Slashdot Mirror
Measuring Microwave Output From A Laptop?
bethorphil asks: "I was shopping online for a laptop today, and as I was choosing my processor speed, I noticed that the clock frequency of a decent CPU (2.4 GHz) was about the same frequency as the radiation used in a microwave oven. This got me thinking about recent headlines of laptop heat causing male infertility. If the heat alone is a threat, It would make sense that holding a 40-watt microwave emitter in your lap could cause even more serious problems down the road. I assume (optimistically, perhaps) that laptops are designed to shield the user from radiation, and not just to protect the system from interference. , but what I'd really like is a way to test for myself how much microwave radiation actually comes from my laptop. So far, the most interesting thing my searches have come up with is this quack-tastic low emission PC, but actual tools for an amateur to measure this stuff seem hard to come by. What's the best way to find out if my laptop is nuking the family jewels?"
The story is about laptop heat, not microwaves. And sperm are best produced at about 94 degrees F (if memory serves me correctly), which is why the testicles are outside of the body -- so they can be cooler than body temperature.
Anything that raises the temperature of the testicles above that will reduce sperm production -- be it a laptop, living in Texas, wearing tight underwear or a having a cat in your lap. This is well known.
But as far as I know, the effect is temporary. Remove the laptop, move to Alaska, wear boxers, kick the cat off, and sperm production goes back up. But maybe somebody knows something I don't.
Assuming I'm right, just keep the laptop (and cat) out of your lap while you're trying to knock your wife up, and you'll be fine.
tard
Actually, microwaves /do/ have more of an effect on the nutritional contents of food, especially vegetables.
... microwave cooking ... induces molecular changes to the food that may be harmful to humans ... the mechanics of microwave cooking are fundamentally different from traditional cooking
No, they don't. Microwave radiation does not affect food nutrition.
I wasn't addressing whether boiling or microwaving vegetables are equally healthy. I was addressing microwave radiation.
Re-read the poster I was replying to:
Of more concern
So you bring up numbers (bogus sounding numbers at that*) that say boiling a vegetable is a little worse than setting it in water, and that microwaving it is slightly worse than that. Big deal. It's not magical molecule transforming rays doing it, it's just heat. Same with frying, baking, flame broiling, deep frying, stewing, etc.
In other words, microwaving food is in the same realm as "traditional cooking", contrary to the pseudoscience the poster promoted.
You are bringing up an entirely different point, which is whether microwaving vegetables or boiling vegetables is healthier. Something to ponder, if you really care about a 5% nutrient difference, but entirely separate from the question at hand.
* 80% nutrient loss by setting a vegetable in cold water? Maybe if you mash it up, and set a small portion in a big bucket of water for a few days or something. Or maybe if you place a sliced apple in water for a half hour. How much does deep frying lose? I bet it's more than the supposed 15% in the microwave.
Beyond that, the numbers are too round. Is it 92% for boiling, and 93% for microwave? Or did it actually come out 80%, 90% and 95%? Are you under-boiling, but over-microwaving? What vegetable is it? Etc.
You guys are writing this off a little too quickly IMHO. I never thought about this before but I just looked across the spectrum at my Gateway 600 and....wow! It's no 40 Watt transmitter but it's sure putting out far more that I would have imagined.
I also looked at my cell phone and my Uniden cordless phone, they don't compare. Those devices are pretty focused whereas the Gateway notebook is putting out lots more energy and across more of the spectrum. This thing is like a shotgun.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
sgant(178166) wrote: "What an idiotic system. You would have thought by now they would have built better humans to where males produce sperm INSIDE the body at the normal temperature."
See, you've just pointed out one of the fallacies of "intelligent design". Any genuinely "intelligent designer" would have done a better job. Period. But I'm sure that the stupids who buy into this bullshit won't hear of it.