I have found information, from scientific studies, on the effects of Wifi use. Research on Radio Frequency/ Electromagnetic Frequency radiation has been going on since the 1950’s and, there is a lot to know.
Why am I writing about this?
I have heard people say things like, “If wireless technology were harmful, we would know about it by now.” In my experience, there are barriers to information. It is a challenging word game to find unbiased information. There are also man-made barriers to information. For example, we are bombarded with advertisements as the main search results. Another barrier is financial cost. Many times we have to pay for a subscription to some journal to get the latest information. Information isn’t always free. This is why I am sharing my notes. Information or notes should be freely shared among each other. Other barriers or blocks include thoughts like, “I can’t understand these research articles.” “No one cares.” None of that is true. There are articles written for everyday people and people do care about things that are happening but, it takes time for information to spread to the masses.
I don’t want to bore you but, here is some vocabulary because, that is where all the information is…otherwise, skip it…
Microwaves are non-thermal radio frequency/ electromagnetic radiation waves. It is important to keep those words in mind,when looking for information. Some research has been done on thermal effects of these devices. From that research, on the thermal effects,our devices were found to be safe. So the obvious question is what about the NON- THERMAL Effects? Note which units of measurements are used. Here is a quick reminder in case you need it..
Watt (W) is a measurement of power used by an appliance .
Milliwatt (mW) –>1000 mW= 1 Watt
Hertz (Hz) the frequency or number of cycles at a given point, per second
SAR is the abbreviation for Specific Absorption Rate. Our phones and other wifi gadgets, in this country, have been given a SAR value. Per the FCC any phone legally sold in the U.S. meets SAR requirements. SAR standards in the U.S. are controversial and many people do not agree that these standards are low enough to be safe.
I am breaking this post into sections so, that you can skip along as you want. Below is a section on the response from the Federal Communications Commision (FCC) on research regarding Radio Frequency and Microwave radiation. Next, is the research previously done by Scott Bolen with Griffiss Air Force Base (1995). Afterwards, is research from a group called Physicians For Safe Technology . I chose these research articles because 1) Some people still look to the FCC to set safe standards. 2) I included research from Scott Bolen/ Griffiss Air Force Base because this report is still cited in more current research articles. Plus, a lot of people are generally interested in anything the military is involved with 3) Research from Physicians For Safe Technology is written in a clearer way for individuals who may not be as familiar with research/medical jargon. They explain things a little better.
There was much more research out there to read…if you do a search choose your vocabulary wisely. Otherwise, you are likely to get advertisements for phones. Lastly, I included things we can do.
Lets talk about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). You may be thinking, “They have set safe standards and I fully trust them!” Ok, great and here is what they have reported on Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields.
The Federal Communications Commision:FYI—The link to their response regarding RF/EMF in their 1999 bulletin, is below. If there is a more recent response, I couldn’t find it. There was a broken link online to something that had a different release date and a D.C. address to mail a question. Anyway the link to the article below is still cited in research, by scientists questioning the FCC this year 2018. https://www.fcc.gov/general/fcc-policy-human-exposure#block-menu-block-4 Scroll down to
OET Bulletin No. 56, “Questions and Answers About the Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.”
I started with the FCC response, so that you know ahead of time,that they have put a safe standard of 1.6W/kg and that they have approached this matter by 1) primarily looking at the Thermal effects and 2) that the FCC’s stance is that research on non- thermal effects are unknown.
- On page 6, The FCC differentiates between Biological Effects vs. Biological Hazards. A biological effect turns into a Biological Hazard when “it causes detectable impairment of health of the individual or of his or her offspring.” This is a little tricky and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Is the formation of cancer easily detectable? It depends on how we are choosing to “observe”data and the time frames involved in exposure to this radiation, among other things.
- Page 8 of this FCC bulletin, states
- “In general, while the possibility of non- thermal biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known.”
This is actually untrue and, page 9 of this report seems to indicate a conflict of interest. Further in this post, I have research articles to show that the non- thermal effects exist and have been shown to be hazardous.
- Page 9 of this FCC bulletin discloses,
- “At the present time, much of the non-military research on biological effects of RF energy in the U.S. is being funded by industry organizations such as Motorola Inc.”
- Page 16 of this bulletin, states that a SAR level of 1.6 W/ kg is the standard for safety. Note that this number is given in terms of Watts/kilograms. In the research below, safety standards were previously set in Milliwatts by other agencies, in other countries.
- On Page 27 the FCC states that while they are the lead federal health agency, other agencies like the FDA, DOD, OSHA, NIOSH,NTIA and EPA have responsibilities to potential RF health effects. So, those are other agencies to look up.
To summarize, per the Federal Communications Commission, no known non-thermal Radio Frequency/ Electromagnetic Field Radiation biological hazards are known to exist and a safe SAR value is 1.6 W/kg.
Research from Scott Bolen and Griffiss Air Force Base
FYI—the link to this widely cited report–> https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA282886
I encourage you to look over this report for yourselves. There is a lot more to read and information on health issues than, I have summarized here, for lack of time…
- Page 2 of Scott Bolen/ Air Force, “ Research conducted in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe suggests that the human body may be more sensitive to the non- thermal effects of RF/MW radiation.”
- Page 9 of Scott Bolen/ Griffiss Air Force Base on Behavioral Effects, “ Exposure to RF/MW radiation has been observed to cause a disruption in the behavior of animals…researchers indicate that behavior may be the most sensitive biological component to RF/MW radiation.”
- Page 10, their research suggested that psychoactive drugs (like medications for conditions like depression, anxiety, etc.) in combination with exposure to RF/MW may have a synergistic effect. This means the medication may have an amplified effect on the individual.
- Under recommendations and philosophy sections
I thought it best to let the report speak for itself.
The reports from Physicians For Safe Technology
Their link and a lot more than I could summarize thoroughly in a single post is below.
https://mdsafetech.org/non-thermal-effects-2/ If you want, save it to your phone and flip through the information in your spare time. It’s worth knowing. I didn’t print it out because, there is over 90 pages.
Here are some key points of the research found by these scientists:
- Evidence suggests Electromagnetic Fields causation of dementia, ADHD, and Autism.
- Evidence suggests Electromagnetic Fields cause harm to our nervous system (our brains etc.).
- Evidence suggests Electromagnetic Fields cause harm to our reproductive system.
- Evidence suggests Electromagnetic Fields cause harm to our DNA with a causation of cancer.
- Evidence suggests Electromagnetic Fields cause harm to our endocrine (hormonal) system.
For more information on non-thermal effects, there is an overwhelming amount of information with the article listed above and in the following sites listed below : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118310157
Things we can do:
- Look up your device’s/ phone’s SAR values.
- Educate yourself and speak up to your congress person, your favorite telecommunication company and your favorite customer service reps.
- Our buying power given to the tech/telecommunications world is phenomenally high. Reconsider how much of your money you give to them as a way to say, “No, I don’t like what you are doing!” Imagine the power we would take back if only a small percentage of our huge population stopped buying so much of these gadgets. Or, if we stopped needing to be connected while we were grocery shopping or eating at a restaurant or switched off wifi while we slept.
- Reconsider using hands free devices that use wireless technology.
- Reconsider using corded headsets.
- Don’t assume that a lack of research proves something is safe or unharmful.
- Consider your source for information. The American Cancer Society doesn’t explicitly support the FCC nor seems to take much of a stance on this matter. They seem to think cancer is still mysterious. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html
- Researchers do consider baby monitors unsafe especially since their skulls are softer. Look up the SAR value.
- Maybe we should avoid storing our devices under our beds (or am I the only one who has done this?) nor next to our beds.
- Do you ever wonder if we have become accustomed to feeling certain ways? Like we have become used to feeling tired, or achy for no reason?
- Something to remember–>The human body is both chemical and electrical, in nature. Our brains/ and cells use our naturally occurring chemicals in a process that also produces electricity to form both feelings, thoughts and, general well-being. For example, our hormones (endocrine system) are important chemicals that do more than help us to have feelings.
- We really don’t know how the mechanics of our thinking actually goes from a chemical electrical process into a single thought. Could it be possible that our gadgets are impacting us in ways we don’t realize? Do other electrical devices ever interfere with each other? I don’t mean to minimize our human experience or our bodies but I do think there are questions we could be asking more often (sometimes I do think I see people short circuit. Sorry, I had to go there…)
- When some of us were kids, these devices weren’t a thing yet. Our children have spent their whole lives submerged in invisible waves of one kind or another. How will this impact their long- term health?
- What are all the non-monetary costs to having our devices and the constant need to have more stuff, more wireless connection and at faster speeds?
Is 5G really necessary? Bzzzzz.