You call the expense and inconvenience of replacing WiFi with Ethernet so as to appease a couple kid's emotional, irrational, and ignorant parents not evidence in support of that?"

That's interesting and may well be true, however can we please step back from the copse of trees to see the whole forest? That DNA is a fractal antenna is an interesting bit of trivia, but requires context for proper interpretation of what that means when applied to the scope of our everyday lives. Electromagnetic radiation is not a human invention, it has always existed, both in ionizing as well as non-ionizing wavelengths. For the average person, even in our electronic age, natural sources account for the greater portion of our day-to-day electromagnetic radiation exposure.

While it only deals with ionizing wavelengths I still want to call upon XKCD's radiation dose chart because it provides some much needed perspective. I would further like to include a nice little tutorial on EM. Before we even begin to pick on WiFi, there are plenty of other things in modern society we should ban first including, the Sun, cordless phones, cell phones, TVs, microwave ovens, electric space heaters, electric motors, baby monitors, analog radio stations, high-voltage power lines, etc.. I find it simply amazing how the same people whom are so concerned about radiation from cell phones, will think nothing of placing a baby monitor right next to their child's crib.

Being overprotective doesn't necessarily have much of anything to do with investing time in your child. You can chain a dog up--to keep them safe--and you can hire a dog walker to keep them occupied all without necessarily spending any of your own time playing with it. Frankly I see a lot of chained up dogs as well as a lot of strays, but far less often do I see involved parents.

It was my understanding that the Van Allen belts were a consequence of Earth's magnetic field deflecting particles. They're not a source of protection just the deflected stream of radiation. There have even been proposals to discharge and remove the belts.

I wonder would more profits come from incandescents that have to be replaced ever 1000 hours or LEDs that need be replaced 50 times less frequently?

You know I find what's happening with traditional batteries to be rather interesting. Rechargeable batteries are going for not much more than alkalines did perhaps 5 years ago. The result? Companies are now selling alkalines in these mega packs for peanuts. I wonder how they got so cheap all of a sudden? Surely they couldn't not have been profit taking for all those years? But don't worry I'm certain the incandescent lighting industry isn't as greedy.

Do ham operators normally use batteries or a generator when homes (presumably with LED lighting) already have power?

I tell you, defraying $2 over 10+ years is a brutal waste of money. You're right they shouldn't have banned $0.99 incandescents.

You might want to try a lower lumen bulb (or suggesting to your son that supper with be forthcoming right after he cleans his room).

Thank you for providing us with another example...

Which is also why "special application" incandescent bulbs are not banned (in the US at least). I'm glad you care more about the bumper sticker than the car though.

I'm confused. But then I suppose so are you. That can be the only explanation for your disregard for maintaining your food and water supply, as well as your disregard for the integrity of your livelyhood and lifestyle. I'm glad you care about the fraction of mercury in CFLs even if you couldn't care less about the large quantity spewed from coal power plants.

The "because f**k you is why" attitude is great, at least right up until the point someone else f**ks you. A lot of people care a bit more about equality and looking out for not only themselves but their neighbors as well. It is unfortunate that you are not one of them, but in spite of people like you we're not giving up on being good stewards of this rock we live on nor any of its inhabitants.

You're trying to solve a heating problem with a lighting solution. You would be better off with a "heating" solution. Perhaps you should be looking at something like this or this or if there's an explosion hazard maybe even this.

You do understand that "watt" in this context is referring to the measure of power consumption right? A 20 watt LED is a bit brighter than a 100 watt incandescent. I fail to see why the size of the heat sink should mean anything. Your 100 watt incandescent is throwing off something like 140 btu/hr, whereas your 20 watt LED is throwing off perhaps 5.6 btu/hr.

They're hardly what I'd call comparable. Using a 60 watt incandescent bulb equivalency: incandescent produces 85 btu/hr, CFL 30 btu/hr, LED 3.4 btu/hr. source For the energy of a traditional nightlight, you can get the illumination of a desk lamp.

The first part makes sense, your second part doesn't track well. Yes the Montreal guy is getting heat from the bulb for his home, but the production and distribution systems from plant to home that produces and delivers the electricity to power those incandescents is grossly inefficient. He might as well be heating his home with the windows left open. Half the energy has already escaped as heat before it event reaches his house. In both your case and his incandescents are wasting similarly.