The Internet of Light: Why LiFi May Replace WiFi
Marlene Breverman stashed this in Internet Transmission
More about li-fi:
2000+ Reddit comments:
This sounds good:
It is but unfortunately according to Reddit it would require a big infrastructure change to become real.
It's an interesting science project, but this kind of thing would require an immense infrastructure change, and would only be usable in an office, where you could theoretically have enough lighting to ensure non-obstructed line of sight between the transmitter and the client.
Short-range, line of sight communication is only just very slightly better than physically wiring the computer to a network.
Why is it hard to imagine that we could make such a big infrastructure change -- since most of the wifi infrastructure was added in the last 15 years and most of it is no older than / replaced within 5 years or so? Answer: it's not.
Also, LiFi doesn't require line of sight.
Also why would this -- "Short-range, line of sight communication is only just very slightly better than physically wiring the computer to a network." matter since people have generally abandoned wired networks for a technology that is much slower?
Those are all true. Ok, maybe this technology does have a shot at becoming mainstream.
I sincerely hope so, because personally have concluded there is good evidence of health risks from wifi signals. Sign me up!
Anything more you can say about the health risks from wifi? First I've heard of this.
PDF]Wi-Fi Health Dangers & Radiation Health Effects
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view;NEWECFSSESSION=7...6 days ago
D-Link, Belkin, Linksys and other wireless network devices) you are receiving massive EMF exposure, and living or working in a dangerous soup of radiation.
Adam, if you do a shallow search you may have the impression there are no risks. Unfortunately you have to look more carefully, as there are huge financial pressure *not* to fine problems with EMF. Dr. Robert Becker -- who invented electrically based treatments that are now in use in practically every hospital, esp. for bone regrowth -- devoted an entire chapter in one of his books to an account of the shocking (ha!) interference and threats he and other researchers encountered when researching the potential link between cancer and high-voltage power lines (for people who live in close proximity), which amounted to nothing less than elaborate smear campaigns with military backing.
Today there is ample evidence to suggest serious problems with EMF, especially in the WiFi range and typical levels. Low-level WiFi signals have been proven to interfere with the calcium channel inside animal cells. Unfortunately, for reasons explained by the researchers (plural) who have concluded this, low-level signals can be more harmful to cell biology than strong ones. For non-technical coverage e.g. see http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/internationally-acclaimed-biochemist-calls-for-action-against-smart-meters-wifi-in-schools-baby-monitors/ -- it's easy to find the corresponding scientific papers (or if you have trouble, let me know).
One theorist who writes a lot about this is Jack Kruse, who summarizes the biologic effects of EMF here -- https://www.jackkruse.com/emf-5-what-are-the-biologic-effects-of-emf/ Because he is working with the very latest experimental results in quantum physics and is a bit hard to follow, at first his work may seem questionable... but from what I have verified it has checked out.
There are many angles to look at this from. EMF signals similar to cell phone towers has been conclusively shown in experiments to *cause* so-called colony collapse disorder in bees. Here is a meta-analysis of many studies which "conclude[s] that pooled results from in vitro and in vivo studies suggest that mobile phone exposure negatively affects sperm quality" in humans. The evidence that we should be concerned is there in quantity, if you're not just seeking to be reassured that it's all OK.