-2
\$\begingroup\$

How much electromagnetic or electric radiation does laptop emit? I don't know in what measurement system you have to answer, but at least, I want to get the answer which should be enough "research" background to ask the question on Health.SE, whether "Can someone get a harmful emission from laptop in long-term" (otherwise, that topic was closed as off-topic, because I asked something vague without any specifications).


(NOTE: I exactly don't know how to ask, because the over-educated users (or moderator) repel my question. Call it "magnitude, spectrum, radiation meter" or whatever, I don't really matter. ALL I matter is to get any approximate answer to quite simple question. Health.SE moderator just laughed at my question and closed it (oh, accept our apologies your majesty, we don't know that much specifics of magnetism..) However, the reason I am asking this, is whether 24/7 laptop users should worry about any related health affects and should worry about blocking that emission or not, and I was not directly interested in the technical specifications of emission amount. However, that moderators forced to get that specifics (amount of radiation) and then ask the question "if that amount of radiation is bad or not"). Hope now you understand

A laptop shield

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ That 'Wraptop' is also going to do very bad things for cooling. \$\endgroup\$ – SomeoneSomewhereSupportsMonica Dec 9 '19 at 7:34
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ You can look this up in EN 55032. All devices must comply to this or a similar one from other continents. \$\endgroup\$ – Jeroen3 Dec 9 '19 at 8:20
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ And don't forget that light is electromagnetic, so if you want to be able to read the screen ... \$\endgroup\$ – Transistor Dec 9 '19 at 8:28
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @T.Todua: What you should do is: 1. Relax. There are standards in place to ensure that your laptop and monitor won't fry your face. 2. See a doctor about your skin problems. That'll be more useful than trying to boil a thick book of technical specifications down to a single number (whose significance you can't understand because you lack the background.) \$\endgroup\$ – JRE Dec 9 '19 at 9:51
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I really don't understand why so many people seem to worry about health effects of radio waves. The entire world has been pretty much saturated in them since not long after the invention of radio, and there hasn't been any increase in health issues that isn't explained by some other cause. I feel like you've probably fallen for some sort of scam where someone wants to scare you into buying something useless for far too much money. \$\endgroup\$ – Hearth Dec 9 '19 at 13:45
3
\$\begingroup\$

Jeroen3's comment has the short, correct but not particularly useful to the layman answer of EN 55032. It's remarkably hard to turn that into a specific number, but I can assure you that it's quite small.

Without getting into the details of specific levels, I would like to make the following argument:

  • Firstly, distinguish between the "nuclear" kind of radiation and electromagnetic (EM) radiation. We are talking about EM radiation here, there is no significant emission of nuclear radiation from consumer equipment. For nuclear radiation read UNSCEAR.

  • The main consideration of EM radiation is whether it can effect other electronic equipment. Electronic equipment (especially computers and radio receivers) is much more sensitive to EM radiation than biological material.

  • A legally required testing regime exists to ensure that EM emissions are kept low so that radios continue to work properly.

  • There is no reliable science indicating any adverse health effects to humans or other mammals from even fairly high levels of EM radiation.

  • The only way we know that harm could be achieved is by being very close to a high power radio transmitter: something deliberately designed to emit EM radiation.

  • The only one of those you're likely to encounter in consumer equipment is (a) microwave ovens and (b) mobile phones, which use moderate (~2 watts) power for very short bursts. The EU "SAR" system is used to control how much EM is likely to be absorbed by the head of the user while making a call.

Finding specific numbers is difficult, but in e.g. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2017-title47-vol1/xml/CFR-2017-title47-vol1-part15.xml "15.109 Radiated emission limits"; the highest number in that table is 500microvolts/meter. That's a very small value.

One of your links has a meter giving numbers in "gauss", which is only really suitable for fixed magnets.

The "8h/day" question is not normally relevant; because there's no known mechanism for harm from low level EM fields, there's no dosimetry that would enable us to say how long exposure differs from short exposure.

(Yes, very high level EM fields can be dangerous. A 500W microwave is approximately a million times more powerful than the number above, which is why it must not be operated with the door open.)

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for answer. However, it might could have been nice if you could answered also about laptops or possible numbers of emitted em/el fields for i.e. 8hrs a day. Even though I might not understand the details/specifics of the answer, I will reference this answer to my Health_SE question, otherwise one Moderator (who closed my question) don't want to acknowledge my other question. \$\endgroup\$ – T.Todua Dec 9 '19 at 11:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ pjc50's detailed answer also applies to laptops. And if you're really worried about EM radiation and it's effects on health, don't use a cell phone! Like pjcc50 said, that is probably by far the highest source of EM radiation that most people are exposed too, mainly because of the cell phones location right next to you head. \$\endgroup\$ – SteveSh Dec 9 '19 at 12:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @T.Todua about to edit some numbers in. \$\endgroup\$ – pjc50 Dec 9 '19 at 12:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SteveSh i know about mobile phones, but there are two reasons still. 1) say some people dont use mobiles. So, what about then to question? 2) even if one uses mobile, doesnt mean s/he shouldnt care on anything other (even on smaller bad things). \$\endgroup\$ – T.Todua Dec 12 '19 at 13:10
2
\$\begingroup\$

How much electromagnetic/electric radiation does laptop emit? [...] Call it "magnitude, spectrum, radiation meter" or whatever

Not much.

whether 24/7 laptop users should worry about any related health affects

No.

and should worry about blocking that emission or not

Not.

I was not directly interested in the technical specifications of emission amount

Then I hope the above answers prove sufficient.

Also, don't take my brevity as flippantness. Given the precision and nature of your questions, I genuinely hope that the answers that I have given, and the amount of detail I have included (omitted), match both the scope and the intent of the question.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ thanks for answer, just the backings (references or any other) would have been good, otherwise it's hard to differentiate if the answer is just opinion-based yes/no or with proven backgrounds? even when i said i am not interested in specs, that means that i am not interested in specs directly, but want to see the conclusions of the authoritative articles (which might dive in specifications, that i am not interested in). \$\endgroup\$ – T.Todua Dec 12 '19 at 13:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ There's a concept in computer science called GIGO. I believe this applies here. In order to get an informative answer, you need to be very thoughtful about not only how you phrase the question, but also precisely what to ask about. In fact, the legendary author Douglas Adams wrote a whole thick book about it, I highly recommend it. It's called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. \$\endgroup\$ – Dampmaskin Dec 12 '19 at 15:18
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ To your "ridiculously simple question", you got a ridiculously simple answer from me, and much a more detailed answer from pjc50. If you want an even better answer, you need to ask a better question. The current question is so naïve that its answer is unsourcable. So you have two choices: Either educate yourself enough that you can ask a question that makes sense, or take the easy route and accept our answers at face value. Insisting that we turn dung into gold is just wasting everyone's time. \$\endgroup\$ – Dampmaskin Dec 13 '19 at 8:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ You also asked for authoritative articles as sources for the answers to your questions. To sum up what I have been trying to convey in these comments: Authoritative sources generally don't concern themselves with questions at the first or second stages of competence. \$\endgroup\$ – Dampmaskin Dec 13 '19 at 11:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.