Wifi radiation

[jddj]

Since wifi routers put out radio waves in the same frequency range as microwave oven leakage (2.4GHz vs. 2.45GHz), bluetooth (in some ears all day) and some cordless house phones, and since this is non-ionizing radiation (i.e. not like X-rays, gamma rays, radioactive decay), we've already run a worldwide, decades-long experiment on the safety of the B band.

Your wifi router is not capable of boiling water, even in a tuned cavity like a microwave oven enclosure. Your microwave is dissipating 800-1200 watts in order to do so. Your router isn't capable of that kind of power dissipation, even on a good day with the wind blowing the right direction. It's about 1/1000th as powerful (in very rough terms).

5 and 6GHz radios are also outputting fairly low levels of non-ionizing radiation (as are common household light bulbs at 430 to 790 THz: try reading in the dark!) and I'd guess the risks of 5 and 6 GHz bands are similar to 2.4GHz (I say so because they're within an order of magnitude of frequency of each other, power radiation is limited to about 1 watt, and 5 and 6 GHz don't penetrate solid objects as well as 2.4GHz).

You're more likely to get hurt touching a hot incandescent light bulb than from your router's signal (unless you take the lid off and start playing with the heat sinks).

Would you put a wifi router on the table next to the baby? If you're putting a wireless baby cam on the crib (as we did), you're already doing something comparable, and at comparable frequencies. Let me know how that works out. After the teen years, please.

 

[AlleyCat]

I don't know if they talked about it here in the forum, about the issue of radiation in the house from the wifi signals? Is there any danger?

only the higher frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays and high-energy ultraviolet.

lower frequency radiation, such as Radio Frequencies (like WiFi), Infrared, Ultraviolet, Microwaves, and ELF (extremely low frequencies) ... are types of non-ionizing radiation.

For a deeper dive, please watch Sabine Hossenfelder talk about the physics of 5G:

All you need to know to understand 5G (2020)

The Trouble with 5G (2022)

please note: 5G (fifth generation mobile networks) and 5GHz wireless routers are quite different from each other. 5G mobile operates in the 24 - 54 GHz range, whereas the dual or tri-band router sitting on your shelf is transmitting & receiving on 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, and at very low power (less than 100mW).

 

[HarryMuscle]

Since wifi routers put out radio waves in the same frequency range as microwave oven leakage (2.4GHz vs. 2.45GHz), bluetooth (in some ears all day) and some cordless house phones, and since this is non-ionizing radiation (i.e. not like X-rays, gamma rays, radioactive decay), we've already run a worldwide, decades-long experiment on the safety of the B band.

Your wifi router is not capable of boiling water, even in a tuned cavity like a microwave oven enclosure. Your microwave is dissipating 800-1200 watts in order to do so. Your router isn't capable of that kind of power dissipation, even on a good day with the wind blowing the right direction. It's about 1/1000th as powerful (in very rough terms).

5 and 6GHz radios are also outputting fairly low levels of non-ionizing radiation (as are common household light bulbs at 430 to 790 THz: try reading in the dark!) and I'd guess the risks of 5 and 6 GHz bands are similar to 2.4GHz (I say so because they're within an order of magnitude of frequency of each other, power radiation is limited to about 1 watt, and 5 and 6 GHz don't penetrate solid objects as well as 2.4GHz).

You're more likely to get hurt touching a hot incandescent light bulb than from your router's signal (unless you take the lid off and start playing with the heat sinks).

Would you put a wifi router on the table next to the baby? If you're putting a wireless baby cam on the crib (as we did), you're already doing something comparable, and at comparable frequencies. Let me know how that works out. After the teen years, please.

And yet we have results showing an increase in cancer from cell phone use in studies like these:

The Association Between Smartphone Use and Breast Cancer Risk Among Taiwanese Women: A Case-Control Study - PMC

Breast cancer is a common malignancy worldwide. Smartphones have gradually become indispensable to our modern lives and have already changed lifestyles of human beings. To our best knowledge, no study has investigated the relationship between ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones - PMC

Breast cancer occurring in women under the age of 40 is uncommon in the absence of family history or genetic predisposition, and prompts the exploration of other possible exposures or environmental risks. We report a case series of four young ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You assume we know everything there is to know about how EM radiation reacts with human bodies. We definitely don't.

 

[HarryMuscle]

only the higher frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum are ionizing radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays and high-energy ultraviolet.

lower frequency radiation, such as Radio Frequencies (like WiFi), Infrared, Ultraviolet, Microwaves, and ELF (extremely low frequencies) ... are types of non-ionizing radiation.

For a deeper dive, please watch Sabine Hossenfelder talk about the physics of 5G:

All you need to know to understand 5G (2020)

The Trouble with 5G (2022)

please note: 5G (fifth generation mobile networks) and 5GHz wireless routers are quite different from each other. 5G mobile operates in the 24 - 54 GHz range, whereas the dual or tri-band router sitting on your shelf is transmitting & receiving on 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, and at very low power (less than 100mW).

You assume humans know everything there is to know about how EM radiation reacts with human bodies. We definitely don't.

 

[jddj]

You assume we know everything there is to know about how EM radiation reacts with human bodies. We definitely don't.

Y'know, I really don't.

But I do make educated guesses and choices for my family based on things like the effective radiated power of a device that's meant to communicate over maybe 150 feet and one that's meant to communicate with a tower a couple miles away.

 

[Tech9]

Your educated guesses will evaporate the moment family member is diagnosed with rare form of cancer. Hopefully it never happens to you. Current leading science knows under 10% of how human body works. We never had so much RF emissions to conduct a study. Some people pack 80x radios in a small apartment in form of routers, nodes, extenders, IoT, wireless headphones, cellphones, etc. Plus all the neighbors around perhaps doing the same for "convenience". Some people live close to 300KV power lines because the houses there are cheaper. Why they are cheaper, actually? Nature has million years of experience. We have about 100 years of wider electricity use and about 10 years of mass wireless technology use experience.

You tell us what happens to your kids. My kids were born before mass Wi-Fi around. We had no Wi-Fi baby monitors and the kids survived somehow.

 

[Tech9]

You assume we know everything there is to know about how EM radiation reacts with human bodies. We definitely don't.

One thing we know for sure - it's really hard for some to say "I don't know".

 

[Yota]

Well, it didn't occur to me that anyone wanted to have a serious discussion in this thread:

Whenever someone around me talks about this topic, I recommend anyone concerned about this topic to read these few Wikipedia articles first, because it is a relatively neutral summary of the information we currently have.

Wireless device radiation and health - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Electromagnetic radiation and health - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's worth pointing out that anything can be harmful to us in high enough concentrations. but wifi and the radios around us are limited to power levels that are currently not proven to be harmful to humans.

There are always unknowns out there, but this is not an equation that proves that unknown equals danger.


Also, if you read about Havana Syndrome, the authorities think it's caused by microwaves, maybe it's real, or just a scam to get research funding, I don't know.

Talking about the topic of Havana syndrome I think is more interesting than wifi, at least there are many inconclusive papers, suitable for speculation, and it is indeed a formal study of the effects of microwave radio on the human body. If Havana Syndrome turns out to be microwave-related, maybe we really need to ditch our wireless routers to prevent foreigners from manipulating our will.




And, never compare apples and oranges in a serious discussion. cigarettes and wifi, 300 KV power lines and wifi, phone night mode and wifi are not good comparisons. plus, that's "Wi-Fi", if you guys want to be serious.

 

[Tech9]

And, never compare apples and oranges in a serious discussion.

There are all man made change of environment with own effects on health, known and unknown.

but wifi and the radios around us are limited to power levels that are currently not proven to be harmful to humans.

How come conflicting studies in your own Wikipedia links become all of a sudden "not proven to be harmful"?

"A 2017 study of 153 men that attended an academic fertility clinic in Boston, Massachusetts found that self-reported mobile phone use was not related to semen quality, and that carrying a mobile phone in the pants pocket was not related to semen quality."

"A 2021 review concluded 5G radio frequencies in the range of 450 MHz to 6,000 MHz affect male fertility, possibly affect female fertility, and may have adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Conclusions could not be drawn for higher frequencies..."

Which one is true and why?

 

[jddj]

Your educated guesses will evaporate the moment family member is diagnosed with rare form of cancer. Hopefully it never happens to you. Current leading science knows under 10% of how human body works. We never had so much RF emissions to conduct a study. Some people pack 80x radios in a small apartment in form of routers, nodes, extenders, IoT, wireless headphones, cellphones, etc. Plus all the neighbors around perhaps doing the same for "convenience". Some people live close to 300KV power lines because the houses there are cheaper. Why they are cheaper, actually? Nature has million years of experience. We have about 100 years of wider electricity use and about 10 years of mass wireless technology use experience.

You tell us what happens to your kids. My kids were born before mass Wi-Fi around. We had no Wi-Fi baby monitors and the kids survived somehow.

Uff Da!

Sorry buddy, I didn't come here to fight. Talk amongst yourself. Enjoy!

 

[Tech9]

Sorry buddy, I didn't come here to fight.

I'm not taking either side. I don't know what the health effects are. What I know for sure is Wi-Fi radios further away from kids won't change our quality of life much, but will reduce the eventual danger of something we don't know yet. You believe the antenna on top of your kid's head is safe and convenient. I believe the kid is just fine without it. If proven safe over time - no change for both of us. If proven harmful over time - your kid may pay the price.

I don't like guessing. I like logical conclusions.

 

[Crimliar]

Hmm, your body radiates heat - that's radiation too!

 

[Lord Lovaduck]

Would you place your Wi-Fi router on the nightstand next to your newborn baby? If the answer is NO - why?

Many people place baby audio monitors and/or cameras by the crib. Some devices use wifi others use other radio frequencies. How's that different than placing the router? Not much.... Maybe less power but still....

 

[Clark Griswald]

I consulted with my esteemed collegue Dr. Navin R. Johnson inventor of the Opti-Grab (pictured above), and he assures me that WiFi radiation should not be a concern.
I am here to clearly state with scientific certainty we can now close this thread!

 

[Yota]

There are all man made change of environment with own effects on health, known and unknown.



How come conflicting studies in your own Wikipedia links become all of a sudden "not proven to be harmful"?

"A 2017 study of 153 men that attended an academic fertility clinic in Boston, Massachusetts found that self-reported mobile phone use was not related to semen quality, and that carrying a mobile phone in the pants pocket was not related to semen quality."

"A 2021 review concluded 5G radio frequencies in the range of 450 MHz to 6,000 MHz affect male fertility, possibly affect female fertility, and may have adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. Conclusions could not be drawn for higher frequencies..."

Which one is true and why?

I said it was a neutral summary, the basis for a good discussion, based on substantive research, not guesswork. But guessing is not useless, if you can prove your guess, we can make it a theory.

Unfortunately, a lot of professional people have done a lot of substantive research here, but if you don't believe them, well, you need to research it yourself, not just guess. make your guesses convincing to all, turn your guesses into theories.

 

[Tech9]

turn your guesses into theories.

In this entire thread I have no single post with guessing. When I don't know something I use always winning strategies based on logic. Example above.

 

[Yota]

In this entire thread I have no single post with guessing. When I don't know something I use always winning strategies based on logic. Example above.

You must provide more relevant examples to convince us of your argument. Cigarettes are a completely unrelated case, and such derivations from another matter are not suitable for serious discussion.

 

[BreakingDad]

don't take it too seriously

You think that comment was serious ? wow just wow

Everything in moderation I say, even radiation.

 

[esfu]

"A 2017 study of 153 men that attended an academic fertility clinic in Boston, Massachusetts found that self-reported mobile phone use was not related to semen quality, and that carrying a mobile phone in the pants pocket was not related to semen quality."

An article on NIH National Library of Medicine which appears to be a government approved website due to the .gov extension has this even for laptops as they generate heat, let alone electromagnetic waves due to WiFi.

Our own studies as well as the studies performed by other researchers indicate that using laptop computers on the lap adversely affects the male reproductive health. When it is placed on the lap, not only the heat from a laptop computer can warm men’s scrotums, the electromagnetic fields generated by laptop’s internal electronic circuits as well as the Wi-Fi Radiofrequency radiation hazards (in a Wi-Fi connected laptop) may decrease sperm quality.

In my humble opinion, human beings know a lot lesser than there is in reality.

Cannot avoid using gadgets but at the same time, cannot rule out that either our own or future generations may have a price to pay at some point of time which may not be pleasant.

Without going too far in past, who on earth would have thought that almost the entire world will come to a standstill due to a pandemic. Specific areas or countries is understandable but almost the entire world. Not too many people, if any, I guess would have known it. That proves the point that black swan events will always be around.

 

[Tech9]

You must provide more relevant examples to convince us of your argument.

I never tried to convince anyone in anything either. What discussion can we have when you don't even read what's written? Also, you represent one opinion in a discussion and not "us". There is no argument either. I just asked some questions in a way making them harder to answer.

Everything in moderation I say

This is the same example of always winning strategy. In some cases it's based on science and logic, in other on logic alone. When you don't know about something - approach with caution especially when multi billion dollar businesses are built around it. This is what the history shows.

In my humble opinion, human beings know a lot lesser than there is in reality.

And this is a fact. We can build microchips, but we can't build a living cell simply because big part of the processes inside of it are still unknown. We can build nano robots, but we can't built an ant or a bee because we still don't know what drives their obvious to everyone social behavior.