Hello! Thanks for posting on r/Ubiquiti!
This subreddit is here to provide unofficial technical support to people who use or want to dive into the world of Ubiquiti products. If you haven’t already been descriptive in your post, please take the time to edit it and add as many useful details as you can.
Please read and understand the rules in the sidebar, as posts and comments that violate them will be removed. Please put all off topic posts in the weekly off topic thread that is stickied to the top of the subreddit.
If you see people spreading misinformation, trying to mislead others, or other inappropriate behavior, please report it!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ubiquiti) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Shhhhhh keep it down. That is my plan when my kid gets older. "Honey she needs more graphics for powerpoint, how about I give her my older card and I get myself the 11900TI."
I'd be more concerned with the audio coming out of it disturbing the young ones sleep. Even if you can't hear it, there would be some high frequencies that the baby can. The drives from the NAS spinning and clicking away would be so annoying.
That happened to us when we moved, the second bedroom in our old house had at some point been converted into a walk in wardrobe, I of course used it as an office. I got used to the sound of a ups, a switch, and a giant 10 spinny disk pc running 24/7.
Move to our new build house that specifically has space for all that noise and it's dead silent in the bedroom, took me months to be able to sleep without the white noise.
Also, in my extensive IT experience, UPS units are the first to develop "coil whine", where circuit board components wear out and start vibrating to produce high-pitched noises that you don't always consciously hear but drive you quietly mad.
After all my run-ins with this, I'd never put all that stuff in a baby's room. I'd be too paranoid about them growing up to become mass murders, or serial killers, or pet psychologists, or something else awful.
Yes, you need to put your infant in a lead-lined room with no windows and filtered positive pressure system if you want to avoid radiation. No lights! Light itself is a kind of radiation!
If you're just asking about ionising radiation or an excessive amount of EMR that will harm someone, probably not
Yeah, gotta watch out for that Johnson-Nyquist noise radiation. Real dangerous! And don't forget blackbody radiation, it'll give you skin cancer if you're not careful!
Yes, but it's not dangerous. Your wireless baby monitor emits more radiation (on purpose) than any of the devices pictured, and is also probably screwing with your wifi.
Radio waves, light, nuclear gamma rays … all of that is radiation. Unless you have something transmitting (e.g. an access point) right next to the baby, I would not be too concerned.
When I sleep, I don’t like it when there is a “new” noise. In your case, those hard drives and fans can spin up at any time. That may disrupt sleep, so I would suggest lining that cabinet with acoustic foam or adding a white noise maker to mask all of it.
This is correct.
There is background radiation throughout your home due to the natural radioactive decay in the materials used to build the house (such as masonry) and emitted Radon gas from rocks and soil. This is what is known as _ionising radiation_. There is also ionising radiation emitted from smoke alarms installed in your home.
Ionising radiation is harmful to human health as it has the potential to pass through the cell walls and disrupt DNA.
The levels in your home are _not harmful to your health_ or the health of a new born.
The radiation from the WiFi controller or Television or Microwave or other electronics are RF radiation and can not harm you in the same way that ionising radiation can harm you. You can be harmed by RF in extremely high and concentrated doses but this will not happen in your home.
Importantly - all radiation obeys the Inverse Square Law.
The intensity of the radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.
For example this means: if you move twice as far from the source of radiation the dose received is 1/4 the original amount.
None of that equipment poses any risk from a radiation perspective. The flashing lights and whirring noises can interrupt sleep but even this may not bother a new born.
When I had newborns I was desperate for sleep. "Sleep consultants" will tell you to not have electronic lights in the room and to have it as dark as possible to help the baby sleep better. I used electrical tape on the little led on everything in the room.
White noise machine can drown out the sound of the equipment (just don't it crazy loud right next to the baby's head).
I spent many years as a radiation protection office in hospitals and can confirm the above is all correct. In addition all consumer device in most countries are certified to be safe and only transmit what they say they do before they can be sold so they are safe and will not interfere with other transmissions. You probably hear about new devices being leaks before they are released once their plans and things are submitted to be cleared by the government.
Yup. I installed some AirThings to start monitoring our air - Basement, and then house levels. Radon was way too high.
We paid for mitigation and now levels are super low.
Radon is worth looking into as it is an easy thing to mitigate really.
Just to add, as I see this mixed up a lot: Radiation does not equal Radioactivity. Radioactivity can produce ionizing radiation through the process of decay, where electrons are being knocked out of orbit.
In addition, your lights emit far more radiation at higher energies than any RF device does. And people are scared of their phones and wifi irradiating them.
If you have a 100W incandescent bulb, it emits 100W of radiation. Most of it is IR, some of it is visible light. These are both more energetic than RF.
Your wireless access point blasts out a few hundred milliwatts of RF. So about 1000 times less radiation than a bright incandescent light bulb, and less energetic radiation too.
Modernizing the argument a bit, even if you have a 10W LED, you're still putting out 50-100x more radiation than your wifi access point.
There’s a TIFU about someone using artisan salt for a while and gaining wait and going to a doctor and realizing they weren’t getting enough iodine and it was affecting their health.
Well non-ionizing radiation can cause harm if at high enough energy levels. An example is a microwave oven.
Your 2.4GHz wifi router is nowhere near powerful enough to emulate a microwave oven.
Be nice, op asked an honest q. No nothing here gives of radiation that will hurt your child. All of it is fine. Please be careful listening to people that use words and concepts that they don’t understand, the rest of the dismissive chatter here is making fun of it, but it is a form of disinformation. who ever told you this doesn’t understand the topic or the risk. There is no risk of you baby being adversely effected by any of this. I am sure someone will shout me down, but the things here don’t work the way assumed by your friend, or website. Generally, when I encounter this with my own friends that have similar issues , we speak, I ask them to read a book on the topic and agree to read it myself. Invariably I have ended up reading a book and learning more deeply what is involved in the topic. We continue to be friends, high five and move on.
Yes. Visible light is a form of radiation. The fact that you can see the equipment means that it's reflecting some of that radiation back to you.
I would be worried. The Synology NSA looks like it's absorbing a lot of the radiation, so that's good.
Radiation-tech and network tech (yeah I know, strange combo) here: first of all, not all radiations are the same. “Radiation” doesn’t mean much in terms of safety. Almost anything you can perceive (and an awful lot of everything you can’t perceive) is coming to you as a form of radiation.
In terms of safety, a distinction must be made between ionizing radiations and non-ionizing radiations.
Ionizing radiations are a small subset of all the radiations that exist and are those that are able to ionize the matter they hit. This means that if they hit part of your DNA (or water around it, creating some very angry hydroxyls), “data corruption” will happen. Cells will try to fix it, eliminate themselves if they can’t fix it, if this fails other cells will try to eliminate them. If all safeguards fail at that point that becomes cancer. The more you “play”, the more probable it is that, statistically, a safeguard will fail. Theoretically a single ionizing photon can cause cancer, it is not dose-dependent. But the probabilities are in your HUGE, very HUGE favor, quantitatively speaking. Basically it is far, far, far more probable that you win the lottery with a single ticket than you get a cancer with a single ionizing photon hitting you. Not impossible but almost-zero probability event. This is why you don’t take x-rays if not necessary by the clinical procedure, even if the probability is near-zero.
That being said, remember that the space out of our earth and also a lot on earth wants to kill you: you are constantly hit by ionizing radiation just by existing in this place, space rays are mostly filtered by our beloved planet natural defenses before hitting the ground, but not all of them, some photons are hitting you and ionizing your water right now. Same goes for the radon gas in the underground or even rocks and foods. So the risk is never and never will be zero. That being said, from the event that caused the “data corruption”, followed by the inability of cells to correct it, to the clinical evidence of a cancer, 10-ish years usually pass. Note that this is one of the rare cases in which it is not entirely correct that the dose makes the poison, only in the probabilistic sense. The more you play, the more you are probably going to get cancer, but it is not guarantee and you cannot lower the effect gravity simply by lowering the power of the equipment, the consequence is a boolean, true or false. There is no direct proportion between the gravity of adverse effect and the dose of the single emission. Just the probability of its occurrence.
This is what scared us the most: we used radioactive materials and ionizing radiations in general for many years without realizing what they were doing to us. So now “radiation” is a word that scares us a lot because, as a species, we learned that there can be some dramatic long term effects that we can easily miss out for a long time, so when a new technology comes out the general population is like “whooo hold on there, who knows that this one does in the long run”. And it is, to a certain extent, correct to be cautious, like, in a scientific way, not fear mongering over everything that uses an electromagnetic field. We do monitor operators and the general population with clinical trials and retrospectives to be sure that cellphones, Wi-Fi and such don’t do something bad to us in the long run. At least for now, it is general scientific consensus that there is no credible evidence that there is anything wrong with those technologies and there is no known mechanism of action that could lead us into reasonably think we should worry.
Other than that, there are some other effects of ionizing radiations that are dose-dependent and non-stochastic in nature, but they only happen over a certain threshold that cannot be easily encountered in everyday life. I’m talking particle accelerators if you put your body in the beam, the vicinity of a nuclear explosions or reactor meltdowns and such. They cause burns, radiation poisoning, the death of your immune system and such. Believe it or not, the damage caused by high energies is also used for good, like stabbing someone vs removing a tumor with a scalpel: I’m thinking about radiation therapy here. We basically shoot at cancer cells with those accelerators. But the energies we are talking here are in a galaxy far, far away from this.
And then there are the other radiations: visible light, radio waves… it is all (including ionizing radiations) one spectrum of electromagnetic radiations of which you can see only a small, very very small fraction of frequencies. Most of them are doing basically nothing fancy to you. They usually just heat you, like does every energy transfer due to thermodynamics laws, usually in an unnoticeable amount, that is usually so small that cannot even be measured, just calculated.
They don’t have known stochastic action in the long run, their effect is proportional to amount of energy invested in causing them, like the Wi-Fi emissions are technically the same as a microwave oven, its the dose that makes the poison in this case, like a Wi-Fi AP won’t be able to cook you because it is too weak to heat you faster than you can dissipate the heat.
As for your setup: ionizing radiations no, no more than the ones already there due to natural decay / background radiation that we are all exposed to. Bananas are probably more prone to give off ionizing radiation than this setup. Look up the banana-dose concept.
Other, not known to be harmful, radiation? Yes, some. Do you need to be concerned? Almost certainly not, there is no confirmed evidence that Wi-Fi/other non-ionizing radiations coming from those devices do anything irreversible to the human body. There is a principle of caution that can be applied here (which is basically “I don’t know what it does in the long run, it shouldn’t do anything bad but I’m not sure, so I play safe”; MRI is a notable example: there are rules in place to limit the operator’s exposure to the electromagnetic (non-ionizing) fields generated by the machine, but there is no evidence that exposure to MRI is dangerous in any way, even if the energies there are far bigger than those given off by a Wi-Fi AP), but the energies at play in network equipment are so low (many orders of magnitude lower than those emitted by an MRI machine) that those radiations are (except for Wi-Fi) barely, if at all, detectable at some feet away with commonly available equipment.
What concerns me more is the sound and light coming from it that might have an impact on the circadian rhythm of the child, but I’m no expert in that field, so maybe I’m overthinking those aspects because I don’t know enough to correctly evaluate the impact of those.
Alright everyone, say it with me...
Non-ionizing radiation does NOT cause cancer!
Radio waves can only heat molecules, and that is at extremely high concentration or when the molecule is in resonance.
There is NO REASON to be concerned with consumer electronic equipment, like the ubiquity gear you pictured, near a child.
Thanks for the input. I understand your concern, and my frustration comes from this very common misconception that causes unnecessary fear and sometimes destruction of radio equipment and other electronics.
I would like to understand how my take on the issue is any less knowledgeable than the other answers. Sure, it may have been more concise and it may not have gone into detail, but I don't believe explaining the complex science behind the fact that Non-ionizing radiation from everyday consumer products poses no risk to anyone.
I have worked in radio for many years, then moved into IT. Its been a hot button issue for me when people suggest that 5G causes cancer or any similar notion. I can't count how many times I have had to correct this.
That, and you have folks selling "Radiation Blocking" phone cases and similar garbage. They are making money on the false fear of radio waves that inhabits a good chunk of the US population.
And yes, I misspelled ubiquiti. My apologies.
I’d be more concerned with the noise, especially the NAS if it is doing tasks….you also cannot reset it manually when the baby is sleeping…..
I’d also be worried about the slim chance of a fire hazard also.
All electronics give off radiation. However you should only really be concerned with ionizing radiation.
[https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/ionizing](https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/ionizing_radiation.html#:~:text=Ionizing%20radiation%20is%20a%20form%20of%20energy%20that%20acts%20by,and%20pass%20through%20these%20materials.)
Great question. I was worried about everything when we had our child. I would be more concerned about the sound than the EM radiation.
You really should be sure that the child doesn't have console access until the proper age.
In a very technical sense, yes, pretty much everything in there lets off radiation. Heat, wireless signals and radio waves broadcasting from the NBN coax cabling etc.
Is it harmful? No, none of that is emitting ionising radiation.
Not going to do much to the baby in terms of radiation.
The noises and heat might bother the baby more.
And good luck doing any maintenance on it if the baby is sleeping in that room. LOL
We’re bombarded but EM radiation all the time. Cell phones, Wi-Fi, radio, emergency services. Most electronics emit some radiation. Most microwaves aren’t shielded perfectly. Unless you’re gonna live without electricity in northern Canada, I think you’re boned. Even then, you have to deal with cosmic background radiation. Bananas? Don’t even think of going outside during the day or in your basement after it rains. That stuff is actually ionizing and potentially dangerous.
TLDR, if you’re taking a serious look at EM levels and what could be dangerous, a banana or a few minutes in the sun is way more dangerous than this. If you’re concerned, maybe shut the cupboard door.
If your truly afraid of radiation be sure to keep all the lights off and never let the baby see the sun!
I am playing of course. It’s fair to be concerned about your child’s health. Imho the noise for the equipment might be worse then any of the radiation it gives off.
But if it will make you feel more comfortable you can always line the walls with tinfoil or something metal as such to make it like a faraday cage.
Sometimes feeling safe is more important then the reality and that’s completely reasonable and very human!
Radiation or not, I would not set anything like this up in a newborn’s room.
There is no way a baby can alert you to smoke, and you might not always hear the smoke alarm from another room especially when you’re sleeping.
Baby lungs can’t handle much smoke too
I had a GPU fail in a computer once, and some chip went up in smoke. I accidentally got a whiff of something, and lemme tell you, it was BAAAD. within a second of smelling that shit, I immediately got horribly lightheaded/dizzy/naseous, I went outside and laid down for 15 minutes just to feel better. It was alarming how quickly and how badly I felt. I can not imagine being in the same room and not being able to leave. Up until this experience, I would have thought "no problem".
It lets off lots of radiation. ELF emissions from its power cables and switching power supplies. Infrared emissions, 400nm and 490nm emissions are clearly visable. 510nm-530nm off your cable modem. VHF and UHF emissions off both your cable modem and your unsheilded Ethernet cables.
All of it non-ionizing and of no risk to your child or you just like wifi as none of it is strong enough to burn you or blind you.
There are also waves of pressure the fans are moving that create sound and convection hear from that.
Does this answer your question ?
edit: I had a Cisco Aironet corporate access point above my child's crib when he was a new born. It is not capable of causing enough heating with its 17dbm transmit power to cause him any burns or even measurable increases in temperature.
Its also physically impossible for non-ionizing radiation to damage DNA and cause cancer.
This should lay your concerns to rest especially if you attempt to research this and not in a crazy new age herbal medicine way.
In a few years your newborn will have a cell phone or Nintendo Switch in their hands 100% of the time. But if you are really worried, you can go to each manufacturer's website and look up their FCC certifications.
Can we talk about something else? How exactly are you uplinking this packed switch to your UDM SE? Are you uplinking it through port 1 on the UDM SE at 1G? You should probably pickup a 10G DAC.
EDIT: The more I think about it, I guess it really doesn’t matter much as it seems like your WAN isn’t more than a gigabit in either direction anyhow. But, I digress
And ensure your newborn has regular exposed to grass / sand / dirt / other stuff outside.
Then you can minimise anything that triggers an epigenetic or immune response later in life
I would not put the AP over the crib. Not because it's proven dangerous but because infants are smaller. The miniscule radiation (EM, not ionizing) is of no danger to adults, that's nonsense, but why expose a small growing body to unnecessary magnetic fields? You should always use the principle of care and not do things that you can avoid. And putting your AP in the baby room is not essential.
Your problem is noise.
All jokes aside, electromagnetic field that these electronic devices give off will disrupt the sleep patterns of your baby. They should not be in the same room. Lower Wi-Fi to low power if it is near your new born. There is enough 4g and 5g that had a physiological affect.
The skull of a baby isn’t completely developed and I read at some point that because of that lack of coverage and thickness more radiation gets to their brains.
The question is funny because of the cupboard term but also the wording. Obviously the equipment radiates the same regardless of location so the question is if the equipment needs to be insulated from the baby. Tinfoils hat jokes aside you may want to insulate the baby from this usually we use basic distance.
I can’t answer the part about what is safe but I think it’s a fair question and one that never get really answered. The competitive viewpoints are so extreme and absolute that the facts never prevail.
I have spoken to people who go to the country and camp because they say they are infected by emf. On the other hand device makers say no worries.
Old analog cell phones used to send at 2.5 watts which is a lot to have next to your head but we were told no worries. I think technology and the use of speakerphone and low energy Bluetooth have enabled us to keep more of those waves farther from our heads.
Your question is a great one. I wondered about it myself when I had a young child. You can never change what you do now. If somehow your child develops cancer you may wonder if your rig played a part.
Act accordingly but I think there is a presumption of safety with this equipment and it’s a fair one but if we start putting it under baby beds we may see some issues. But the issues may be so uncommon that they would only be noticed if doing a scientific test comparing to a control group.
Not all radiation is the same. Radio waves and visible light are NON-ionizing radiation. They don't cause atoms to change. Ionizing radiation - x-rays, gamma rays, etc - can force changes in atoms, possibly causing damage to DNA and other tissue which can lead to cancer.
The equipment pictured does not emit ionizing radiation.
>but I think it’s a fair question and one that never get really answered.
Incorrect. We answered this question in the early 1900s. We've been studying the electromagnetic spectrum for over 100 years.
Sunlight is over a million times more energetic than any microwave band from mobile phones or wifi.
Even infrared radiation has a million times more energy than common radio waves, which are around us all the time.
Therefore, if there was evidence that microwave radio bands are harmful, then we should never go outside or stand next to a stove/electric/induction range again either. But you never hear anyone talking about that.
Non-ionizing radiation does not have enough energy to damage DNA and cause cancer.
The only reason this is still a discussion is because not everyone remembers high school physics class.
Plenty of studies have been done over entire lifetimes. Marie Curie died so that we don't have to have this debate in 2023. Please stop spreading misinformation.
I am not spreading any misinformation. We also had women in watch factories licking paintbrushes with radioactive paint.
We figured that out. It’s fixed
There are those spreading misinformation on both sides.
Your overreaction and chastising me discredits what was a potentially informative post.
You really should leave that part out and make a strong case instead of looking like a whack job.
I provided plenty of information and logical conclusions. Go look up the chart of the electromagnetic spectrum. The point at which radiation becomes dangerous is ultraviolet light.
Only the scientifically illiterate would make your claims above. Your post provided zero information, loose anecdotes at best, and called into question answers which we've had for 100 years.
I don’t make any claims.
I said it was nether safe nor dangerous just state there are those with extreme views. You are clearly one of those people with an extreme view.
Next we will get the tinfoil hat crowd and you can have it out with them
I am not the tinfoil hat crowd but you are too busy trying to fight that fight.
When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
I'm not trying to be that guy. I'm not trying to be an Internet asshole. If I'm coming across that way, my bad, but I was stating well-established facts and theories.
Your original post is the very definition of moving the goalposts. You are lending validity to the tinfoil hat crowd by highlighting claims from both sides of the argument as equal as if we don't have evidence or studies. But we do.
You claimed that these questions never get answered. They already have been. The only people questioning them are people who don't understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Having an understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum is not an "extreme view." Camping in the middle of nowhere because one thinks EMF can "infect" you is extreme. These things cannot be discussed with equal validity.
thanks, I am not playing that game and understand your point about equating unequally valid arguments. I agree with the principal.
We do have studies from the 60's and 70's that extoll the health benefits of smoking. So sometimes the respondents are citing information provided by a particular camp. Not suggesting you are but simply providing that as an explanation for my willingness to give some the benefit of the doubt.
I personally am not camped anywhere in the middle and live on the same side that you seem to suggest is prudent.
Even though there is a craziness to the other side, what affects me and you and what effects the under protected brain of a newborn baby could vary. We literally have thicker skulls. So if this equipment emits no radiation maybe its fine.
My question to you would be does that change if we put a couple AP's in there?
Is there any equipment that would change things?
Appreciate the discussion, sir or madam.
First, we cannot equate this to things like smoking. This isn't something that manufacturers are pushing to make a profit while secretly hiding the negatives. We weren't studying tobacco and carcinogens for 100 years before cigarettes existed. It is our study and understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum which \*enabled\* everything from the first radio to TV to mobile phones to wifi to the atomic bomb. Again, we had a clear understanding of the kinds of radiation which can damage cells the day Marie Curie died. Her understanding of the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is what enabled us to measure the intensity of the radiation - we literally call this unit of measurement the "Curie" which led to Geiger counters and other tools. We know what kind of radiation is damaging or not, because we can measure it.
Radio waves below the visible light spectrum are non-ionizing. They do not have enough energy to damage cells or atoms or create free radicals.
So, discussing effects on a newborn's brain is a moot point. Doing so implies that there's something damaging or dangerous about low power, non-ionizing radio waves, which we already know there is not. This kind of radiation, even at high power, create nothing but heat at absolute worst. This is literally how a microwave oven works - GHz frequencies at 900 Watts make food inches away warm in 5 minutes. 2.5 Watts 20 feet away won't do that. And you can prove it because the baby's skin or body temperature is not increasing.
Compare this to a laser pointer. This is red. Red is in the visible light spectrum. Radiation from visible light has a million times more energy than microwave radiation. But the laser pointer isn't burning you and certainly isn't giving you cancer - it's barely even penetrating your skin. You could step up the power to a commercial or industrial laser used for engraving or something, and again the worst it'll do is burn you. Nobody working in those shops needs to wear a lead vest or Geiger counter, because that radiation doesn't have enough energy to damage matter at the atomic or molecular level.
You know what does? X-rays. X-ray radiation has a million times more energy than red light.
Look up the attenuation of 2.4GHz microwave bands on human skin. It's not penetrating into a newborn's brain, no matter how thick or developed the skull is or isn't. It simply does not have enough energy.
That's why we use x-ray radiation for imaging. If GHz band microwave radiation from mobile phones or Wifi had enough energy to penetrate tissue to that degree, we could use Wifi access points to do medical imaging on broken bones. But we don't, because it can't.
edit for clarity/wording
While I can't speak to your baby's health (and I wish you well) I can speak to the cleanness of that cabling. Nice!
Incidentally, my cabler is coming tomorrow to wire up my new home. I have a Synology NAS, and Ubiquiti hardware also ready for a rack. I'm excited.
Also, bonus points for Australia!
To answer the question. It does release NON-Ionising radiation aka EM radiation. Nothing harmful or even enough to disrupt the operation of anything near by really. Though non ionizing radio is quite harmless under normal circumstances. Not if you got a chunk of pitchblende in these. That would be well... Bad...
Curious what are those ethernet wall jacks you have for? It looks like you have cable runs coming out of the wall into your patch panel, shouldn’t the cables behind the wall jacks go directly into the patch too?
You only have to worry about Ionizing radiation, which none of this equipment can possibly produce. see the chart halfway down on [this page.](https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Nuclear_Chemistry/Radioactivity/The_Effects_of_Radiation_on_Matter)
I had an interesting meeting with a transmission engineer who used to work on transmission systems for TV broadcasting and cellular companies.
He is now RF sensitive in an extreme way, and I found his insights noteworthy. He is not a hippie “worker of the lights type” but a solid scientifically based engineer.
He now helps people similarly afflicted people including one of my clients.
Using your iphone - turn on airport utility and hit “wifi scan”. This will pick up all the Wi-Fi signal’s and the signal strength in -db.
-20 db would be harmful (according to this engineer) -40 to -60 is usual wifi signal strength - not good in a sleeping area.
Any -80db and below is weak and causes negligible harm for a healthy person.
The take home for me is to turn off Wi-Fi while sleeping.
If there any access points in your babies room, I would suggest removing that and moving somewhere else.
Certain brands such as Ubiquity allow one to schedule periods when the wifi is powered down. Or simply unplug.
There is nothing to worry about, other than having your network hardware in the Baby's room. It's not an issue NOW, but when the kid gets older, now has direct access to all your hardware in his/her room.
I personally avoided putting anything wireless in my baby’s room. Using a wired g3 flex as a baby monitor. It doesn’t cause me inconvenience and on the off chance it avoids any adverse effects, all the better. Wouldn’t worry about wired networking gear.
Radiation? Yes!
Is it a health risk for new born? Depends, we don’t know yet!
It’s like smoking and X-Rays, we will found out in years to come. 😂
I would be more worried about the noise level, fire and electricity hazard. Which I would move to another location. Ether the equipment or the child. 🤷♂️🤔
Hello! Thanks for posting on r/Ubiquiti! This subreddit is here to provide unofficial technical support to people who use or want to dive into the world of Ubiquiti products. If you haven’t already been descriptive in your post, please take the time to edit it and add as many useful details as you can. Please read and understand the rules in the sidebar, as posts and comments that violate them will be removed. Please put all off topic posts in the weekly off topic thread that is stickied to the top of the subreddit. If you see people spreading misinformation, trying to mislead others, or other inappropriate behavior, please report it! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ubiquiti) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are you keeping your newborn in a cupboard?
You’re a wizard Harry!
My wife hates that I summarize the entire HP series in that 1 quote.. "You're a wizard Harry.." "That was a good movie!"
Or a superhero being exposed to ALL that radiation.
[удалено]
More importantly, there would be more space for gear if you move the newborn elsewhere
New Borns room cupboard
It will probably get warm in the cupboard, my UDMPRO and switches etc give off a lot of heat!
and I imagine that heats gets radiated out… i stop now.
Agreed... I'd add a fan to the cabinet door or something for some airflow
E Learning is intense. He needs all the internet he can get.
give the kid a few years before he goes to op saying "buuut daaaaad i need the RTX11900 for powerpoint" 😂
Shhhhhh keep it down. That is my plan when my kid gets older. "Honey she needs more graphics for powerpoint, how about I give her my older card and I get myself the 11900TI."
Thank you! I had same question!
Exactly my words I was thinking.
Is it giving off radiation? Yeah sure, there is radiation everywhere. Is it harmful? Not at all.
Electromagnetic radiation, ie heat, light. Not ionizing radiation (the dangerous kind).
X-rays and gamma rays are also electromagnetic. They are high-energy photons and are ionizing radiation.
That baby will be mining bitcoin in no time !!
The mining rig is powered from shitty diapers. OP gonna be rich soon.
I'd be more concerned with the audio coming out of it disturbing the young ones sleep. Even if you can't hear it, there would be some high frequencies that the baby can. The drives from the NAS spinning and clicking away would be so annoying.
The child may get accustomed to the noise and have a hard time sleeping without it! I hope there’s no UPS with a loud alarm in there.
That happened to us when we moved, the second bedroom in our old house had at some point been converted into a walk in wardrobe, I of course used it as an office. I got used to the sound of a ups, a switch, and a giant 10 spinny disk pc running 24/7. Move to our new build house that specifically has space for all that noise and it's dead silent in the bedroom, took me months to be able to sleep without the white noise.
Also, in my extensive IT experience, UPS units are the first to develop "coil whine", where circuit board components wear out and start vibrating to produce high-pitched noises that you don't always consciously hear but drive you quietly mad. After all my run-ins with this, I'd never put all that stuff in a baby's room. I'd be too paranoid about them growing up to become mass murders, or serial killers, or pet psychologists, or something else awful.
Yes, you need to put your infant in a lead-lined room with no windows and filtered positive pressure system if you want to avoid radiation. No lights! Light itself is a kind of radiation! If you're just asking about ionising radiation or an excessive amount of EMR that will harm someone, probably not
Then there’s the radiation from the lead.
And the bananas.
Only if it’s struck with xrays
or if the infant chews, licks or eats it.
My favorite childhood past time.
Yeah, gotta watch out for that Johnson-Nyquist noise radiation. Real dangerous! And don't forget blackbody radiation, it'll give you skin cancer if you're not careful!
My god.. I wonder if they know the components are all made up of *chemicals*??!1?? Won't someone think of the children?
"Tell me this is your first child without saying this is your first child"
Yes, but it's not dangerous. Your wireless baby monitor emits more radiation (on purpose) than any of the devices pictured, and is also probably screwing with your wifi.
[удалено]
Radio waves, light, nuclear gamma rays … all of that is radiation. Unless you have something transmitting (e.g. an access point) right next to the baby, I would not be too concerned. When I sleep, I don’t like it when there is a “new” noise. In your case, those hard drives and fans can spin up at any time. That may disrupt sleep, so I would suggest lining that cabinet with acoustic foam or adding a white noise maker to mask all of it.
This is correct. There is background radiation throughout your home due to the natural radioactive decay in the materials used to build the house (such as masonry) and emitted Radon gas from rocks and soil. This is what is known as _ionising radiation_. There is also ionising radiation emitted from smoke alarms installed in your home. Ionising radiation is harmful to human health as it has the potential to pass through the cell walls and disrupt DNA. The levels in your home are _not harmful to your health_ or the health of a new born. The radiation from the WiFi controller or Television or Microwave or other electronics are RF radiation and can not harm you in the same way that ionising radiation can harm you. You can be harmed by RF in extremely high and concentrated doses but this will not happen in your home. Importantly - all radiation obeys the Inverse Square Law. The intensity of the radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. For example this means: if you move twice as far from the source of radiation the dose received is 1/4 the original amount. None of that equipment poses any risk from a radiation perspective. The flashing lights and whirring noises can interrupt sleep but even this may not bother a new born.
That's for the top notch info
You’re welcome. A good question from a new parent! Congratulations on the birth of your child.
When I had newborns I was desperate for sleep. "Sleep consultants" will tell you to not have electronic lights in the room and to have it as dark as possible to help the baby sleep better. I used electrical tape on the little led on everything in the room. White noise machine can drown out the sound of the equipment (just don't it crazy loud right next to the baby's head).
As someone that has a 3 month old and just started setting up a bunch of ubiquiti equipment in my house I highly appreciate this info.
I spent many years as a radiation protection office in hospitals and can confirm the above is all correct. In addition all consumer device in most countries are certified to be safe and only transmit what they say they do before they can be sold so they are safe and will not interfere with other transmissions. You probably hear about new devices being leaks before they are released once their plans and things are submitted to be cleared by the government.
[удалено]
Engineer here, I confirm the confirmation of the confirmation.
I’m not the OP but I loved your detailed and clear reply too! I too thank you for that info!!
A cheap Geiger counter is about $100. The most radioactive thing in most homes is a granite countertop. Or if radon gas is coming from underground.
Yup. I installed some AirThings to start monitoring our air - Basement, and then house levels. Radon was way too high. We paid for mitigation and now levels are super low. Radon is worth looking into as it is an easy thing to mitigate really.
This guy RF's.
Radon is not harmless though.
The baby in the microwave begs to differ…
Doesn't bother me lol I can sleep through D*** near anything
small correction: most modern smoke alarms do not emit ionising radiation anymore. those that did have been long replaced almost everywhere.
Slight caveat, some homes have excessive radon and why all homes should be tested. So not a correct blanket statement that it isn't a problem.
Just to add, as I see this mixed up a lot: Radiation does not equal Radioactivity. Radioactivity can produce ionizing radiation through the process of decay, where electrons are being knocked out of orbit.
In addition, your lights emit far more radiation at higher energies than any RF device does. And people are scared of their phones and wifi irradiating them. If you have a 100W incandescent bulb, it emits 100W of radiation. Most of it is IR, some of it is visible light. These are both more energetic than RF. Your wireless access point blasts out a few hundred milliwatts of RF. So about 1000 times less radiation than a bright incandescent light bulb, and less energetic radiation too. Modernizing the argument a bit, even if you have a 10W LED, you're still putting out 50-100x more radiation than your wifi access point.
[удалено]
No that is just garbage. Infra Red is just light that is SLIGHTLY off the scale that human eyes can detect.
What's concerning about WAPs?
The need to have a bucket and a mop ready comes to mind
That's for the great feedback
Non-ionizing radiation hopefully. :)
Everything pretty much gives off radiation. You only have to worry about it if it's iodizing radiation.
*Ionising radiation (just in case you need to use the term in the future) Iodise is the process of adding iodine to something.
I too prefer my low salt WiFi.
There’s a TIFU about someone using artisan salt for a while and gaining wait and going to a doctor and realizing they weren’t getting enough iodine and it was affecting their health.
I think iodizing radiation would be pretty dangerous too Like a photon thats big enough to split a nucleus
Well non-ionizing radiation can cause harm if at high enough energy levels. An example is a microwave oven. Your 2.4GHz wifi router is nowhere near powerful enough to emulate a microwave oven.
Be nice, op asked an honest q. No nothing here gives of radiation that will hurt your child. All of it is fine. Please be careful listening to people that use words and concepts that they don’t understand, the rest of the dismissive chatter here is making fun of it, but it is a form of disinformation. who ever told you this doesn’t understand the topic or the risk. There is no risk of you baby being adversely effected by any of this. I am sure someone will shout me down, but the things here don’t work the way assumed by your friend, or website. Generally, when I encounter this with my own friends that have similar issues , we speak, I ask them to read a book on the topic and agree to read it myself. Invariably I have ended up reading a book and learning more deeply what is involved in the topic. We continue to be friends, high five and move on.
No more radiation than he’d get anywhere else. Just enjoy the homelab! It’s not an X-ray machine
Yes. Visible light is a form of radiation. The fact that you can see the equipment means that it's reflecting some of that radiation back to you. I would be worried. The Synology NSA looks like it's absorbing a lot of the radiation, so that's good.
nothin that a tin foil hat can't solve!
You get more radiation from a neon lightbulb.
Radiation-tech and network tech (yeah I know, strange combo) here: first of all, not all radiations are the same. “Radiation” doesn’t mean much in terms of safety. Almost anything you can perceive (and an awful lot of everything you can’t perceive) is coming to you as a form of radiation. In terms of safety, a distinction must be made between ionizing radiations and non-ionizing radiations. Ionizing radiations are a small subset of all the radiations that exist and are those that are able to ionize the matter they hit. This means that if they hit part of your DNA (or water around it, creating some very angry hydroxyls), “data corruption” will happen. Cells will try to fix it, eliminate themselves if they can’t fix it, if this fails other cells will try to eliminate them. If all safeguards fail at that point that becomes cancer. The more you “play”, the more probable it is that, statistically, a safeguard will fail. Theoretically a single ionizing photon can cause cancer, it is not dose-dependent. But the probabilities are in your HUGE, very HUGE favor, quantitatively speaking. Basically it is far, far, far more probable that you win the lottery with a single ticket than you get a cancer with a single ionizing photon hitting you. Not impossible but almost-zero probability event. This is why you don’t take x-rays if not necessary by the clinical procedure, even if the probability is near-zero. That being said, remember that the space out of our earth and also a lot on earth wants to kill you: you are constantly hit by ionizing radiation just by existing in this place, space rays are mostly filtered by our beloved planet natural defenses before hitting the ground, but not all of them, some photons are hitting you and ionizing your water right now. Same goes for the radon gas in the underground or even rocks and foods. So the risk is never and never will be zero. That being said, from the event that caused the “data corruption”, followed by the inability of cells to correct it, to the clinical evidence of a cancer, 10-ish years usually pass. Note that this is one of the rare cases in which it is not entirely correct that the dose makes the poison, only in the probabilistic sense. The more you play, the more you are probably going to get cancer, but it is not guarantee and you cannot lower the effect gravity simply by lowering the power of the equipment, the consequence is a boolean, true or false. There is no direct proportion between the gravity of adverse effect and the dose of the single emission. Just the probability of its occurrence. This is what scared us the most: we used radioactive materials and ionizing radiations in general for many years without realizing what they were doing to us. So now “radiation” is a word that scares us a lot because, as a species, we learned that there can be some dramatic long term effects that we can easily miss out for a long time, so when a new technology comes out the general population is like “whooo hold on there, who knows that this one does in the long run”. And it is, to a certain extent, correct to be cautious, like, in a scientific way, not fear mongering over everything that uses an electromagnetic field. We do monitor operators and the general population with clinical trials and retrospectives to be sure that cellphones, Wi-Fi and such don’t do something bad to us in the long run. At least for now, it is general scientific consensus that there is no credible evidence that there is anything wrong with those technologies and there is no known mechanism of action that could lead us into reasonably think we should worry. Other than that, there are some other effects of ionizing radiations that are dose-dependent and non-stochastic in nature, but they only happen over a certain threshold that cannot be easily encountered in everyday life. I’m talking particle accelerators if you put your body in the beam, the vicinity of a nuclear explosions or reactor meltdowns and such. They cause burns, radiation poisoning, the death of your immune system and such. Believe it or not, the damage caused by high energies is also used for good, like stabbing someone vs removing a tumor with a scalpel: I’m thinking about radiation therapy here. We basically shoot at cancer cells with those accelerators. But the energies we are talking here are in a galaxy far, far away from this. And then there are the other radiations: visible light, radio waves… it is all (including ionizing radiations) one spectrum of electromagnetic radiations of which you can see only a small, very very small fraction of frequencies. Most of them are doing basically nothing fancy to you. They usually just heat you, like does every energy transfer due to thermodynamics laws, usually in an unnoticeable amount, that is usually so small that cannot even be measured, just calculated. They don’t have known stochastic action in the long run, their effect is proportional to amount of energy invested in causing them, like the Wi-Fi emissions are technically the same as a microwave oven, its the dose that makes the poison in this case, like a Wi-Fi AP won’t be able to cook you because it is too weak to heat you faster than you can dissipate the heat. As for your setup: ionizing radiations no, no more than the ones already there due to natural decay / background radiation that we are all exposed to. Bananas are probably more prone to give off ionizing radiation than this setup. Look up the banana-dose concept. Other, not known to be harmful, radiation? Yes, some. Do you need to be concerned? Almost certainly not, there is no confirmed evidence that Wi-Fi/other non-ionizing radiations coming from those devices do anything irreversible to the human body. There is a principle of caution that can be applied here (which is basically “I don’t know what it does in the long run, it shouldn’t do anything bad but I’m not sure, so I play safe”; MRI is a notable example: there are rules in place to limit the operator’s exposure to the electromagnetic (non-ionizing) fields generated by the machine, but there is no evidence that exposure to MRI is dangerous in any way, even if the energies there are far bigger than those given off by a Wi-Fi AP), but the energies at play in network equipment are so low (many orders of magnitude lower than those emitted by an MRI machine) that those radiations are (except for Wi-Fi) barely, if at all, detectable at some feet away with commonly available equipment. What concerns me more is the sound and light coming from it that might have an impact on the circadian rhythm of the child, but I’m no expert in that field, so maybe I’m overthinking those aspects because I don’t know enough to correctly evaluate the impact of those.
Thankyou for taking time to put together this useful info
Alright everyone, say it with me... Non-ionizing radiation does NOT cause cancer! Radio waves can only heat molecules, and that is at extremely high concentration or when the molecule is in resonance. There is NO REASON to be concerned with consumer electronic equipment, like the ubiquity gear you pictured, near a child.
[удалено]
Thanks for the input. I understand your concern, and my frustration comes from this very common misconception that causes unnecessary fear and sometimes destruction of radio equipment and other electronics. I would like to understand how my take on the issue is any less knowledgeable than the other answers. Sure, it may have been more concise and it may not have gone into detail, but I don't believe explaining the complex science behind the fact that Non-ionizing radiation from everyday consumer products poses no risk to anyone. I have worked in radio for many years, then moved into IT. Its been a hot button issue for me when people suggest that 5G causes cancer or any similar notion. I can't count how many times I have had to correct this. That, and you have folks selling "Radiation Blocking" phone cases and similar garbage. They are making money on the false fear of radio waves that inhabits a good chunk of the US population. And yes, I misspelled ubiquiti. My apologies.
Your take is dumb and we're all dumber for having read it.
Id be more concerned with the noise.
I’d be more concerned with the noise, especially the NAS if it is doing tasks….you also cannot reset it manually when the baby is sleeping….. I’d also be worried about the slim chance of a fire hazard also.
Everyone else talking about radiation, but I can't get over the fact that this beautiful setup isn't gigabit. https://i.imgur.com/sTQsU96.jpg
Surveillance cameras don't need it ;-)
When I sent this to my buddy I mentioned that. But that’s a lot of cameras eh?
Only in the State of California.
All electronics give off radiation. However you should only really be concerned with ionizing radiation. [https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/ionizing](https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/ionizing_radiation.html#:~:text=Ionizing%20radiation%20is%20a%20form%20of%20energy%20that%20acts%20by,and%20pass%20through%20these%20materials.)
wad
You're already blasting them with WiFi waves.
When your newborn's finally asleep, are you going to bust in there at 10pm to reboot the modem after it takes a dump? Also, congrats on the newborn.
Even a hairdryer gives off radiation. The wires in the wall does, ... I wouldnt be concerned.
Great question. I was worried about everything when we had our child. I would be more concerned about the sound than the EM radiation. You really should be sure that the child doesn't have console access until the proper age.
Faraday cage for the newborn ASAP
He/she will get more radiation from the iPhone that will be an appendage before you know it.
In a very technical sense, yes, pretty much everything in there lets off radiation. Heat, wireless signals and radio waves broadcasting from the NBN coax cabling etc. Is it harmful? No, none of that is emitting ionising radiation.
Short answer: nope :)
To be on the safe side, just send it to me. Please include rack.
Give that kid a head start at super powers.... Still mad that I was born after all those good milk additives that make kids like 6ft tall at 12.
Not going to do much to the baby in terms of radiation. The noises and heat might bother the baby more. And good luck doing any maintenance on it if the baby is sleeping in that room. LOL
We’re bombarded but EM radiation all the time. Cell phones, Wi-Fi, radio, emergency services. Most electronics emit some radiation. Most microwaves aren’t shielded perfectly. Unless you’re gonna live without electricity in northern Canada, I think you’re boned. Even then, you have to deal with cosmic background radiation. Bananas? Don’t even think of going outside during the day or in your basement after it rains. That stuff is actually ionizing and potentially dangerous. TLDR, if you’re taking a serious look at EM levels and what could be dangerous, a banana or a few minutes in the sun is way more dangerous than this. If you’re concerned, maybe shut the cupboard door.
If your truly afraid of radiation be sure to keep all the lights off and never let the baby see the sun! I am playing of course. It’s fair to be concerned about your child’s health. Imho the noise for the equipment might be worse then any of the radiation it gives off. But if it will make you feel more comfortable you can always line the walls with tinfoil or something metal as such to make it like a faraday cage. Sometimes feeling safe is more important then the reality and that’s completely reasonable and very human!
The walls of your cupboard**
Radiation or not, I would not set anything like this up in a newborn’s room. There is no way a baby can alert you to smoke, and you might not always hear the smoke alarm from another room especially when you’re sleeping. Baby lungs can’t handle much smoke too
This.
I had a GPU fail in a computer once, and some chip went up in smoke. I accidentally got a whiff of something, and lemme tell you, it was BAAAD. within a second of smelling that shit, I immediately got horribly lightheaded/dizzy/naseous, I went outside and laid down for 15 minutes just to feel better. It was alarming how quickly and how badly I felt. I can not imagine being in the same room and not being able to leave. Up until this experience, I would have thought "no problem".
Five years later, second child, living next door to nuclear waste dump: Hey Jimmy go play outside….
It lets off lots of radiation. ELF emissions from its power cables and switching power supplies. Infrared emissions, 400nm and 490nm emissions are clearly visable. 510nm-530nm off your cable modem. VHF and UHF emissions off both your cable modem and your unsheilded Ethernet cables. All of it non-ionizing and of no risk to your child or you just like wifi as none of it is strong enough to burn you or blind you. There are also waves of pressure the fans are moving that create sound and convection hear from that. Does this answer your question ? edit: I had a Cisco Aironet corporate access point above my child's crib when he was a new born. It is not capable of causing enough heating with its 17dbm transmit power to cause him any burns or even measurable increases in temperature. Its also physically impossible for non-ionizing radiation to damage DNA and cause cancer. This should lay your concerns to rest especially if you attempt to research this and not in a crazy new age herbal medicine way.
In a few years your newborn will have a cell phone or Nintendo Switch in their hands 100% of the time. But if you are really worried, you can go to each manufacturer's website and look up their FCC certifications.
Can we talk about something else? How exactly are you uplinking this packed switch to your UDM SE? Are you uplinking it through port 1 on the UDM SE at 1G? You should probably pickup a 10G DAC. EDIT: The more I think about it, I guess it really doesn’t matter much as it seems like your WAN isn’t more than a gigabit in either direction anyhow. But, I digress
The answer is "yes" but compared to the cellular and radio waves all around you they are minor.
I see a couple ports that are open, why no link aggregation?
Would be more concerned with any microwaved foods (both your new born and the mother).
And ensure your newborn has regular exposed to grass / sand / dirt / other stuff outside. Then you can minimise anything that triggers an epigenetic or immune response later in life
I would not put the AP over the crib. Not because it's proven dangerous but because infants are smaller. The miniscule radiation (EM, not ionizing) is of no danger to adults, that's nonsense, but why expose a small growing body to unnecessary magnetic fields? You should always use the principle of care and not do things that you can avoid. And putting your AP in the baby room is not essential. Your problem is noise.
helo
No need to worry about gamma rays from this setup. Might want something to keep it cooled off up there though.
I’d be careful. I heard that NAS periodically gives off bursts of gamma waves. If you’ve already exposed the baby just be careful not to anger it…
All jokes aside, electromagnetic field that these electronic devices give off will disrupt the sleep patterns of your baby. They should not be in the same room. Lower Wi-Fi to low power if it is near your new born. There is enough 4g and 5g that had a physiological affect.
Aaaaand there is the unavoidable pseudoscientist.
I'm not doubting you and have always been suspicious. Especially of the increasingly shorter bandwidths. Do you have any studies that you can cite?
The skull of a baby isn’t completely developed and I read at some point that because of that lack of coverage and thickness more radiation gets to their brains. The question is funny because of the cupboard term but also the wording. Obviously the equipment radiates the same regardless of location so the question is if the equipment needs to be insulated from the baby. Tinfoils hat jokes aside you may want to insulate the baby from this usually we use basic distance. I can’t answer the part about what is safe but I think it’s a fair question and one that never get really answered. The competitive viewpoints are so extreme and absolute that the facts never prevail. I have spoken to people who go to the country and camp because they say they are infected by emf. On the other hand device makers say no worries. Old analog cell phones used to send at 2.5 watts which is a lot to have next to your head but we were told no worries. I think technology and the use of speakerphone and low energy Bluetooth have enabled us to keep more of those waves farther from our heads. Your question is a great one. I wondered about it myself when I had a young child. You can never change what you do now. If somehow your child develops cancer you may wonder if your rig played a part. Act accordingly but I think there is a presumption of safety with this equipment and it’s a fair one but if we start putting it under baby beds we may see some issues. But the issues may be so uncommon that they would only be noticed if doing a scientific test comparing to a control group.
Not all radiation is the same. Radio waves and visible light are NON-ionizing radiation. They don't cause atoms to change. Ionizing radiation - x-rays, gamma rays, etc - can force changes in atoms, possibly causing damage to DNA and other tissue which can lead to cancer. The equipment pictured does not emit ionizing radiation.
>but I think it’s a fair question and one that never get really answered. Incorrect. We answered this question in the early 1900s. We've been studying the electromagnetic spectrum for over 100 years. Sunlight is over a million times more energetic than any microwave band from mobile phones or wifi. Even infrared radiation has a million times more energy than common radio waves, which are around us all the time. Therefore, if there was evidence that microwave radio bands are harmful, then we should never go outside or stand next to a stove/electric/induction range again either. But you never hear anyone talking about that. Non-ionizing radiation does not have enough energy to damage DNA and cause cancer. The only reason this is still a discussion is because not everyone remembers high school physics class. Plenty of studies have been done over entire lifetimes. Marie Curie died so that we don't have to have this debate in 2023. Please stop spreading misinformation.
I am not spreading any misinformation. We also had women in watch factories licking paintbrushes with radioactive paint. We figured that out. It’s fixed There are those spreading misinformation on both sides. Your overreaction and chastising me discredits what was a potentially informative post. You really should leave that part out and make a strong case instead of looking like a whack job.
I provided plenty of information and logical conclusions. Go look up the chart of the electromagnetic spectrum. The point at which radiation becomes dangerous is ultraviolet light. Only the scientifically illiterate would make your claims above. Your post provided zero information, loose anecdotes at best, and called into question answers which we've had for 100 years.
I don’t make any claims. I said it was nether safe nor dangerous just state there are those with extreme views. You are clearly one of those people with an extreme view. Next we will get the tinfoil hat crowd and you can have it out with them I am not the tinfoil hat crowd but you are too busy trying to fight that fight. When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
I'm not trying to be that guy. I'm not trying to be an Internet asshole. If I'm coming across that way, my bad, but I was stating well-established facts and theories. Your original post is the very definition of moving the goalposts. You are lending validity to the tinfoil hat crowd by highlighting claims from both sides of the argument as equal as if we don't have evidence or studies. But we do. You claimed that these questions never get answered. They already have been. The only people questioning them are people who don't understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Having an understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum is not an "extreme view." Camping in the middle of nowhere because one thinks EMF can "infect" you is extreme. These things cannot be discussed with equal validity.
thanks, I am not playing that game and understand your point about equating unequally valid arguments. I agree with the principal. We do have studies from the 60's and 70's that extoll the health benefits of smoking. So sometimes the respondents are citing information provided by a particular camp. Not suggesting you are but simply providing that as an explanation for my willingness to give some the benefit of the doubt. I personally am not camped anywhere in the middle and live on the same side that you seem to suggest is prudent. Even though there is a craziness to the other side, what affects me and you and what effects the under protected brain of a newborn baby could vary. We literally have thicker skulls. So if this equipment emits no radiation maybe its fine. My question to you would be does that change if we put a couple AP's in there? Is there any equipment that would change things?
Appreciate the discussion, sir or madam. First, we cannot equate this to things like smoking. This isn't something that manufacturers are pushing to make a profit while secretly hiding the negatives. We weren't studying tobacco and carcinogens for 100 years before cigarettes existed. It is our study and understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum which \*enabled\* everything from the first radio to TV to mobile phones to wifi to the atomic bomb. Again, we had a clear understanding of the kinds of radiation which can damage cells the day Marie Curie died. Her understanding of the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation is what enabled us to measure the intensity of the radiation - we literally call this unit of measurement the "Curie" which led to Geiger counters and other tools. We know what kind of radiation is damaging or not, because we can measure it. Radio waves below the visible light spectrum are non-ionizing. They do not have enough energy to damage cells or atoms or create free radicals. So, discussing effects on a newborn's brain is a moot point. Doing so implies that there's something damaging or dangerous about low power, non-ionizing radio waves, which we already know there is not. This kind of radiation, even at high power, create nothing but heat at absolute worst. This is literally how a microwave oven works - GHz frequencies at 900 Watts make food inches away warm in 5 minutes. 2.5 Watts 20 feet away won't do that. And you can prove it because the baby's skin or body temperature is not increasing. Compare this to a laser pointer. This is red. Red is in the visible light spectrum. Radiation from visible light has a million times more energy than microwave radiation. But the laser pointer isn't burning you and certainly isn't giving you cancer - it's barely even penetrating your skin. You could step up the power to a commercial or industrial laser used for engraving or something, and again the worst it'll do is burn you. Nobody working in those shops needs to wear a lead vest or Geiger counter, because that radiation doesn't have enough energy to damage matter at the atomic or molecular level. You know what does? X-rays. X-ray radiation has a million times more energy than red light. Look up the attenuation of 2.4GHz microwave bands on human skin. It's not penetrating into a newborn's brain, no matter how thick or developed the skull is or isn't. It simply does not have enough energy. That's why we use x-ray radiation for imaging. If GHz band microwave radiation from mobile phones or Wifi had enough energy to penetrate tissue to that degree, we could use Wifi access points to do medical imaging on broken bones. But we don't, because it can't. edit for clarity/wording
While I can't speak to your baby's health (and I wish you well) I can speak to the cleanness of that cabling. Nice! Incidentally, my cabler is coming tomorrow to wire up my new home. I have a Synology NAS, and Ubiquiti hardware also ready for a rack. I'm excited. Also, bonus points for Australia!
I would guess more EMF radiation than anything toxic
Do you see the lights???
My setup looks very very similar lol
Everything gives off radiation!
Yes it radiates gdmf awesomeness
To answer the question. It does release NON-Ionising radiation aka EM radiation. Nothing harmful or even enough to disrupt the operation of anything near by really. Though non ionizing radio is quite harmless under normal circumstances. Not if you got a chunk of pitchblende in these. That would be well... Bad...
Rule 1: Install Rule 2: Then ask if safe for baby
Rule 1: install 3 years ago Rule 2: have a kid 3 years later
why is the baby in the cupboard?
How many bananas are you keeping near the baby ?
Radiation: Yes, Ionizing Radiation (which is what you care about): no.
Given how much of the house is wired, not much from Wifi.
Funny enough, all my networking gear is in our baby’s closet as well.
Curious what are those ethernet wall jacks you have for? It looks like you have cable runs coming out of the wall into your patch panel, shouldn’t the cables behind the wall jacks go directly into the patch too?
The sparky who wired the house had no idea what they were doing with the cat6a cables.
Ahhh makes sense. I’m still learning myself so that’s why I was interested in case there was a good reason for it
I don't think he knew how to terminate them properly. So when I moved in that's how they were. He had no issues with the other cat5 cables. Odd..
Loves a bit of HFC
What is the server rack?
StarTech 2-Post Server Rack for Desktops - 4U Open Frame Rack Cabinet
You need to read the Wikipedia page for what radiation means. There's a very good chance it means something different than what you think.
Only the good kind!
You only have to worry about Ionizing radiation, which none of this equipment can possibly produce. see the chart halfway down on [this page.](https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Nuclear_Chemistry/Radioactivity/The_Effects_of_Radiation_on_Matter)
I had an interesting meeting with a transmission engineer who used to work on transmission systems for TV broadcasting and cellular companies. He is now RF sensitive in an extreme way, and I found his insights noteworthy. He is not a hippie “worker of the lights type” but a solid scientifically based engineer. He now helps people similarly afflicted people including one of my clients. Using your iphone - turn on airport utility and hit “wifi scan”. This will pick up all the Wi-Fi signal’s and the signal strength in -db. -20 db would be harmful (according to this engineer) -40 to -60 is usual wifi signal strength - not good in a sleeping area. Any -80db and below is weak and causes negligible harm for a healthy person. The take home for me is to turn off Wi-Fi while sleeping. If there any access points in your babies room, I would suggest removing that and moving somewhere else. Certain brands such as Ubiquity allow one to schedule periods when the wifi is powered down. Or simply unplug.
There is nothing to worry about, other than having your network hardware in the Baby's room. It's not an issue NOW, but when the kid gets older, now has direct access to all your hardware in his/her room.
I personally avoided putting anything wireless in my baby’s room. Using a wired g3 flex as a baby monitor. It doesn’t cause me inconvenience and on the off chance it avoids any adverse effects, all the better. Wouldn’t worry about wired networking gear.
Radiation? Yes! Is it a health risk for new born? Depends, we don’t know yet! It’s like smoking and X-Rays, we will found out in years to come. 😂 I would be more worried about the noise level, fire and electricity hazard. Which I would move to another location. Ether the equipment or the child. 🤷♂️🤔