" 

 ==You can't put all the devices in the debate because they are wireless== 
 The mobile phones have been under debate for a while now, and the page describes that debate. There is no debate concerning wireless networking, dect cordless phones, etc. ""there seems to exist less public awareness of the possible health issues for wireless LAN devices than there is for mobile phones"" Why should there be? 

 ==Mobile phones overshadow discussion of Health concerns with wireless devices== 
 Mobile Phone radiation seems to have a much stronger body of discussion related to it. It seems that generally clarity on health concerns for other wireless devices is much more lacking. 

 I would like to see deeper discussion of the EMF levels of Wireless LAN vs Mobile Phones for example.  

 I think that merging into Mobile Phone health and raditation would mean that other devices would generally  be overshadowed by the stronger body of discussion on mobile phones specifically. 

 With more and more wireless devices in use I think a broader content looking at Wireless devices generally will be useful going forward. 

 : Agreed, this is very much my take on the issue also. Have you added these comments to the ""AfD"" page for this article?   

 :: Would be good to provide a comparison in terms of a) Frequency ranges, b) Duration, and c) Strengths.  For example: 
 ::*(a) Recent cordless phones and wireless LANs are of higher frequencies (2.4 GHz/5.8 GHz) than mobile phones.   
 ::*(b) For many cordless phone/wireless LAN models, the base stations are radiating constantly (24/7) regardless of usage.  This is in contrast to the older analog 900 MHz cordless phone models, some of whose base stations don't seem to be radiating 24/7.  Meanwhile, mobile phones do not radiate 24/7, besides a periodic hello protocol to the base station/cell tower typically on the order of once a half hour or hour. 
 ::*(c) For strength comparisons between mobile phones and wireless LAN/cordless phones, it really depends on the particular model.  Certain cordless phones are much much weaker than certain mobile phones.  On the other hand, certain mobile phones may be weaker in strength at a 1 meter distance than certain cordless phone models.  There is variance within each type of device.  For cordless phones, older analog 900 MHz models seem to have much lower strength than the newer digital 2.4 GHz/5.8 GHz models.  Meanwhile, for mobile phones, variance of strengths may depend on the model or carrier.  Another thing to note is that mobile phones' signal strength varies on usage it can be a lot less when only listening versus higher when talking or in the periodic messages to the cell tower/base station.  During the listening phase, it can be comparable or even less than a typical cordless phone.  
 ::Would appreciate help to find peer-reviewed sources.    

 == Hey, you know... == 

 They used to say cracking your knuckles was bad. Now, they're saying that they can't actually directly link it to arthritis. 

 I'm thinking the same thing will happen to whatever ""health hazards"" wireless devices cause. 

 == ICNRIP page deleted - Conspiracy or something much more mundane? == 

 Ive read the attached page, and tried to follow the link to ICNRIP and found it to be deleted, for what looks like antivandalism purposes.  

 Hit google and found ICNRIP.de being the 'International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection'. 

 Anyone know why this connected page was deleted and/or how the ICNIRP relates? 

 The article states that ""From an environmental-health point of view, less than 0,1 microwatts per m2 are desirable but often sharply exceeded due to the presence of today's technologies. "" 

 Is there any source for the number 0.1 microwatts? Otherwise it is a very POV-statement to make, and I think it should be removed.   

 ==Generally== 

 I am personally pretty apalled at the quality of this article. The English is awful. The article is anything but NPOV. Scientifically, things such as maximum values are being compared to typical values and assumptions (such as lower power = less likely to affect) are being made. Statements touted as facts are unreferenced and as a result are simply user opinion. Some of the stated facts are simply wrong (most phones at 900 Mhz?! more are at 1800 Mhz and plenty are at 2100 Mhz). This needs some serious editing!   

 The new contributions by 195.188.250.142 are unsuitably worded. Also, the references to length of bluetooth/mobile p