Premium Content

New Signal Chain Resources from Texas Instruments:

Does Wi-Fi Put Danger In Your Pocket?

Date Posted: January 26, 2012 11:23 AM
Author: Paul Whytock

The debate on whether long-term exposure to Wi-Fi is a serious health risk has surfaced again following recent studies and announcements from concerned organizations.

Conditions such as heart arrhythmia, short-term memory dysfunction, insomnia, skin rashes, tinnitus, nausea, and dizziness have all been linked to prolonged exposure to electromagnetic fields for some time, although the World Health Organization (WHO) remains unconvinced.

Reproductive Health

But one report that will have males worrying concentrates on the effect on reproductive systems. According to scientific studies in Argentina, sperm that was subjected to Wi-Fi exposure displayed reactions ranging from lethargy to structural damage.

The study was pretty basic but did display some straightforward results. Samples were taken from 30 men who were split between those who sat close to a Wi-Fi enabled laptop and those who sat a distance away. Ambient temperature was controlled for both sets of samples.

At the end of the test approximately 25% of the sperm close to the laptop were no longer active, compared to 14% for those situated on the other side of the room. Worryingly, 9% of the sperm near the laptop showed DNA damage.

How much this experiment really tells us about male reproductive risk from keeping your cell phone in your trouser pocket is impossible say at this stage. But it does mean that male infertility joins the ranks of other health concerns that continue to fuel the Wi-Fi debate.

Precautions Rather Than Proof

The Council of Europe pitched into the discussion recently by calling for a ban on mobile phones in schools and a reduction of children’s exposure to other wireless devices such as laptops, baby alarms, and cordless phones.

The report from the Council of Europe was based on a principle of precaution, rather than clear proof of danger from exposure to electromagnetic fields. It holds the view that electromagnetic fields are one of the most common and fastest-growing environmental influences affecting society and that levels of exposure will continue to increase as technology advances.

The Council cited the use of mobile telephones as an example, noting that more than 1.4 million basestations now relay information worldwide. Also, the Council noted the increasing use of wireless networks that use electromagnetic fields to facilitate high-speed wireless Internet access.

A conflicting perspective comes from the WHO, which examined the health implications of electromagnetic fields, particularly those generated by mobile phone signals.

The WHO states that despite extensive research and a recent in-depth review of available scientific literature on the subject, there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health.

Having said that, the WHO also admitted that there are knowledge gaps about biological effects related to exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields. Therefore, further research is needed.

Scientists at the U.K.’s Health Protection Agency support the WHO’s no-risk opinion. Their research measured very small output powers even when devices were transmitting continuously and found the powers would be lower still with the intermittent transmissions that occur in normal use. The effective powers in the direction of maximum emission were in the range 17 to 57 mW and therefore well within the 100-mW limit set for Europe.

EHS Emerges

Despite that, there is a further important element in this whole Wi-Fi debate—electro-hypersensitivity (EHS), also called electro-sensitivity and electromagnetic sensitivity.

This unproven condition has become documented because of the number of people displaying symptoms including headaches, fatigue, trouble concentrating, problems with short-term memory, insomnia, skin rashes, tinnitus, nausea, and dizziness, which are believed to be caused by spending time in places where cordless phones, cell phones, or Wi-Fi are present.

People have reported these conditions after using Wi-Fi over a period of time, yet the symptoms disappeared when those people were no longer exposed to electromagnetic fields, such as when they were on vacation. But don’t forget that these symptoms can be due to many different diseases and conditions.

Another EHS study by researchers at Trent University in Ontario did find increases in heart rate or irregular heartbeat in some people exposed to a nearby cordless phone. Among those affected, nearly half found their heart rate returned to normal after the cordless phone was unplugged.

Importantly, this was a blind study, meaning that the participants didn’t know if the cordless phone was plugged in or not. It was published in the 23 October, 2010 issue of the European Journal of Oncology.

According to the WHO, the number of people with EHS is unknown. Surveys have shown wide variations but have concluded the incidence appears to be higher in Sweden, Germany, and Denmark than it is in the United Kingdom, Austria, and France. Additionally, EHS is recognized in Canada but has received only minor attention in the United States.

What do you think? Is long-term exposure to Wi-Fi a danger? I’d be interested to receive your views or experiences. E-mail me at paul.whytock@penton.com.

health | Research | WHO | WiFi
Part Inventory
Go
powered by:
 

 
You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here
  • Farrell Segall
    3 months ago
    Feb 09, 2012

    Great article - but this is i believe simple fear mongering!
    Just imagine - a world without wireless communication - no possibility of contact with remote people - even worse imagine the world without wireless on the move - think navigation and transport.
    The average life expectancy of humans has increased from 31 to 67 in just the last 100 years - take away communications and we will surely go back in time. Wireless communication has made this possible.
    I have been a radio ham too for 40 years and at close to 60 don't have much hair left - must I attribute that too to exposure to huge amounts of RF. Yes even my fluorescent tubes light up when I key my transmitters!
    Then there is my dad who died at 42yrs old in 1967 from a form of cancer!
    He manufactured candy made of sugar in a process heated by a coal fired boiler and steam - surely sugar today is one of our greatest unrestricted dangers? Or was it Steam?
    Then he also smoked tobacco another almost unrestricted and severely taxed dangerous substance.
    BUT he was NEVER exposed to significant RF and in fact grew up on a dairy farm.
    We never had microwave ovens then and lived in Southern Africa far from the developed nations radiation sources.

    The matter we refuse to accept is that we are an evolving species and our highly complex organic bodies will adapt and develop by themselves to eventually tolerate man-made changes to the environment we live in.

    I fully agree with Mr Jones in that we are not only looking in the wrong direction for "the truth", but we are choosing to ignore the obvious perils that we face as a human race. The Wireless electromagnetic spectrum (and this includes WiFi) enables the whole world to be connected and perhaps shall lead to a better place for all to live with knowledge and education - which after all is what ultimately leads to a healthier life existence for all.

    Long live WiFi - and the human race that invented it.


  • Gerd Rosenbaum
    3 months ago
    Feb 08, 2012

    Mr. Jones, 50 mW emitted within a few inches from the gonads is not a tiny signal. If microwave ovens were that leaky as you claim there would be many more cataracts, the eye being a typical height of a microwave. These and the other potential sources of EM radiation are typically several feet away. So the dose is two or more orders of magnitude lower for the same emitted power. You don't give any estimates of the power of these other emitters, so you argument has no substance.

    But you "discount the Trent study without having read it because, as you claim, it has no control group. The article says it was a blind study. That means the control was implicit.

  • Leigh Jones
    3 months ago
    Feb 08, 2012

    I haven't read the Trent University and so am unable to comment on it directly, but I would like to suggest that there is room for error in any study like this. In fact, I need to point up that this kind of study is often proven wrong, even if it is a good attempt by knowledgeable and impartial researchers.

    "I get headaches when I'm not on vacation" cannot be construed as forging a link between WiFi and headaches. As worded in your article, the Trent University study monitored heart rates and irregular heartbeats while a tiny signal was radiated nearby. The study as described here did not have a control group not exposed to the signal, and the description "some people" is inadequate to allow the reader to distinguish between innuendo and truth, so the entire news piece must be discounted as innuendo.

    WiFi is a tiny electromagnetic signal. By comparison to leakage from nearby microwave ovens, intentional radiation from television and radio transmitters, including cellular telephone audio, electromagnetic fields from nearby power lines, bombarding by electrons from older television screens, and energized alpha particles from the sun all deliver more energy to the human body than does WiFi and are potentially more damaging.

    I see little value in this line of reasoning. Rather, you should focus on the truly damaging health effects of WiFi -- which is the chemical pollution created through the manufacture of the plastic boxes in which the WiFi products are encased.