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
4,364
Points
83
lawl @ >3GHz scope. Does anyone here even have a 1GHz scope?

I think some must, we have some members with deep pockets or access to school equipment.

I didn't say it was likely, but it can be done, haha. Hell I've only got a 40MHz scope =P.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,894
Points
0
I could poke around the "Signals and Systems" lab at Uni - is someone looking for one?
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,125
Points
63
So, I'm gonna test this by putting my oscilloscope and cell phone in the microwave and cook covered until 170 degrees...Am I missing anything?
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,894
Points
0
Don't know nuthin' about frequencies and such, but I have used a microwave detector I got from work to check my microwaves for leaks. It was weird, no batteries in it or anything, minimal leakage. Good question. Ran across this a while back while researching risks from wifi and cellular sources. Resonance - Beings of Frequency (documentary film) - YouTube

Not to stomp on your microwave dangers parade here...

but I often find that everyone else I know that is even concerned about the idea, also "Don't know nuthin' about frequencies and such".

And then those that come out of a basic undergrad physics course or two have zero concerns.

I hope you came to the same conclusions that basic physics will point out to you, about wave propagation, absorption models, and molecular chemistry.

So, I'm gonna test this by putting my oscilloscope and cell phone in the microwave and cook covered until 170 degrees...Am I missing anything?

You MIGHT not want to do that until you get your :tinfoil:
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
2,246
Points
63
So, I'm gonna test this by putting my oscilloscope and cell phone in the microwave and cook covered until 170 degrees...Am I missing anything?
Be careful SBA, could be unexpected results!
h742F1FC1
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
2,246
Points
63
... those that come out of a basic undergrad physics course or two have zero concerns.

I hope you came to the same conclusions that basic physics will point out to you, about wave propagation, absorption models, and molecular chemistry.

Granted, I should defer to the opinion of people smarter than me. Question though MB. Europe has banned the use of cellphones for children 8 and younger if I'm not mistaken. Cancers usually take years to show up. Cellphone testing is usually conducted by laboratories paid for by cellphone companies. DNA damage at the molecular level. Free radicals from microwaved foods. Cell towers also causing cancer. The documentation and cancer rates grow right along with the increasing number of cell phone users. and what about wifi... ?

tinfoil-cat.jpg


Now I'm not saying I'm going to stop using wifi and there is no way to avoid the reality of living in our modern age outside of living in the middle of nowhere. There is a lot of documentation though, a lot of pockets of cancer suffers, that seem very much tied to the existence of some form of electosmog pollution, Cell phone towers, power lines etc. :tinfoil:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,894
Points
0
Granted, I should defer to the opinion of people smarter than me. Question though MB. Europe has banned the use of cellphones for children 8 and younger if I'm not mistaken.

Not smarter - just educated further. Education doesn't make you smarter. :p

Europe tends to ban anything and everything that hints at risk of anything. The big "C" word tends to scare the crap out of people - and politicians can use that to their advantage. Just sayin', the US and Europe alike are not good sources of reason if by reason you tend to look at the laws they produce.

What's so special about children 8 and younger? Are we assuming that older people, longer exposed to E&M waves are more sturdy?

Cancers usually take years to show up. Cellphone testing is usually conducted by laboratories paid for by cellphone companies.

And sometimes it takes months. The increase in cancer rates is nothing at all, compared to the increase of cell phone users, and again, that's for cancer in general. No one can even seem to pin down what kind of cancer could be increasing with cell phone use. If its all coming from the same source, the same cancer would be re-occurring as a result from the same cause. The problem is, any/all cancers have been claimed to be "caused" by the same source. This is ridiculous. Sun-tanning does not cause leukemia or brain cancer or breast cancer. A single cause, tends to lead to only one result, not many, and definitely not all.

No one single type of cancer seems to be correlated. Only "cancer" in general seems to be the big fear, no matter what type it is. That's a big problem.

Lots of studies were paid for by larger companies, but a common misconception here is that people seem to think that the source of funding somehow nullifies the legitimacy of the results of the experiment. People were outraged by this cell phone cancer possibility 10 years ago, and the ones who responded to the scare at all - were in fact wireless carriers, and companies like Motorola. And why wouldn't they? They would be some of the few actually able and willing to fund the research, and they have interests to keep! If it is indeed necessary and possible, they would be the first ones who would love to sell you their next generation "safe" cell phones. "Caged" and "protective" phones would have flown off the shelves if there had been a causation found.

DNA damage at the molecular level. Free radicals from microwaved foods.
DNA damage is normal. It happens regularly, and mostly by reproduction failure and ionizing radiation. Those damaged cells are "mutant" and are selectively destroyed by your immune system. The ones that happen to go a-wall are called cancerous. Damage occurs regularly, but cancer is much more of a rarity. Consider that you have some 6 trillion cells in your body, most of which goes through mitosis regularly.

Free radicals can be found everywhere. They are not exclusive to micro-waved food. Remember, it is the water molecule that is in resonance with the micro-waves of a very particular size. This regular oscillation is what adds kinetic energy to the water molecules which is in contact with other molecules - the kinetic energy spreads on from there. No chemical changes are taking place until the heat becomes high enough to actually break bonds and burn food. When you start burning stuff, yeah stay away. Carbon black is actually a well documented carcinogen.

Microwaves are not "heat" waves, they are not ionizing radiation, and they are not inherently dangerous. The scenario setup by the kitchen appliance is such that a resonant cavity is produced, causing hot spots to appear throughout the chamber, and cold spots left in the food sample. That's why microwaves now-days rotate the food through these varying hot and cold spots, to share the load a bit.

Consider that the very SAME waves are continually flying in from space and bombard your body all the time - causing your water molecules to rotate even if only slightly. There is nothing carcinogenic about it. You can "see" that radiation for yourself by turning on the TV and unplugging the antenna. That "White noise" buzz and snowy image is exactly what I'm talking about. If it comes in strongly enough for your TV set to pick it up wherever you go, what makes someone think that UHF, VHF, shortband, and EHF waves are any more harmful? They barely broadcast with enough power to even make a clear signal! But TV from space has no problem. :)

Cell towers also causing cancer. The documentation and cancer rates grow right along with the increasing number of cell phone users. and what about wifi... ?

If I strap myself to a 100,000 Watt tower, yeah. I'll get rf burn for sure. But that's only because of the raw power put out by the tower. If I sat on a 100,000 Watt light bulb, or stood in front of a 100,000 Watt laser beam - hell. I'd rather take the radio waves!

As the signal spreads out, the intensity of the waves decreases with inverse square law. So if 'i' is intensity, and 'r' is distance away from the source,

i = 1 / r^2

So as I get twice the distance away from point 'A', I receive only 1/4th of the intensity as before.

Now consider the FCC regulation for cell phone radiation exposure:

The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg). Now consider that cell phones (by law) do not exceed .25 Watts during operation. Any more and the battery wouldn't even be worth anything at all. Now assuming that we take the mass of your head, and weigh it against the .25 Watt from a cell phone (assuming ALL of your cell signal get absorbed into your head, which it doesn't), does it even come close to 1.6W/kg? Not even. Your head would have to much less than one kg!

The fact is, digital radio communication require so much less power, and signal "frames" for a given amount of information, than over an analog protocol.

Think about it. If cell phones were heating your brain, you would first notice the huge frequency of dropped calls you had all because you turned your head the wrong direction and you blocked nearest cell tower. Our heads are pretty transparent to even a weak little .25 Watt signal.

Again, think about your typical light bulb - pulling 60W of energy in from the wall and converting it to light waves and heat waves! That's a lot! The cell phone claim is like saying my keychain LED light is cooking whatever I put real close to it.

Of Wifi and growing cancer numbers - there is a common logical fallacy committed by many people who interpret these "studies" and "reports". Here's the thing:

Correlation does not equal causation. I can frankly show any number of things that are increasing along with cancer numbers, and cell phone users. I could show that cancer growth is increasing along WITH kids who play football, and women that write with their left hand.

Correlation in some of these "studies" fail to report the similar changing diets, and other actual health related habits that go along with recent decade changes.

We know this is mere correlation and not a causation, because an actual mechanism for causation has not ever been found. No one has come forward, with all of their research and passion for the health of the public - to report on HOW and WHY there is a correlation that would explicitly link cell phones to cancer. What kind of cancer does it cause? (Nothing causes all cancers to occur like some might like you to believe cell phones do) What's the cellular mechanism behind cancer cell generation by a cell phone? Why has this not occurred for pretty much everyone - except for those that blame cell phones?

No one has stepped forward to explain these things with any legitimate research whatsoever. Someone, someday is bound to get another "antenna shaped" tumor on their face - and naturally, they will blame the cell phone and then forget about all the people out there with cancer in all the other places of their body which do not blame cell phones.

By the way, the actually wave nodes that come off a cell phone antenna are NOT shaped like the antenna as some of these people assume when they see a stick like tumor. This also stems from a basic understanding of how cancer develops once it starts development from only one cell.

Now I'm not saying I'm going to stop using wifi and there is no way to avoid the reality of living in our modern age outside of living in the middle of nowhere. There is a lot of documentation though, a lot of pockets of cancer suffers, that seem very much tied to the existence of some form of electosmog pollution, Cell phone towers, power lines etc. :tinfoil:

Well I'm glad you won't let it ruin your life. I hope you continue to dig through these documentations and ask yourself, "did they provide a mechanism?"

"Or did they just neatly 'tie things together' themselves?"

Bottom line is, humans have been exposed to this stuff have longer than we have even known that its been around, and the addition of manmade sources do not change their nature. For every study you find that shows a correlation, I can find one that finds the opposite or no correlation. Also, do not be afraid of the word "radiation". It does not imply anything dangerous at all. Anything at all that radiates anything at all is a source of radiation.

Hell, humans radiate all kinds of stuff. (heat, IR, alpha, beta particles, bad breath)

I don't mean to stomp your questions into the ground. Its just that I've done a fair amount of research on the matter myself. I lost a nice girlfriend on the matter.

She was freaking afraid to keep her phone on her, or even her bedroom. If she was out and not to be found, she could not be called because she would have her phone off if she took it anywhere. She refused to skype (because that would put a laptop on her lap), and she annoyed the heck out of her friends for the same reasons. So communication greatly suffered. I did butt loads of research and found her some remedies so she wouldn't have to worry anymore and she just turned a blind eye to it. Meatball was not appeased to say the least.

I asked myself, If she Really believes all this stuff - that she will get cancer from her cell phone, why hasn't she tried to stop me, or warn me about it? Would a true believer not care enough about those around her for the same matters she fears for own well being?

Considering all that technology DOES do for us, and does very well... Even if you are never convinced that it is ever safe (which I hope doesn't happen to you), consider the overall cost vs benefit relationship. Weigh the two and consider, even IF everything were so dangerous, does all the good it does become meaningless in the end?

Its ok to question technology as its always changing. But I always check myself with this question:

Is there money to be made through a miracle product or a series of economy altering lawsuits?

If yes: Then its probably a money driven idea

If no: Could be worth questioning further

Take care dear LPF user. I only mean well for you!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
2,246
Points
63
I do appreciate you and your informed and well researched opinions. I actually really enjoy your posts quite a bit, especially where I know I am lacking. And it is difficult to lose people we care about over differences in ideology, it can be rather traumatic actually...

:tinfoil: :) Now back to the matter at hand. The rating system you described,
Now consider the FCC regulation for cell phone radiation exposure:

The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg). Now consider that cell phones (by law) do not exceed .25 Watts during operation. Any more and the battery wouldn't even be worth anything at all. Now assuming that we take the mass of your head, and weigh it against the .25 Watt from a cell phone (assuming ALL of your cell signal get absorbed into your head, which it doesn't), does it even come close to 1.6W/kg? Not even. Your head would have to much less than one kg!
By the time your brain cooks, its way to late. cellular damage can occur at much lower strengths than those currently in use.
What's so special about children 8 and younger? Are we assuming that older people, longer exposed to E&M waves are more sturdy?
Yes, the adult skull is much thicker, but the studies didn't take that into account. An adult sized head was used to test for the "brain heating up" test. Children have much thinner skulls than adults, so wouldn't it make sense to do those tests on appropriately proportioned test models?
Our heads are pretty transparent to even a weak little .25 Watt signal.
Yes that's why Defense can shoot a scalar DEW through a mountain and disorient and make ill enemy combatants. The new breed of "non-lethal" DEW's will be showing up more and more.
Active_Denial_System_Humvee.jpg

In a landmark case an Italian court has ruled that cellphones cause cancer...
Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules. - Telegraph
some references...
Electrical-hypersensitivity
One in 20 people ?may have a mobile phone illness?
The Times, 30 January 2005

'I'm allergic to modern living'
Daily Mail, 22 March 2007

The woman who needs a veil of protection from modern life
Daily Mail, 27 April 2007

Cancer

Row over 'cover up' of mobile phone masts cancer finding
Daily Mail 17 April 2007

Cancer clusters at phone masts
The Sunday Times, 22 April 2007

Cancer victims ask: "Is it the phone mast's fault?"
The Sunday Times, 22 April 2007

Phone mast pulled down after school cancer scare
The Times, 23 April 2007

Mobile mast cancer victims
The Sun, 7 August 2007

Orange to remove mobile mast from 'tower of doom', where cancer rate has soared
Daily Mail, 13 September 2007

Cancer fears over mobile phone mast- A community has called for a mobile phone mast to be torn down after it emerged that 34 people living near it have caught cancer.
The Daily Telegraph, 19 June 2008

14 die of cancer in seven years living next to phone mast with highest radiation levels in UK
Daily Mail, 23 June 2008

____________________________

Dr Carlo led the $28.5 million study in the 1990s on behalf of the mobile phone industry.
. After finding a link between mobile phone use and brain cancer, he set up the Safe Wireless Inititative.

Dr George Carlo, (Campbell Live, TV3, 2006),

. Rapidly increasing background levels of information-carrying radio waves from phone masts, digital electronic cordless telephones (DECT phones), Wi-Fi, and mobile phones are sensitizing the population to all types of EMR.
. 5-8% of the population have electrical-hypersensitivity (EHS). Prevelance of EHS has increased with the saturation of the environment with microwaves from wireless technology.
. Many animal species, including whales and bees, use magnetite to navigate. All around the world they are getting lost increasingly often.
. EMR causes cell membranes to 'lock', resulting in cell toxicity, DNA damage, and cell death. Intercellular communication is reduced and organ function is compromised.
. Noticeable EMR symptoms include fatigue, blood pressure changes, mood disturbance, headaches, memory loss, sleep disorders, night sweats, sexual dysfunction, hormonal disturbances. These are the symptoms of electrical-hypersensitivity.
. Long-term effects associated with EMR include cancer, dementia, neuropathy, clinical depression, elevated homocysteine levels, blood vessel damage, heavy metal and toxic accumulation, loss of efficacy of medications. Radiation from wireless technology can have the same effects as chronic low-grade chemical poisoning.
. Some EMR victims deteriorate so quickly that they do not live long enough to develop cancer.
. There is a 'tsunami' of EMR-induced disease starting to roll across industrialized countries that will seriously challenge their healthcare systems in the next five years. Many of the victims will be young adults who have spent their formative years addicted to mobile phones.
. Most doctors and patients are unaware that EMR is the cause of their symptoms.
. There have been an alarming number of reports to the Safe Wireless Initiative that attempts to mitigate EMR effects with devices which merely mask symptoms have resulted in severe relapses of EHS symptoms and life-threatening diseases. This is attributed to users' having been given a false sense of security and prolonging or increasing their EMR exposure.
. Nutritional status is key to disease outcomes. Dr Carlo's therapeutic protocol includes chelated magnesium, acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC), L-carnitine, N-Acetyl-Cysteine (NAC), Dimethylaminoethanol (DMAE), L-Taurine, resveratrol, alpha lipoic acid, Co-Q10, and essential fatty acids, especially DHA. These help to 'unlock' cell membranes and enhance mitochondrial function. This is followed by a heavy metal detoxification protocol under medical supervision.
. These protocols do not supersede the need to avoid or reduce EMR exposure.
. Apple's 3G iPhones may pose a greater risk due to their higher frequency signal and their system of using other users' iPhones as an antennae network.

Schumann resonances The Earth's own electromagnetic frequency, discovered to be exactly the same as the human brain. Cell phones also use this same frequency. :tinfoil:

The kind of gross physical damage which is tested for and which determines what is "safe" is not enough, in that the damage is much more subtle.

Major Tinfoil alert!!! :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil:

Cancer the secret weapon? | The Trinidad Guardian Newspaper

From 1953 the Russians were using microwaves to attack the US embassy staff in Moscow, Russia. One third of the staff eventually died of cancer from this microwave irradiation. Imagine how advanced and sophisticated assassination technology has become today.

Before you feel I've taken offense or really do wear a tinfoil hat, understand that I take everything with a grain of salt and I am the first to admit that there are people who know much more than me. I don't want to lose any friends over ideology, religion or politcs. In another life, these things intrigued me so I just happen to have a lot of "stuff" packed away in the hard drive as it were. In the end all the facts and figures and statistics don't amount to anything because nothing will change. We will go on with our lives, continue using our phones and laptops (Alienware on my lap right now). I love technology, I love science and lasers and tesla coils and science fiction. So I'm not knocking it, its amazing, I'm just pointing out that there is evidence, It is real. For those people who have cancer or are particularly sensitive and suffer daily as a result, experience trumps the opinion of the naysayers. My opinion.

In closing, thank you for putting so much time and thought into your replies. You are in my opinion one of the more brilliant members of the forum (of which there are many) I enjoy your posts because they are intelligent and come from a place of genuinely wanting to help another person understand and therefore appreciate the wonders which the universe has for us. With much respect :beer: ~ LB

I leave on this note (by one of our own forum members) :)

Nyan Cat Dubstep Lasershow - YouTube
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,894
Points
0
Laserbeak,

I think there is a very large difference in what we consider evidence. When I think of evidence, I don't tend to lean towards something the media reports. The media above many other mediums tend to be biased one way or another, depending on what "sells" better. Surely you've questioned the legitimacy of the large media outlets before?

When I do think of evidence, I think of peer reviewed scientific journals. This is the professional medium for scientists to present their findings by. It comes straight from the researchers themselves, you get to see exactly how the study was done, and it doesn't be filtered, misinterpreted and misrepresented by some journalist for the sake of a story. These are far more objective, and exist for the sole purpose of professional publication of peer reviewed data and findings.. meaning you've got to know your stuff before you're even considered for publication. I for one would love to see actual peer reviewed reports of these same incidents if you've got them.

And what the heck are Schumann resonances? Why does the Earth get to have this magic frequency but cell phones can't without giving people all kinds of cancer? Did you know that cell phones, wifi, and blu-tooth use a range of frequencies instead of just one?

Yes, indeed! Consider this scenario. I am shrunken down to the size of a photon. If that photon enters my now very tiny eyes, I would see nothing. Nothing at all. My interaction with the photon as a whole would be negligible!

1. A photon whose wavelength is longer than that of an object, carries energy that cannot be absorbed by that object (paraphrased). Consider the UHF wave, which has a wavelength (by definition) between 10cm and 1 meter. Now, if an incident cell phone photon goes near something the size of a neuron, how much interaction do you suppose the neuron will have with that photon? How much bigger is that photon than the neuron? With the neuron even notice the passing photon?

Yes that's why Defense can shoot a scalar DEW through a mountain and disorient and make ill enemy combatants. The new breed of "non-lethal" DEW's will be showing up more and more.

It all comes down to wavelength. These waves - its all the same stuff as heat, light, UV, x-ray, gamma, radio, radar - its all the same stuff. The wavelength determines just about everything - including what materials pass and absorb a packet. Some mirrors passes blue and block red. Some pass red but block green. Some pass mostly everything, and some pass hardly anything at all. DEW does not UHF sized wavelengths as I was talking about. What I was saying was, UHF signals tend to go through humans. Its takes a mountain, or a forest of trees, or something else much larger the its wavelength (1 meter) absorb/block it. If you go much shorter in wavelength, they begin bounce off humans quite well. If you go even shorter into the IR, we practically glow with it. If you go shorter, well we tend to actually "see" it with our eyes.

The active denial system is another example of heating due to wavelength, not ionization of atoms.

See, as photons get shorter and shorter, the energy they carry increases. Each energy increases, they can start running into bits of matter and breaking bonds and doing interesting things. These interesting things don't occur until you get down into the 400nm range. That 400 billionths of a meter! Freakin small. This defines of the sizes of some of the largest of organic molecules that have weak bonds, and a low ionization energy. It just so happens DNA clumps are clumpy and sized well enough to be "seen" by a small enough UV photon. Remember what I mention before?

Its at this range of wavelengths and below when the interesting things happen to materials - and cancer is one of the more boring side effects! :eg:

Really though, this is the stuff that's actually well documented. It fascinating stuff, and its so well proven, that I've got an entire undergraduate major lined up for it!

I'm afraid you'll find that I'm stubborn enough to stick around until someone budges. :na: I suppose as long as you bring up objections, I'll be refuting - but not everyone takes to that so kindly. So thank you for that. :thanks:

Let me just encourage you to continue look in different places. There ARE "good" studies done, and done with real and reliable statistics - but the papers tend to be a bit boring. ;) Because of that, you won't find them reported in the media.

I'll see if I can't find one for you.

cell_phones.png
 




Top