There's a big difference here though. The iPhone is not (primarily) designed to be used as a wifi router when held against one's head.
Sorry but this too is quite misconstrued.
1. Neither device is technically a "router" (iphone or IQ2) but if you wanted to split hairs, the iPhone could be argued as one while the IQ is not.
2. VOIP apps are abundant on the iPhone and they specifically use WiFi (and WiFi only) whilst holding a device against your face. 5 years running and no ones dead.
3. Removing the iPhone from the equation, chances are you have (or had) a 2.4Ghz cordless phone well before a cell phone with wireless capabilities. This is the same communication frequency that WiFi uses. The 1.9Ghz cordless phones were introduced in 1998 in the US and my educated guess is that no conclusive health issues can be attributed to their use in the 15 years they’ve been around.
4. The health concerns are not directly in regard to the signal frequency but the radiation from the device.
Wifi is between .1 and .5 watts, so one can argue that a cellphone alone is 40 times more dangerous than talking over a wifi VOIP device without cellular capabilities (cellular GSM phones can reach 2 watts)… or dare I say, 40 times more dangerous than an IQ260 *gasp*
Source #1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router_(computing)
Source #2
https://code.google.com/p/siphon/ (Siphon VOIP App ca. 2008)
Source #3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordless_telephone#Frequencies Source#4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health...on top of that the Cell phone is about 3 inches from the cornea and iris while the IQ2 is about 0.5 inches away.
With the same WiFi output power 0.5 inches is about 10 times more due to the omni directional emanation of the signal.
This too is seems misunderstood and a bit of a backtrack from the previous claim of being "uncharted territory". We can’t foget Canon and Nikon which have been doing it for years. Regarding the 2.5" difference (which you've speculated without any specific documentation) it hardly seems like a difference one can claim to be “uncharted”; different perhaps but not necessarily relevant as it is presumably (Phase One aren’t stupid) cleared by the FCC in order be sold in the US.
Arguing the signal falloff for the undocumented 2.5” figure seems arbitrary. True, the inverse square law applies to WiFi signal strength, however not as you are indicating due to the vast number of undocumented variable and the actual communication signal frequency is not the direct concern. First, the “Ouptu Power” and “Signal” are related but different so your sentence is a rather misleading. Secondly Wifi radiation is between .1 and .5 watts on a 2.4Ghz system (as previously noted and can be much less when antenna placement, device geometry and shielding come into play).
Again this is at the very MOST 1/6th the amount of “dangerous” radiation as the average cell phone and the inverse square law does not apply directly to the radiation only signal strength (yes these are different).
At the end of the day, 15 minutes in the sun is more of a concern for your health. This is a product approved by the governments of the world as safe to sell. If you’re worried, don’t let your infant child use the $20k camera lest they be effected by the common radiation that surrounds us daily and don’t leave your face (cornea or iris) on the IQ260 for more than 525949 minutes (the amount of time it would take for .1 watt to effect your skin).
Source:
http://www.ehs.uci.edu/programs/radiation/Wi-Fi%20Safety.pdfSource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance
