Sorry for this silly question..

but I was wondering if anyone here knew if my wireless router would still emit wireless signals if I used it as a wired router? I basically used a short piece of cat5 and turn off the wireless switch on my laptop. I find this better for gaming anyway.
The router sits about 2 feet away from my head so I'm sorta worried about possible long term effects.
Anyone know?

 

Yes, it's still working. You should be able to turn off the wireless via the configuration interface that's accessible with your web browser. Some devices also have a physical switch/button (and a status LED) like your laptop, so check for that. The router's manual should cover this.

 

Wow I read that three times and still didn't understand the question or the answer. Well, actually I understood the answer, but not in reference to the question.

 

The question made sense to me as the OP is only using the wireless router as a wired router
And the answer is correct

Alex

 

Ok first of al it depends on the router, mine for example still sends wireles signals eventhough I also use a wire. Baiscly, I think it would be weird if it didn't send any wireles signal. About those effects you talk about, yes...those wireless waves are bad. There were a few articles about it in the newspaper not so long ago. Wireles signals have the same frequency as microwaves, thats why its possible that your connection might drop when someone near is using a microwave. I wish I could switch of the wireles signal in my router, but using a wire is already a big help. This is because when you use wireless, there is a lot of back and forth signaling between your laptop/computer and the router which aint so good, but hey...everybody's doing it so I guess thats just human logic, we are like cattle, we follow what others do. When you use a wire there is no longer al that back and forth signaling, just the constant waves that your router sends.

I'm sure my post will have a lot of critical replies, don't listhen to them. Scientific articles have warned about wireless routers just as much as about using your GSM. Nobody believed those harmed you either, till they discovered there was a bigger chance of having tumors in the side of your head where you keep the phone.

 

I do believe they're bad for us, I've reduced the time I spend on my cell phone... and no way am I using a bluetooth, speakerphone is the only way for me, the further away from my head the better.
Not to mention the blazing fast speeds from a solid wired connection compared to wireless.

 

Oh yeah, don't listen to us. We are lying... or maybe we just read those scientists' reports instead of tabloids.
Wikipedia is quite a good source-of-sources.
Have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electronic_devices_and_health

And BTW how can you compare mobile phones held near your head with peek power of 2W (rarely though) to a WiFi device with transmitter that tops at 100mW (also rarely i.e. mine has transmit power of 22mW for 802.11g) and is at greater distance?

 

If you use this rationale, you also should stop using your microwave, your cell phone, garage door opener, keyless entry, TV, radio, avoiding sun exposure all the while wearing a lead suit to prevent exposure of signals not directly used by you (like other people's cell phone use, radio and TV, satellite radio and TV etc). Oh and don't forget to line the walls of house with concrete. Oh but then watch out for radon exposure!! Also I wouldn't put your hands anywhere near your face while your lead suit is on.

This reminds me of bubble boy...

So, don't worry about it, you're fine.

I love how my new microwave kills my home's wifi network when it's on, whereas my old one didn't. I'm not still not worried.

I'd worry more about the car exhaust fumes and other greenhouse gases and air pollution you're breathing in, if you live in an urban area.

 

I meant to say that he should not to listhen to the people who deny the fact that wireless is unhealthy. There are always people who deny stuff even though this might cause harm. I should have been more specific, critical debate is definitly in order.
And how could I compare mobile phones? Didn't I explain that at first they also denied that they didn't hurt while they actually do. And eventhough wireless internet is not as strong as mobile phone singals, it does expose you for a longer period during the day. For now they (scientists) are not sure about the effect, but this was just the same with mobile phones, we will only find out in the long run. There's no reason not to be carefull.

Its true all electric things like a tv send out radiation. Sure it would be safer not to use any of that but we can't because electric stuff makes our life easier. I'm just pointing out the fact that when they warn us that something might have effects in the long run, one should be carrefull. Besides, wikipedia...sure it has the same amount of errors like a basic encyclopedia, but they sure don't display the entire scientific discusion thats going on. Since there is debate, but no solid conclusions, wikipedia has not much to write. You said you read those scientific repords yet you refer to wikipdia...you do known that any student that refers to wikipedia in his paper gets a 0 (maybe not in amerika rofl) because its not a scientific site eventhough it has usefull information now and then.

 

I referred to Wikipedia as source-of-sources meaning that scientific reports are linked at the bottom of a page. Also most studies deny that mobile phones do any harm- while you refer to it as if it is a fact based on one of them (Swedish, 2007 based on what you've written about it) there are more conducted by respected institutions that contradict this opinion.

 

If wireless gives you bad performance, it's because the signal is really weak. I had a crappy Dlink 524 and not only I was having my full connection speed, my ping was exactly the same wired or wireless. If you are moving files across computers then yeah, maybe a difference over G wireless, but no N300, unless you have a freaking quick HDD.

 

People can speculate all they want to--scientifically or not.

If you're truly concerned, feel free to abandon your wifi network.
I'm surrounded by over a dozen visible networks in the g 2.4Ghz spectrum (and more hidden and/or in 5Ghz and/or n). I could make due with a few less networks if they shared your concerns with the health hazards. It's pretty congested over here. I find myself regularly conducting wireless surveys and adjusting the channel number of my AP..

 

Some routers/APs have an option of automatically choosing channel that offers best quality. It's not hardware dependent (other than flash size to accommodate for more advanced firmware as it usually means there are other features too)
You might want to keep that in mind when time comes to upgrade.
I have this option enabled and I gotta admit it works and chooses the best channel available.

 

Indeed, there is absolutely no point in arguing with a preconceived notion - it is as unmoveable as the Rock of Gibraltar is supposed to be.

 

One thing to remember is that not all hardware (mfg) plays well with each other. 11g has had this problem form the start and I expect 11n to have the same problems. You would thing this to be a null issue once every one has certified hardware. NOT, That does not mean they handles things the same way. If that was the case all firmware would work on all hardware. Now with all of the different chip sets out it has not improved any thing. Then you can through in all of the drivers that are available for wireless devices on top of the hardware (routers/AP).

I have a combo, AP and wireless card (that I no longer use), that will not stay connected 10' from each other. Changing either one of them fixed the problem.

 

Yeah but they do screwy stuff, like not setting the channel to 1, 6 or 11. I think there's no point to setting them inbetween, because those channels are overlapping.

Well the real reason why not all hardware "plays" well is because manufacturers put in stupid crap like channel bonding and "125Mbps" speeds in g networks. It's all marketing ploys to get you to buy both their APs and their network cards. 802.11 is there for a VERY good reason: Equipment that runs at standards are interoperable. So you either juggle running stable and compatible, or tweaking whatever to get a small amount of extra speed, yet getting roped into a particular manufacturer to maintain that. No of the reputable WiFi equipment companies that sell to business like Cisco, Juniper, etc market that stuff to any significant amount. Instead they market stability and other more important features, that are standard.
This is a major reason why I didn't bother with any specific 802.11n purchases until the standard was published. I didn't believe in the marketing hype with Draft and I think it was irresponsible for companies to push it. If anything, I think it delayed the standard from coming out.
Oh look it that: Now the standard is out, APs are coming out (check CES in a few days if you don't believe me) that are more advanced and able to achieve truer higher speeds that are standardized. A ploy to get those who bought Draft-N to buy another AP that's going to give them faster speeds (and the manufacturers more money!)