Wi-Fi – the dangers

I saw the BBC ‘Panorama’ programme that talked about potential health risks of wireless hotspots in our cities. I’m concerned for my staff in the workplace, and especially for my children at home and school. Can wi-fi fry your brain?
This is headline-grabbing television, but much of what is says is purely hypothetical and not based on any
scientific findings. What was it that gave you cause for concern?
The programme-makers visited a school in Norwich, to compare the level of radiation from a typical mobile phone mast to the level in a classroom with wi-fi.
And what did they find?
In the classroom with wi-fi, radiation levels were, they said, ‘three times higher’! So how about in the office?
This is deceptively unscientific data. Subsequent reports from leading scientists and the World Health
Organisation have refuted this as inaccurate. You could say it’s media scare-mongering.
Can you clarify that in more detail?

---

Why did the Panorama programme find that radiation levels were ‘three times higher’ in a wi-fi enabled classroom than those emanating from a mobile phone mast?
What the programme didn’t make clear was that it made radiation measurements just one metre from the
laptop, but 100 metres from the phone mast.
I see. So the results aren’t a proper comparison?
That’s correct, and in any case, and more importantly, the radiation levels found in the room were 600
times lower than government-recommended safety standards.
That puts it in another light. So why all the fuss?
Apart from trying to get headlines, there is no long-term study for exposure to wi-fi radiofrequency (RF)
signals, in light of recent increases in wi-fi hotspots and devices. But the World Health Organisation (WHO)
has found no dangers to date from wi-fi.
So no cancer scares?
None at all. According to the WHO, cancer types and levels are unevenly spread through the population,
but not to any degree around mobile phone base stations or wi-fi transmitters.
So no effects on health at all?
The WHO has found minor increases in body temperature in industrial facilities where there are high
intensity RF heaters, but that is all, and it’s not a health risk.
But if there are no long-term studies for wi-fi, how does it compare to more established forms of RF?
The body actually absorbs five times more of the RF signal from FM radio and television signals than from
mobile or wi-fi base stations, due to their lower frequency (100MHz for radio, 300-400Mhz for TV compared
to 900MHz and 1800MHz for mobile telephony) and because the body acts as a natural aerial. We have
had decades of TV and radio exposure, with no ill effects.
Apart from square eyes, nauseating boredom and brain death, of course!
Well, you can blame the programme-makers for that, but not the radiation.
How does wi-fi compare to mobile phone exposure?
The Health Protection Agency estimates that a person sitting within a wi-fi spot for a year will receive the
same dose of radiation as someone talking on a mobile phone for 20 minutes.
That makes wi-fi seem pretty safe in comparison.
That’s right. Most studies have focused on the RF exposure levels of mobile phones, and the WHO has
not found any adverse effects.
So nothing to worry about using wi-fi devices?
Not really. If you sit too long at a laptop or wi-fi computer, the much bigger health risk is of getting repetitive
strain injury, eye or back problems from having bad posture, than any radiation exposure.
Fair point. In that case I’ll make sure that the office workstations are comfortable.

Links
Electromagnetic fields and public health
Peter Cochrane's Blog: Wi-fi radiation scare


Want to know more about the safety issues of Wi-Fi? Click here for more information.


Also in this issue: RFID – what does it mean for you? and Disposing of old equipment