1) It doesn't seem to have anything to do with quiet computing, so looks a bit out of place next to the reviews of fanless graphics cards and CPU power surveys.
2) the article is very clearly biased, selectively chooses the information it presents to give a distorted view of the subject treated, and tries to present unscientific conjecture as scientific fact.
The "burden" of non-ionizing radiation? We're subjected to non-ionizing radiation all the time, in the form of sunlight.Saturating an entire city with WiFi adds to the existing burden of nonionizing radiation.
So they admit that the signal strength is weaker even than that from cell phones (for which no ill-effects with normal usage and basic precautions have been conclusively demonstrated) and then try to whip up some kind of hysteria about WiFi?As with all radio signals, the closer you are to the transmitter (the router) the stronger the signal. Cell phones work on the same principle. The difference is that cell phones work at a different frequency and put out a stronger signal than wireless LANs.
Most of these "symptoms" fall under this analysis:Non-thermal effects of cell phones are documented at exposures below the current US standards, including:
slowed motor skills and reaction time,
decreased immune function,
spatial disorientation and dizziness,
lowered sperm count,
increased blood pressure and pulse,
DNA breakage and reduced DNA repair capacity, and
Sperm counts have been falling in developed nations for years, long before mobile phones (or WiFi) were ever introduced. Effects on DNA at non-thermal power levels are not at all firmly established and still highly conjectural.Two recent literature reviews, however, one reviewing 13 published papers in 2003 and 2004, and another reviewing 31 papers published before 2004, have concluded that there is no scientific evidence for a causal relationship between the reported clusters of symptoms and exposure to microwave radiation used in cellphones, well below the safety standards. A workshop conducted by the WHO in Prague in 2004 also reached the same conclusions, viz., that 1) reported symptoms are very unspecific and could have other causes; 2) there is no causal association demonstrated between exposure and symptoms, 3) that patients who display those symptoms should be medically examined for alternative explanations and causes, including psychiatric/psychological ones (since they are typical manifestations of stress and other somatization/psychosomatic causes), and that the environment where they work or live should be assessed in order to discover other factors at work that could explain the symptoms
In conclusion, the article is misleading, unnecessarily alarmist, presents speculative non-thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation as established scientific fact, and represents the same modern strain of neo-Ludditism which likes to whip up hysteria about nuclear power based on an exaggeration of the risks involved; in the UK we call this "fearmongering".
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of people taking informed risks and reaching a balanced assesment of the cost-benefit ratio of a new technology, but this article cannot help them do that.