EBME Forums Forums Free discussion Free discussion Wi-Fi a warning signal

After watching a recent episode of BBCs Panorama (WiFi A warning signal) I am seriously considering getting rid of my wireless router and just going back to having a hard wired network at home. What worried me about this programme was how there appears to be a growing concern among some of the top scientists in the field on the adverse health effects from the radiation output from Wi - Fi equipment.
Panorama spoke to a number of scientists who questioned the safety limits and were concerned about the possible health effects of such radiation mentioning chromosome damage and increases in the number of cancer incidinces as now becoming relevant in the some of the scientific literature being produced. One scientist from Salzburg is now even calling for Wi – Fi to be removed from all schools. However the government says there is no risk and so does the World Health Organisation saying “there are no adverse effects from long term exposure”
This panorama programme was on soon after I read an article which recommended children do not place Wi-Fi enabled laptop computers on their laps as they are much more sensitive than adults to low level radiation exposure.
I know that in this day and age we are all never far away from a wireless network but surely until further research comes out in its favour it is our responsibility to err on the side of caution and ensure children are kept away from this radiation exposure as much as possible. So as I have young children in my house it has to be Wi – Fi RIP. What do you think?

Statistically speaking there must always be some level of risk to health when considering energy deposited in human tissue, whether it's energy from cosmic rays that has occurred naturally or from RF energy produced by mobile 'phones.

Lets face it, given energy levels that're capable of altering the electronic structure of atoms, i.e. causing ionisation or more likely heating considering RF energy, then there's always the possibility that changes in molecules within the body can take place.

I have convinced myself that I can feel tingling and aching in my ear and face when I'm using my mobile phone. For that reason I try to text only and use it when absolutely necessary. If I had children I'd probably be cautious as well.

I think it’s just another episode of typical Panorama scare-mongering. As my good buddy and guru Ed Bennett remarked recently, what about all those kids running around with mobile phones glued to their ears n hours each day? Surely it's all to do with milli-watts per square whatever, and the square-law principle or something?

Anyway, I thought we’d already decreed (er, decided) that Bluetooth is the way forward, not Wi-Fi!

I also suffer from tinnitus, Richard, but that stemmed from being too close to Chieftain tanks firing APDS rounds from their 120 mm guns (long before the days of mobile phones and the like). There’s always something! Answer - use the other ear.

As I said, if I had children, I think I'd be cautious. I didn't refer to any scientific evidence just my own, possibly irrational, fears and concerns that I'd probably have if I had young children.

Considering electromagnetic waves the inverse square law does dictate the level of irradiation but the fact that even in LOS transmission, in air, energy is absorbed (predominantly in O2 and H2O). This indicates that energy is dissipated somewhere, predominantly in molecules that're also present in human tissues. There's just less incident energy to absorb at greater distance.

Developing tissues are undergoing changes that we hope are not going to be affected by external influences, e.g. free radicals, ionising radiation, unwanted chemical reactions due to heating, etc, that're promoted by energy dissipated in tissue.

It's difficult to find evidence of stochastic effects of relatively low levels of RF, nevermind deterministic effects, in the same way that it's possible to establish the deterministic and stochastic effects of ionising radiation on humans present at the bombings in Japan, 1945, for example.

However I suspect that with more exposure and over time that some meaningful research will determine whether or not there is a significant risk. There's still the possiblity that there's some stochastic (probabilistic) effects that exposure to significant levels of incident RF energy (who knows what these levels are?).

When I use my mobile 'phone it's used next to my ear. When I had a wireless router I used a wireless antenna within 30cm of my body. Statistically speaking I don't know what effect, over time and at what radiated power or electric field strength or at what frequency/wavelength, this would have on developing tissues, if any, nevermind myself.

Personally speaking I'd be cautious about the time of exposure and how close to the radiating antenna despite the fact that I'm not convinced there's a need to be concerned. Whether I believe this or not, if I had children, I think I'd tend to be cautious. As it is I'm not particularly bothered for myself and there's not much I can do about it anyhow.

I suffered with tinnitus and lots of ear infections as a child but learned as an adult, when firing handguns and suchlike (S&W 44, Browning 9mm, M1911A1, etc), to wear ear protectors, to limit the effects. Shooting the .357 Magnum was most detrimental to my health I think - a very sharp and distinctive recoil.

Now my hearing is fine but, unfortunately, the shock of the recoil got to my wrists so RSI was a problem - shame I didn't consider the less obvious mechanical effects of using heavy ammunition loads, eh? The energy (albeit mechanical) has to go somewhere.

RF energy is all around us and we won't be able to judge its effects until there's enough evidence to suggest whether certain types of man-made radiation, at certain exposures, is or isn't harmful. Remember that if it weren't for Hiroshima and Nagasaki then we'd still probably be arguing over the stochastic effects of ionising radiation.

I think there are many great benefits in having Wi –Fi installed in the house, I like the flexibility where I can take my laptop anywhere throughout the house and still have a wireless connection to the internet and so can anyone else bringing a laptop into my house. There are other benefits and I would like to keep it installed however I have never been entirely comfortable in the knowledge that there are kids sitting right next to a radiating antenna for several hours per week.

Even although the government is currently saying there is no problem there is a split forming in the scientific community on this matter and as a parent I just feel a bit uncomfortable taking an unnecessary risk. I haven’t heard much recently about the mobile phone issue, was there not warnings about this at one point where users were advised to use an earphone and have the transmitter away from your body, don’t use it too much, switch from ear to ear ect.

Maybe if it was just me I wouldnt be too bothered about this but when there are cracks appearing in the arguements with some of the top scientists I think I have to take notice. I have made my mind up and I will reluctantly go back to the hard wired network meantime.

Maybe we need to put this into perspective: the microwave energy of Wi-Fi operating at around 2.4GHz is limited to 0.1W and I think this takes into account the properties of the antenna and feed. This is about the same output power as a mobile phone. Should we worry if it's kept at a distance?

Considering the application I guess the radiation pattern from the Wi-Fi Transceiver is as near omni-directional as possible, though it's bound to be limited by the type of antenna used, to try to give the best horizontal and vertical coverage. A sort of toroid or doughnut pattern around the antenna, is typical, I think.

However if we were to assume a point source with a spherical wavefront radiating away from that point and no LOS losses then the power density of the wavefront would be about 32mW per square metre at 0.5m , 8mW per square metre at 1m, 2mW per square metre at 2m, etc, etc, I reckon.

As I said I've no idea what effect long term exposure to low levels of microwave energy have on tissues, nevermind developing tissues, in terms of heating or chemical changes; I'm just trying to give an idea of the magnitude in the power density of the EM field that a person may be exposed to. This is what Geoff referred to.

Very interesting discussion. I always wondered whether any serious studies have been carried out on electro-therapy devices that heat / stimulate tissue and nerves have damaging effects.

It would take a major research grant to look into this, and i don't think it will prove anything. Looking at this from a risk angle - Is the risk of us being harmed by radiation from WIFI any higher than the risk of being harmed by other types of technology, such as cars, motorbikes, cookers, etc.

Many people get burned/killed by cookers (or fires started by cookers) but we don't say "let's get rid of cookers because they are proven to harm people" We know that the risk of being burnt is real, the risk of a fire is also real but we take the risk because we like our ham, egg, and chips.

The same goes for using any type of transport - they all carry risks.

There probably are risks but we need to put them into context. A trans-atlantic airline flight will expose you to a good deal of cosmic radiation, terrorist risk, mechanical risk, bad food, DVT, drunken passenger risk, etc. We still want to fly to Orlando because the pleasure outweighs the risk.

Well said John, it all needs putting into context.
If we took notice of everything that is spouted these days regarding risk to health and safety, we might as well curl up and die now.
I think an element of the mamby pamby state calling the tune is creeping in here. Thank goodness there were no H&S issues when I was a kid building tree houses and rope swings near to a granite quarry that regularly blasted with explosives everyday!!!!

Rather than being namby-namby I think KIT is discussing his personal decision not to use Wi-Fi because of concerns for his kids - I've no kids but I can empathise - I didn't watch the program.

Without teaching grandma to suck eggs - the effects of microwave energy that's deposited in tissues are not just heating (negligible), RF induced currents (negligible) or burns (negligible) it's the athermal (relatively unknown but observed) effects, possibly due to extended exposure to what are considered low-level RF (strictly speaking microwave) electric and magnetic fields, that I think are a concern.

It sounds to me that the promotion of cancer and other abnormalities (associated with exposure to low-level RF) is what KIT may be more concerned about. That's the area where there's lots of conflicting scientific evidence I think.

Saying that I once got an RF burn off 20Vrms RF signal, transmitted at a few GHz, off a faulty termination on a transmision line, at University. My thumb was a bit of a mess for quite a while.

Risk assess! Risk assess! Risk assess! ... it's the new mantra in our beloved Nanny State.

That is, risk assess, then carry on regardless!

Hey, Richard ... you didn't watch the program? Why do you think I posted the link?