Slashdot Mirror


Using Aluminum Oxide Paint To Secure Wi-Fi

eldavojohn writes "The BBC reports on people using aluminum oxide in their paint to block Wi-Fi signals from leaving their home or business. Aluminum oxide resonates at the same frequency as Wi-Fi signals and other radio waves, blocking data from going outside a building. It's not a flawless solution, as it may also block AM/FM signals. You or your neighbors may be unwittingly using this already, as most pre-finished wood flooring uses aluminum oxide as a protective coating."

52 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Cellphone reception? by beef+curtains · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't keeping radio signals in also have the unfortunately side effect of keeping radio signals out? While having a neighborhood coffee shop offer free wifi to paying customers while being an of oasis of cellphone-free peace & quiet would be sweet, having no cellphone reception at home because one desperately wants to prevent neighbors from stealing one's wifi seems very inconvenient (especially when setting up even the most basic built-in wireless router security would successfully do the trick in 99.9% of cases).

    --
    Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
    1. Re:Cellphone reception? by RobVB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wifi works at around 2.4 Ghz, GSM frequencies are between 380 Mhz and 2 Ghz, with the most frequently used frequencies being GSM900 (890-960 Mhz) and GSM1800 (1710-1880 Mhz).

      From the article:

      The paint contains an aluminium-iron oxide which resonates at the same frequency as wi-fi - or other radio waves - meaning the airborne data is absorbed and blocked.

      I assume this means the aluminium-iron oxide resonates at around 2400 Mhz, which shouldn't interfere with normal cell phones.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    2. Re:Cellphone reception? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try reading more carefully:

      FTFA:

      While paints blocking lower frequencies have been available for some time, Mr Ohkoshi's technology is the first to absorb frequencies transmitting at 100GHz (gigahertz). Signals carrying a larger amount of data - such as wireless internet - travel at a higher frequency than, for example, FM radio.

      ...

      "Our current mobile phones work at much lower frequencies, around 1.5 gigahertz. But, our material can also absorb frequencies that low, so you could block phone signals from outside and stop people's phones ringing during the movie," he said.

      From the sounds of it, just about anything below 100 GHz gets blocked. That means cellphones, too.

    3. Re:Cellphone reception? by elashish14 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A conductive metal has free electrons which will block and reflect any waves below its plasma frequency. However, an ionic solid does not have free electrons - instead, it has just a few resonant other mechanisms with limited range so it will block a more specific part of the electromagnetic spectrum than a metal would. The frequency of wifi signals happens to be in the range of one of these mechanisms for the paint used.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    4. Re:Cellphone reception? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Water molecules are famously resonant at 2.45 GHz, that's where microwave ovens operate,

      No, they're not. That's a myth. There's no water resonance at or near 2.45 GHz. Water absorbs at pretty much any microwave frequency, with stronger absorption the higher the frequency.

      If anything, you'd want to tune a microwave oven away from strong water resonances, because you want the radiation to penetrate (so as to heat the object evenly) and not be shallowly absorbed, which would result in uneven heating. (Note that a microwave oven is a cavity, so you don't need to absorb energy in a single pass-- it will resonate around until it does get absorbed.).

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    5. Re:Cellphone reception? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny thing about electromagnetic resonance. The wavelength in vacuum / free air matters only ... in vacuum / free air. The wavelength of a signal in a different medium, with presumably different dielectric constant and impedance will be ... different! Water molecules are famously resonant at 2.45 GHz, that's where microwave ovens operate, despite the vacuum wavelength of 2.45 GHz photons being about 12 cm. The inter- and intra-molecular impedance makes H2O absorb those photons quite well. Water is quite rather opaque at those frequencies, despite being transparent at higher frequencies, say in the visible spectrum, and despite individual H2O molecules being many orders of magnitude smaller than the vacuum wavelength of 2.54 GHz photons.

      Helpful hint for posters: if you don't know a damned thing about physics, don't answer questions as if you do.

      Helpful hint for moderators: if you don't know a damned thing about physics, don't mod up posts full of word-salad wharrgarbl like "intra-molecular impedance."

      http://www.howeverythingworks.org/prints.php?topic=microwave_ovens&page=4

    6. Re:Cellphone reception? by Forge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The paint could also provide some much-needed relief during nights out at the cinema.

      Our largest local movie theater installed an electronic cellphone signal blocker some years ago. It worked very well and almost put them out of business.

      You see people on call (like Sysadmins, Doctors etc...) and people who feel a need to be reached on short notice for personal reasons (parents of small children), no longer saw that theater as an option for dates. This might not be a problem in some places but because of the lower pay scales (and hence higher relative cost of movie tickets) here, those affected were a major proportion of the theater's customer base.

      In short they had to turn off the signal blocker and announce to disgruntled customers that it's ok to come back.

      I am trying to imagine the dilemma if they had used this Aluminum Oxide paint instead, how much would it cost them to scrape it all off?

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    7. Re:Cellphone reception? by pz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I stand corrected on the water resonance part.

      The impedance part, well, perhaps Mr. Pink Corner needs to understand more where resistance comes from. The reason that microwave ovens work at all is that there is a resistive (ie dissipative, lossy, real, call it what you will) component to the impedance of water at those frequencies, dissipating EM energy into heat. Here's a quote from the nicely informative link Mr. Pink Corner provided:

      Rather than interacting with the water molecules via a resonance, the microwaves in an oven heat the water by twisting its molecules rapidly back and forth so that they rub against one another. The molecules are heated by the molecular equivalent of sliding or dynamic friction. The choice of 2.45 gigahertz gives the water molecules about the right amount of time to twist in each direction. The precise frequency isn't important, but microwave ovens are required to operate at exactly 2.45 gigahertz so that they don't interfere with communication systems using nearby frequencies.

      And here's another clue about physics, Mr. Pink Corner, when you have a complex impedance, like an RC circuit in a lumped model system, the speed of light through those components is determined by the RC time constant. The speed of light is slowed by the reactive portion of the impedance. In that system. Otherwise the movement of the current would not be impeded and the full voltage would appear at the far side of the C element instantaneously. But it does not: the speed of propagation is slowed, as reflected in the time constant. This becomes especially evident when you look at transmission lines and the impedance of the line determines the propagation speed (as well as the line loss due to heating of the real component of the impedance). Same thing in water, except, as I've been corrected, there is no resonance at 2.45 GHz.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    8. Re:Cellphone reception? by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our largest local movie theater installed an electronic cellphone signal blocker some years ago. It worked very well and almost put them out of business.

      Was this in the USA? The reason is that doing this, while so very nice to prevent the idiots who don't know how to put their phones on vibrate from bothering everyone else, is also highly illegal.

      The reason is that it can interfere with emergency calls even outside the building. The FCC can impose fines on the order of thousands of dollars per day that such a system is active.

      There are moves afoot to try to get special exemptions to jam cell phone communications (prisons are another example) but so far it is still very illegal to run a jammer in the USA.

    9. Re:Cellphone reception? by sunderland56 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason is that it can interfere with emergency calls even outside the building.

      Actually the primary reason that jammers are illegal is that they are unlicensed. All unlicensed transmitters are illegal in the USA.

      There is also a section of the FCC rules that prohibits interference in most cases, and absolutely prohibits willful interference.

    10. Re:Cellphone reception? by Forge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This did not happen in the US but in Jamaica. Our rules are somewhat different. I.e. One of our maximum security prisons also installed a Jammer. It created problems for people living close to the prison and for people passing on the highway in front of the prison.

      They were compelled to turn it off ontil they could contain the signal. within the walls. This fancy paint might actualy help them. I realy don't know how the open "play area" between the outer walls and the cell block will affect this. (That area is rather large and includes a Cricket Field.)

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    11. Re:Cellphone reception? by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Was this in the USA? The reason is that doing this, while so very nice to prevent the idiots who don't know how to put their phones on vibrate from bothering everyone else, is also highly illegal.

      I think you are confusing active vs. passive blocking. Active blocking is illegal as it involves transmitting signals on the same frequencies as are used by cellphones, and this is regulated spectrum. Passive blocking, by using special paints or metal screens is perfectly legal.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    12. Re:Cellphone reception? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You see people on call (like Sysadmins, Doctors etc...) and people who feel a need to be reached on short notice for personal reasons (parents of small children), no longer saw that theater as an option for dates. This might not be a problem in some places but because of the lower pay scales (and hence higher relative cost of movie tickets) here, those affected were a major proportion of the theater's customer base.

      Remember before cell phones? You could watch a whole movie in the theater without interruption? Your 3 year old was with the teenage babysitter, and if they both died or your house burned down, you wouldn't know until you got back home. Sysadmins didn't go to the movies because they would have gotten their asses kicked, and doctors were so fucking rich that they just bought the new releases and watched them at home when they were on call.

      Yet somehow everything worked out just fine. If there was an emergency, you had to call the theater and have the attendant go and find the person you wanted to talk to. But that was for real life-or-death emergencies... if you were on call, you weren't at the movies, you were sleeping at the hospital or inside the mainframe.

      Ah, the good old days... when it wasn't socially acceptable to be a self-important dipshit with a cell phone.

  2. Extra protection? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm already using aluminum foil lining in many of my hats and clothes to protect me from the government transmissions. However, I hadn't heard that Al2O3 was any better than straight aluminum foil.

    It seems suspicious that this story would be posted immediately after I began considering papering my walls with foil.

    1. Re:Extra protection? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting
      May not be better but it could be more, how shall we say, stylish. Maybe quieter as well. I do like his pandering to the 'think of the children' racket.

      "We're assuming that excessive exposure could be bad for us. Therefore we're trying to make protective clothes for young children or pregnant women to help protect their bodies from such waves."

      Give me a break. Next think he'll be trying to create is an Aluminum oxide / silver dip - keep away nasty radio waves and germs, all in one toxic package.

      I think this guy is mostly looking for some investors.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Extra protection? by Abstrackt · · Score: 4, Funny

      You might want to read this article on the effectiveness of foil helmets. ;)

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    3. Re:Extra protection? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I were a science teacher, I think I would have a weekly contest "What's wrong with this?". I'd give all the kids a website, newspaper article, creationist newsletter (probably lose my job over that one but oh well), etc... and have them come up with a list of all the reasons that it is nonsense. Start with easy stuff (like the difference between EM and Ionizing radiation) and move to more challanging things later (like what a valid sample size is). We need to expose kids to the idea that not everything they read is gospel, to think critically about what they read and see and actually apply their education.

    4. Re:Extra protection? by LordNimon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since you seem to know so much about it, why not create a web site that does just this? Even if school teachers can't do it, enterprising parents would probably like to use your site as additional education.

      There's an idea for a startup - a company that creates additional homework for parents to give their children to make up for deficiencies in what their school teaches them.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    5. Re:Extra protection? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, not Supperman! He brings me my dinner!

    6. Re:Extra protection? by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah yes, the elusive Supperman. I was very unhappy when Marvel finally decided to have him killed off by his arch-nemesis Bulimiax.

      I still cherish my pristine copy of Supperman #103, in which he manages to incapacitate the entire Third Reich by making them fall asleep after a huge turkey dinner.

    7. Re:Extra protection? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah yes, the elusive Supperman. I was very unhappy when Marvel finally decided to have him killed off by his arch-nemesis Bulimiax.

      Now that was brutal ending for a superhero - he was literally chewed up and spit back out.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    8. Re:Extra protection? by Kaboom13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No major school system would ever allow this. If you teach them not to believe everything you read, the next step is they don't believe everything they are told. If they don't believe everything they are told, they don't assume their teachers and administrators are correct, and should automatically be listened to and obeyed. As the average modern American school has nothing to do with educating, and everything to do with babysitting, it would be very dangerous to the comfortable low expectations their students and the student's parent's have.

    9. Re:Extra protection? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now that was brutal ending for a superhero - he was literally chewed up and spit back out.

      But you have to admit it was a fitting end to the story arc that began when Supperman refused to save Bulimiax's adopted daughter, Anna Rexia, after she overused her power trying to starve a whole middle school. Dying, she promised she'd renounce her evil ways if he only gave her a bite of supper! Sure he may have had a point when he said she was lying and would never truly change, but finishing her off with "And you're fat!" was really uncalled for.

      Another victim of the "dark anti-hero" trend of the 80s/90s.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  3. Finally!! by Ludedude · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...a way to stop wearing this itchy tinfoil hat!

    --
    Then != than you morons.
  4. "By coating an entire room..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wouldn't you have to paint over the windows?

    1. Re:"By coating an entire room..." by M8e · · Score: 2, Funny

      You could use a fine metal mesh instead of paint for the windows.

    2. Re:"By coating an entire room..." by rdnetto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, no. Transparent aluminium is different, but given the amount of power it would take to maintain it in that state, hiring a dedicated team of ninjas to kill anyone using a wireless device would be cheaper.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  5. Hey, it's good enough for the office... by d474 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I dipped my head in this aluminum oxide paint, and it keeps all their signals out. Granted, I look somewhat like a cyborg now, but this stuff should work just fine for an office trying to keep their signals in.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    1. Re:Hey, it's good enough for the office... by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Looking like a cyborg is good, because the other cyborgs won't try to assimilate you. However, it is important to have a radio transmitter with you everyplace so that you are broadcasting some sort of radio signal at all times. Now, at home, it is still better to line your walls with aluminum foil, but you need to do so INSIDE the walls, behind the drywall, because you don't want the government drones seeing it. You should line your attic as well, but not your basement, because The Worms are attracted to foil. In your basement you should use lots and lots of crushed cans. Sprite cans works best.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    2. Re:Hey, it's good enough for the office... by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you need to be really careful about is the cops in helicopters doing thermal imaging of roofs. They do this to find people running cannabis farms. If you are releasing a lot more heat than normal, then expect a dawn raid. Also, if they don't see any heat being released, expect a dawn raid because they will think you are trying to shield it.

    3. Re:Hey, it's good enough for the office... by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, I've got that covered. Copper pipes in the walls, outside of my shielding, are used for heat transfer. I can make my home look thermally normal despite the fact that I house a fusion generator. Obviously it is in one of the lower sub basements, and above the sprite cans.

      --
      We are the Borg...
  6. Note: AlFeO *not* Al2O3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Note, the material concerned is Aluminium IRON oxide. Big difference. Aluminium oxide is a good dielectric and would be bugger all use for RF shielding. Oh and the article is a wierd too: it talks about 100GHz shielding where WiFi bands are ~ 2.5GHz.

    1. Re:Note: AlFeO *not* Al2O3 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless this stuff is very much unlike a certain other aluminum iron oxide composition, there might be a certain other big difference...

  7. Does not resonate with me by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dunno where they got the crap about "resonates".

    The paint might act as an electrostatic shield, or as a lossy dielectric, both effects that will attenuate RF signals.

      But resonate, no.

    1. Re:Does not resonate with me by _avs_007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Seriously... I work with a WiFi lab at work... I have a Faraday Cage in our lab... One of the techs forgot to install an optical isolator on the network cables, so for a few days the ethernet cables went right into the cage... Well, first day I went to use it, I locked myself in the cage, and was surprised that my cellphone started ringing... Without the optical isolators on the network cable, the RF signals were able to find there way into the faraday cage through the ethernet cables....

      with that being said, I highly doubt that simply painting your walls will keep RF signals at bay... Even when the grounding wire was simply loose on the door to the faraday cage, RF signals would leak in...

    2. Re:Does not resonate with me by quatin · · Score: 5, Funny

      So you went inside a Faraday Cage with an unprotected ethernet cable and managed to get cell phone reception. I on the other hand, can't get cell phone reception if I stand too close to my filing cabinet. I either need to switch to your provider or you need to come do your WiFi experiments next to my filing cabinet.

    3. Re:Does not resonate with me by elashish14 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ionic materials can be polarized to interact with electromagnetic waves to block signal transmission. They have a number of absorptive mechanisms. The highest frequency absorption mechanism is where electrons around the nucleus resonate, roughly at 10^17 Hz. Then there's atomic vibrations where the nuclei themselves vibrate (10^14 Hz I think). Not sure what they are for the material used in particular though, but ionic materials can resonate. It doesn't seem that they're in the range used for this application

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    4. Re:Does not resonate with me by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Funny

      Plug your filing cabinet in to your router?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:Does not resonate with me by yurtinus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm no EE or RF guy, so I don't know how far off base this is-- but aren't Ethernet interfaces typically transistor coupled on either end so you don't have an actual phsyical grounding on either side? I'm guessing the optical isolator is supposed to sit at the edge of the cage itself so you don't have an Ethernet cable antenna going out... ?

      I'm still a bit skeptical as I've worked in EMI hardened facilities where we have solid wires leaving the structure to outside antennas and it's really not possible to get a cell signal with the door closed.

      Disclaimers--
      1) I'm what happens when you let a software guy look at too many circuit diagrams :)
      2) Cell provider is Sprint, so I'm suprised when my phone rings in my garage at home...

      --
      +1 Disagree
  8. Why not share wi-fi? by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We do know the world would be a better place if everyone shared their wi-fi securely using
    a technology like FON, don't we. (No I'm not associated with the company. Just recognize a
    great concept when I see one.)

    I'm seriously tired of how, particularly in the US, sharing wi-fi gets implanted in peoples'
    brains as a criminal, borderline terrorist activity, with terms such as
    "theft of tele-communication resources" and similar Orwellian mindf**k terms.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Why not share wi-fi? by RabidMoose · · Score: 4, Funny

      Admit it. You're just bitter that your neighbor finally turned on WPA2, and now you have to go to the library to read Slashdot.

    2. Re:Why not share wi-fi? by cheros · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Correct. And you can decide if you want to share free of get a kickback. If you share for free you are also entitled to access all other FON nodes in the world, if you share for a revenue share you have to pay. Pretty fair model IMHO.

      However, I'm unhappy with a node on my personal network where someone can change code on the fly, which is why I took it offline a while back.

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  9. Re:Resonance at other frequencies? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

    > What frequencies are not resonant in Aouminum Oxide paint?

    The reporter is just yammering. He hasn't the foggiest idea what the word "resonant" means and knows less than nothing about radio. All we can glean from this is that someone has put out a press release about rf absorbant paint, something that has been around for decades.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  10. What is so hard about using WPA2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You select WPA2-PSK in your router's config, press "generate key", make a note of the generated key, connect your laptop to the encrypted WLAN, enter the key, done. No beacon disabling, radio frequency shielding, MAC filtering, DHCP disabling or other nonsense necessary. It's like people are trying to test every option but the right one.

    1. Re:What is so hard about using WPA2? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Encryption can be broken with less effort than a physical wall. It's also fundamentally naive to propose that one layer of security of any kind is the silver bullet that makes all other layers unnecessary. I use encryption and MAC address lists together because it means that if somebody wants to get in they have to do two things instead of just one. Can people still get in? Duh. Everybody should already know that wireless network security is about making a harder target than the one down the street.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:What is so hard about using WPA2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I use encryption and MAC address lists together because it means that if somebody wants to get in they have to do two things instead of just one.

      I wrap my money in a plastic bag before putting it in a safe because it means that if somebody wants to get in they have to do two things instead of just one.

  11. Re:Resonance at other frequencies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    All we can glean from this is that someone has put out a press release about rf absorbant paint, something that has been around for decades.

    Using information in the article I was able to find the actual science paper. It turns out they are able to tune the resonate frequency of this paint. Very cool. However, the it doesn't go all the way down to 2.4 GHz. That's a pretty long wavelength for this process.

  12. Usefull in heavily saturationed WIFI areas by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where I am there is some WIFI (hidden or not) on every channel. There are large broadcast towers about half a mile from me which have various Internet over 802.11B from service providers.

    My WIFI in my home has a hard time with all this. This paint would be a good way for me to improve my in home signal. A lot of my equipment doesn't support the new 5Ghz of 802.11N, so while I have 802.11N APs they do not help much.

  13. limit my wifi? pah by jackflap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The number of times I've "borrowed" wi-fi from a neighbour, I felt obliged to leave mine open for everyone to use.

    I did however install the Tomato firmware on my router, and use it's brilliant QoS to limit all machines but my own to 56k connections :)

  14. My basement does a good job by Jim+Hall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I happen to live in Minnesota, where most homes have basements. Our Comcast cable enters the house through the basement, so I figured it was a convenient place to hook up the WiFi access point. The WAP is sitting on the bottom shelf of a bookshelf I have there.

    The net effect is that I have great WiFi signal throughout the house. I have a wood frame house, and WiFi signal is not retarded by normal wood construction. However, I get almost no signal as soon as I step out the back door onto the porch. A few feet away from the house, I can't pick up the signal at all. I've also tested it from the street, and it's like my WAP isn't even there. No, I'm not using any special paints or "Faraday cage" wallpaper.

    That's because basements are constructed from cement blocks, which do a pretty good job of retarding WiFi signal. Not to mention my basement is 6-7 feet underground (there are windows at almost ceiling height) and all that dirt also helps block the signal. I figure I'm pretty safe from snooping. Sometimes it helps to just be incrementally harder to get to than the next guy. If you're a wardriver who's interested in free WiFi, my neighbor two doors down is an easier target (his WAP is on the second floor of his house, so he's essentially broadcasting to the whole neighborhood.) Or I suppose you could drive down a block and a half to the coffee shop who runs a completely open WAP.

    * And yes, I do use good WAP security, with encryption, long passphrase, MAC filtering, only wired connections are allowed to connect to the admin screen.

  15. i already have this on my house by shadowrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the aluminum siding does a great job of keeping wifi in my house. i can hardly get a signal in my yard without LOS to the router through my window.

    after installing a steel garage door, it did a pretty effective job of preventing my garage door opener from working either :(

  16. Re:Is it safe ? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I checked my deo, but no aluminum so I googled around and apparently it's an ingredient in antiperspirant which is in some deodorants (mine's the plain kind). Interestingly this turned up some debate on the safety of aluminum use :

    "A small study in 17 women with breast cancer was quite widely reported in the news in 2007. It found higher levels of aluminium in the part of the breast nearest the skin, and the authors speculated that aluminium in deodorants might cause breast cancer. But the design of this study was not strong enough to draw that conclusion." From cancerresearchuk

    And from wikipedia : "Aluminium, present most often in antiperspirants, but not usually present in non-antiperspirant deodorants, has been established as a neurotoxin in very high doses."

    From what I can tell smearing it on your skin is probably OK and ingesting it in more than trace amounts should probably be discouraged :-) Thanks for the tip.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.