Why not use a regular camera on the babby instead of a IPad, have them all hooked to a IMac and run airplay from the IMac to the ipad(Can you do that?) and all of the babbys can be seen and it is less expensive.(I know you don't have to use airplay and espicially a IPad but a cheaper method would be airplay and a Apple TV.
Why not use a regular camera on the babby instead of a IPad, have them all hooked to a IMac and run airplay from the IMac to the ipad(Can you do that?) and all of the babbys can be seen and it is less expensive.(I know you don't have to use airplay and espicially a IPad but a cheaper method would be airplay and a Apple TV.
Two iPads are less expensive than a Mac + iPad. Plus why would a mom want to see other babies?
What do you think will happen? The frequencies for Wi-Fi are non-ionizing radiation so "irradiation" may not be the best term to use.
Irradiate is the right term. There are waves being sent from the iPad and from the WiFi router and they are hitting and moving through the baby and other humans. It means "to send rays, to heat, etc." Just because it is non-ionizing doesn't mean it isn't radiation, we just typically use the term to be nuclear. But, people need to know it isn't good for them, and it definitely isn't good for babies.
A newborn, especially in NICU, has a very sensitive nervous system and the WiFi is a stressor to the body. Their condition is already fragile (and they need skin contact to regulate their heart rate--they can't do this on their own). Whatever the frequency, it impedes the ability for cells to engage in their various functions, including replication. They don't have the skull or tissue structure to defend or lessen the impact the way adults do. It also destroys the blood-brain barrier which they are trying to develop. I could go on and on.
The baby could feel the mom seeing the baby and that may help with some settling, but cables are MUCH MUCH better. Whatever they do, that WiFi should only be on for the few moments they are using this technology.
Irradiate is the right term. There are waves being sent from the iPad and from the WiFi router and they are hitting and moving through the baby and other humans. It means "to send rays, to heat, etc." Just because it is non-ionizing doesn't mean it isn't radiation, we just typically use the term to be nuclear. But, people need to know it isn't good for them, and it definitely isn't good for babies.
A newborn, especially in NICU, has a very sensitive nervous system and the WiFi is a stressor to the body. Their condition is already fragile (and they need skin contact to regulate their heart rate--they can't do this on their own). Whatever the frequency, it impedes the ability for cells to engage in their various functions, including replication. They don't have the skull or tissue structure to defend or lessen the impact the way adults do. It also destroys the blood-brain barrier which they are trying to develop. I could go on and on.
The baby could feel the mom seeing the baby and that may help with some settling, but cables are MUCH MUCH better. Whatever they do, that WiFi should only be on for the few moments they are using this technology.
And the RF baby-tags need to go away also.
Seems like the results indicating no effects for infants:
2011 Sambucci, "Altogether our findings do not support the hypothesis that early post-natal life exposure to WiFi signals induces detrimental effects on the developing immune system."
2012 Poulletier de Gannes, "In the present study, no teratogenic effect of repeated exposures to the Wi-Fi wireless communication signal was demonstrated even at the highest level of 4 W/kg. The results from this screening study aimed at investigating Wi-Fi effects, strengthen the previous conclusions that teratology and development studies have not detected any noxious effects of exposures to mobile telephony-related RF fields at exposure levels below standard limits."
With only one result that vaguely supports your contention:
2012 Bellieni CV "On the contrary, the power supply induces strong intracorporal electric current densities in the fetus and in the adult subject, which are respectively 182-263% and 71-483% higher than ICNIRP 98 basic restriction recommended to prevent adverse health effects. Laptop is paradoxically an improper site for the use of a LTC, which consequently should be renamed to not induce customers towards an improper use."
That one isn't actually about WiFi but the EMF emissions in various laptops. The laptop has to be "used at close contact with the woman's womb" to see these results. I'm not entirely sure why some of these are grouped in the WiFi area.
There seems to be some support for the contention that WiFi is not necessarily good for your little swimmers. Guys don't keep your iPhone in your jeans pockets or park your laptop on your boys while surfing the net.
Irradiate is the right term. There are waves being sent from the iPad and from the WiFi router and they are hitting and moving through the baby and other humans. It means "to send rays, to heat, etc." Just because it is non-ionizing doesn't mean it isn't radiation, we just typically use the term to be nuclear. But, people need to know it isn't good for them, and it definitely isn't good for babies.
A newborn, especially in NICU, has a very sensitive nervous system and the WiFi is a stressor to the body. Their condition is already fragile (and they need skin contact to regulate their heart rate--they can't do this on their own). Whatever the frequency, it impedes the ability for cells to engage in their various functions, including replication. They don't have the skull or tissue structure to defend or lessen the impact the way adults do. It also destroys the blood-brain barrier which they are trying to develop. I could go on and on.
The baby could feel the mom seeing the baby and that may help with some settling, but cables are MUCH MUCH better. Whatever they do, that WiFi should only be on for the few moments they are using this technology.
And the RF baby-tags need to go away also.
The term irradiation is most often applied to microwave radiation, gamma radiation and x-radiation.
Please indicate the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency band have on children. I have quite a bit of formal education that suggests otherwise.
Please indicate the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency band have on children. I have quite a bit of formal education that suggests otherwise.
Would these studies be linked to the ones of people who claim they're 'allergic' to Wi-Fi?
The term irradiation is most often applied to microwave radiation, gamma radiation and x-radiation.
Please indicate the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency band have on children. I have quite a bit of formal education that suggests otherwise.
My impression is that (s)he didn't even read the study abstracts (s)he linked to.
But it looks like there are some studies that indicate potential negative effects on sperm motility. I'm going to go out on a limb and state that's probably not a high concern for babies in the NICU.
A portable incubator would be better, just wheel the poor little tike in to see his mother.
Actually, it's not that easy. The little tike is connected by wires and tubes to monitors, oxygen, and IV pumps. Many babies also require a ventilator, which would make transporting a high-risk endeavor. This tike is also in need of an entire team of professionals to take him/her anywhere. So, to wheel him/her in would require much more than just a portable incubator. I think the iPads are a great idea!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
the baby in that picture looks kind of weird, IMO. It looks more like a miniature old person than a baby, IMO.
Babies born via C-Section don't have their features (especially their noses) squished on the way out, so they tends to look a little less baby "like".
Two iPads are less expensive than a Mac + iPad. Plus why would a mom want to see other babies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
What do you think will happen? The frequencies for Wi-Fi are non-ionizing radiation so "irradiation" may not be the best term to use.
Irradiate is the right term. There are waves being sent from the iPad and from the WiFi router and they are hitting and moving through the baby and other humans. It means "to send rays, to heat, etc." Just because it is non-ionizing doesn't mean it isn't radiation, we just typically use the term to be nuclear. But, people need to know it isn't good for them, and it definitely isn't good for babies.
You can look at some of the research studies:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp (scroll down to see WiFi)
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/wifi.asp
A newborn, especially in NICU, has a very sensitive nervous system and the WiFi is a stressor to the body. Their condition is already fragile (and they need skin contact to regulate their heart rate--they can't do this on their own). Whatever the frequency, it impedes the ability for cells to engage in their various functions, including replication. They don't have the skull or tissue structure to defend or lessen the impact the way adults do. It also destroys the blood-brain barrier which they are trying to develop. I could go on and on.
The baby could feel the mom seeing the baby and that may help with some settling, but cables are MUCH MUCH better. Whatever they do, that WiFi should only be on for the few moments they are using this technology.
And the RF baby-tags need to go away also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetseater
Irradiate is the right term. There are waves being sent from the iPad and from the WiFi router and they are hitting and moving through the baby and other humans. It means "to send rays, to heat, etc." Just because it is non-ionizing doesn't mean it isn't radiation, we just typically use the term to be nuclear. But, people need to know it isn't good for them, and it definitely isn't good for babies.
You can look at some of the research studies:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp (scroll down to see WiFi)
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/wifi.asp
A newborn, especially in NICU, has a very sensitive nervous system and the WiFi is a stressor to the body. Their condition is already fragile (and they need skin contact to regulate their heart rate--they can't do this on their own). Whatever the frequency, it impedes the ability for cells to engage in their various functions, including replication. They don't have the skull or tissue structure to defend or lessen the impact the way adults do. It also destroys the blood-brain barrier which they are trying to develop. I could go on and on.
The baby could feel the mom seeing the baby and that may help with some settling, but cables are MUCH MUCH better. Whatever they do, that WiFi should only be on for the few moments they are using this technology.
And the RF baby-tags need to go away also.
Seems like the results indicating no effects for infants:
2011 Sambucci, "Altogether our findings do not support the hypothesis that early post-natal life exposure to WiFi signals induces detrimental effects on the developing immune system."
2012 Poulletier de Gannes, "In the present study, no teratogenic effect of repeated exposures to the Wi-Fi wireless communication signal was demonstrated even at the highest level of 4 W/kg. The results from this screening study aimed at investigating Wi-Fi effects, strengthen the previous conclusions that teratology and development studies have not detected any noxious effects of exposures to mobile telephony-related RF fields at exposure levels below standard limits."
With only one result that vaguely supports your contention:
2012 Bellieni CV "On the contrary, the power supply induces strong intracorporal electric current densities in the fetus and in the adult subject, which are respectively 182-263% and 71-483% higher than ICNIRP 98 basic restriction recommended to prevent adverse health effects. Laptop is paradoxically an improper site for the use of a LTC, which consequently should be renamed to not induce customers towards an improper use."
That one isn't actually about WiFi but the EMF emissions in various laptops. The laptop has to be "used at close contact with the woman's womb" to see these results. I'm not entirely sure why some of these are grouped in the WiFi area.
There seems to be some support for the contention that WiFi is not necessarily good for your little swimmers. Guys don't keep your iPhone in your jeans pockets or park your laptop on your boys while surfing the net.
The term irradiation is most often applied to microwave radiation, gamma radiation and x-radiation.
Please indicate the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency band have on children. I have quite a bit of formal education that suggests otherwise.
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Please indicate the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency band have on children. I have quite a bit of formal education that suggests otherwise.
Would these studies be linked to the ones of people who claim they're 'allergic' to Wi-Fi?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
The term irradiation is most often applied to microwave radiation, gamma radiation and x-radiation.
Please indicate the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency band have on children. I have quite a bit of formal education that suggests otherwise.
My impression is that (s)he didn't even read the study abstracts (s)he linked to.
But it looks like there are some studies that indicate potential negative effects on sperm motility. I'm going to go out on a limb and state that's probably not a high concern for babies in the NICU.
[VIDEO]
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
[urbanized inquiry]
Yep.
a great idea!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
A portable incubator would be better, just wheel the poor little tike in to see his mother.
Actually, it's not that easy. The little tike is connected by wires and tubes to monitors, oxygen, and IV pumps. Many babies also require a ventilator, which would make transporting a high-risk endeavor. This tike is also in need of an entire team of professionals to take him/her anywhere. So, to wheel him/her in would require much more than just a portable incubator. I think the iPads are a great idea!