> > If I remember correctly the trend was: 1000x bandwidth each 15 years.
>
> Aiming to have Skybuck's law take on Moore's law, eh?
>
> > In other words: How is radiation related to bandwidth ?
>
> > Is it for example 1 to 1 ? Which would mean 1000x bandwidth is 1000x
> > radiation ?
>
> All else being equal, sure.
>
> But all else won't be equal: There isn't enough wireless spectrum availab=
le to
obtain 1000x more using technology that's reasonably forseeable in the ne=
xt 15
years. =A0(Other advances such as coding technologies are mature enough t=
here's
no way you'll be getting a 1000x increase from them either.) =A0Hence, ab=
out the
only other option is to make coverage areas smaller with more access poin=
ts.
You're already aware of this if you think about it some: WiFi is much fas=
ter
than 3G, but the coverage area is nowhere near as large for a single acce=
ss
point.
>
> Will you be more eletromagnetically irradiated in 15 years than you are n=
ow?
Probably. =A0But compared to the total EM exposure you have in your life =
anyway?
(I.e., the sun at ~ 1000 watts/m^2 is pretty hard to compete with...) -- =
=A0
Probably no significant difference.
>
> Well, unless you switch careers and start servicing high-power transmitte=
r
antennas while they're still switched on. :-)
>
> ---Joel
In 15 years, Skybuck will be 25 year old (...judging by the overall maturity of his postings here.) According to this chart:
formatting link
and giving Skybuck the benefit of the doubt, he will reach his adult height of about 182 cm (71.6 inches) by that time.
The adult human body is particularly resonant at VHF frequencies, based on wavelength and geometry. Thus, Skybuck's real question should focus on whether these VHF frequencies will be reallocated to WiFi or similar wireless technologies 15 years from now. :) Perhaps he could graph for us the dosimetry over time, since kids today seem to be glued to their XBoxes and Nintendos.