Wi-Fi and Health

[noxiousvegeta]

Hello everyone, i would like to know if there is some evidence proving that Wi-Fi is not unhealthy. Is there a risk with the radiations that comes from Wi-Fi emitted by routers?. I usually keep the Wi-Fi off unless i need it. Sometime i play some internet games using Wi-Fi for about two hours a day. The router is in my bedroom but i go upstair to play games. My router is a d-link DSL-2640R.

 

Is going distant from the routers going to be more dangerous for me because the Wi-Fi has to get to me, or is going distant safer?

 

What worrys me more is that people living understair my bedroom keep Wi-Fi on 24/h.

 

Could long exposure from the Wi-Fi of people living understair, or me using the wifi for a couple of hours a day give me health problems in the future, such as Cancer and other problems related to radiations?

 

Thanks.

PS: i found this on Wikipedia: The World Health Organization has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation as a possible group 2b carcinogen.[12][13] This group contains possible carcinogens with weaker evidence, at the same level as coffee and automobile exhaust.

Edited September 16, 2014 by noxiousvegeta

[CharonY]

One the more comprehensive reports is this one:

Valberg et al. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Volume: 115 Issue: 3 Pages: 416-424

 

Abstract:

 

Radiofrequency (RF) waves have long been used for different types of information exchange via the airwaves-wireless Morse code, radio, television, and wireless telephony (i.e., construction and operation of telephones or telephonic systems). Increasingly larger numbers of people rely on mobile telephone technology, and health concerns about the associated RF exposure have been raised, particularly because the mobile phone handset operates in close proximity to the human body, and also because large numbers of base station antennas are required to provide widespread availability of service to large populations. The World Health Organization convened an expert workshop to discuss the current state of cellular-telephone health issues, and this article brings together several of the key points that were addressed. The possibility of RF health effects has been investigated in epidemiology studies of cellular telephone users and workers in RT occupations, in experiments with animals exposed to cell-phone RF, and via biophysical consideration of cell-phone RF electric-field intensity and the effect of RF modulation schemes. As summarized here, these separate avenues of scientific investigation provide little support for adverse health effects arising from RF exposure at levels below current international standards. Moreover, radio and television broadcast waves have exposed populations to RF for > 50 years with little evidence of deleterious health consequences. Despite unavoidable uncertainty, current scientific data are consistent with the conclusion that public exposures to permissible RF levels from mobile telephony and base stations are not likely to adversely affect human health.

[fiveworlds]

http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/do-we-know-enough-to-take-action/

[StringJunky]

If you are happy to chat on your mobile phone for twenty minutes that's about as much radiation as your wifi will give you in a year and there's no evidence that that level is harmful from a mobile phone (Paraphrased from Source:UK Health Protection Authority).

 

Non-ionising radiation - which is what wifi uses - doesn't cause chemical bonds to break which is necessary for chemical reactions/altered configurations to occur and if there is no chemical reaction, there are - to date - no known long-term adverse cellular-level effects from frequencies domestic devices use, other than it could make things a bit warmer. A mobile phone could possibly do this if held to your ear long enough but wifi - being longer range in use is unlikely to do this except from a laptop - it's a good idea to protect your gonads from the conducted heat generated by the components.

 

Concerning the WHO's '2b' classification:

 

QuoteQuote

IARC maintains a list of 269 substances in the 2B category, most of which are chemical compounds. A number of familiar items are also included in this list: coffee, pickled vegetables, carbon black (carbon paper), gasoline exhaust, talcum powder, and nickel (coins). The IARC provides the following definition of the 2B category (2 P 23): “This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals“.

 

The Category 2B “possible carcinogen” classification does not mean that an agent is carcinogenic. As Ken Foster ( Added to note: Bioengineering Professor) of the University of Pennsylvania pointed out to me. “Their conclusion is easy to misinterpret.” “Saying that something is a “possible carcinogen” is a bit like saying that someone is a “possible shoplifter” because he was in the store when the watch was stolen. The real question is what is the evidence that cell phones actually cause cancer, and the answer is — none that would persuade a health agency.” Read more...

 

fiveworlds, on 17 Sept 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:fiveworlds, on 17 Sept 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/participants/do-we-know-enough-to-take-action/

A critique of your source:

QuoteQuote

Picking Cherries - The Bio-initiative Report

 

...In many respects this scientific literature is uneven and confused. The studies vary widely in quality, biological endpoint, and relevance to health. The literature is filled with low-quality fishing expeditions in search of effects (as opposed to studies that tested hypotheses). Many of these studies were one-shot experiments, that were not followed up or even repeated by the investigators themselves. Many studies have obvious technical flaws, typically poor dosimetry (determining how much exposure the preparation actually received in an experiment) or poor temperature control (heating is a necessary consequence of RF exposure and most biological reactions are sensitive to temperature). Many of the reported effects were small, close to the level of background variability and small compared to potential artifacts (and hence difficult to identify reliably), with no particular relevance to health. The literature suffers badly from publication bias — researchers are more likely to report having found an “effect” and less likely to publish no effect studies. As might be expected, the literature abounds with reports of “effects”, many of which are simply artifacts from poorly conducted experiments. Read more...

I'm no expert but every time I check out this subject I find nothing convincing to worry me enough to cause me to change my computer and phone habits ...other than keeping my gonads cool...laptop's on a table. .

Edited September 17, 2014 by StringJunky

[Sensei]

Non-ionising radiation (...) doesn't cause chemical bonds to break which is necessary for chemical reactions/altered configurations to occur and if there is no chemical reaction,

 

There is no need for ionization radiation to break chemical bond.

 

f.e. to split water molecule there is needed photon with E=1.23 eV, [latex] \lambda = 1008 nm[/latex]

It's far, far away, from ionization radiation UV/x-ray/gamma photons..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photocatalytic_water_splitting

 

ps. Just general thought. Not related to the main subject of this thread.

[John Cuthber]

You seem to ignore the rather obvious fact that water is not split up by visible light, which has a rather shorter wavelength.

[noxiousvegeta]

Thanks everyone!