Is WiFi a real danger to our health? If so, what's the evidence?

Is <insert anything> a real danger to your health? Or is the world dangerous to begin with and our diet is shit so we die because our body doesn't fix itself. The nutritional value of affordable food is garbage.

But if you really want to know check out studies at the NIH and look at where people asked this question. There are probably a lot of ongoing studies to look at.

The few papers about the topic I've read basically said that they couldn't neither confirm it nor disprove it 🤷‍♂️

Bananas are radioactive. Do you consider eating a banana dangerous to your health? If so, Wi-Fi is too, sure.

What is your threshold for "real"?

Wifi has zero measurable effect on the human body. Make your conclusion.

Any radio is dangerous if it's sitting close to you for extended periods of time. Unless you're hugging your wireless router/AP all day long, you probably don't have anything to worry about.

In a world full of pollution, radiation, stupid people, angry people, stupid angry people, traffic hazards and wild weather worrying about whether wifi is dangerous is ridiculous.

You've got wireless headphones transmitting signals right next to your brain..

It would depend on the wattage, the frequency itself is harmless but if you crank up the power it will be very harmful, this includes RF (FM/AM/UHF) not just "wifi" which operates on the gigahertz band.

@devdiddydog I have wifi in my pocket. It is not ridiculous to wonder if it could do something in such close proximity. The wifi on my router I am not worried about.

buy some mice at the pet store and find out

@jestdotty Don't do that lol use the proper testing equipment.

@jestdotty We know the effect electromagnetic radiation has on animals though.

Its a people are generally stupid + marketing problem.

Lets me show two examples:
Chemicals are bad in food!, buttttt, Minerals are good in food!

second example:
Search for dihydrogen monoxide dangerous nature, and why it should be banned.

yes it is. because freaky karens will bash your head in with the AP.

@bazmd

That is wrong.

Only frequency matters when dealing with the question of whether radiation is harmful.

Radiation is harmful because it ionizes DNA in the cells, breaking it.

To ionize, a photon must carry enough energy, which is dictated by frequency only, *not* intensity (power). (Fun fact: Einstein won the Nobel prize for this, not relativity).

No matter if you have a megawatt of radio waves next to you, they *can't* get past your skin, which is dead cells anyway.

Just for comparison, visible light is 10000 times more energetic than radio/wifi waves. Considering on a clear summer day at mid latitude we receive 1 kW of energy per square meter of visible light, just walking out for an hour is like standing next to a radio source of 10 megawatts..., and you don't die from walking out...

@CoreFusionX I tried to explain that in an other rant... Waste of time. Even microwave waves are 'safe' (= they don't give cancer) but they are harmful.

@CoreFusionX umm...microwave oven uses nearly same frequency as wifi. Same range of frequencies. It can and will do damage if it escapes its enclosure. I talked to people in the military that manned microwave communication towers. They could put a frozen turkey on a stick and put it in front of the dish. It would be cooked within about 5 minutes. So if the radio can heat up the cells in your body there is a potential for harm.

Microwave oven operates at 2.45 GHz (about). I think it is resonant with the spin frequency of water or something. This makes it heat up stuff with water in it really fast. The biggest different is that the oven is 1000 Watts while wifi is 100mW. So you would have to sleep on it (phone or router) to make a difference I think. If any difference at all. Just increase distance and the power levels drop to nothing.

@Demolishun

Indeed microwaves are designed to resonate with water molecules, and hence heat them up, but you'd need an enclosure, or any other concentration mechanism (such as a dish), just the same as you can get burned if you put sunlight through a magnifying glass.

That is, by definition, the opposite of what antennas do, so you'd need a small power plant to generate enough power for it to become harmful.

(And then again, this is only because of the resonance effect. Any other frequency below ultraviolet (which includes modern 5GHz wifi) is completely harmless).

@CoreFusionX then look at the research:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/327...

https://nih.gov/news-events/...

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/...

https://ewg.org/research/...

Some studies says its safe. Some do not. I cannot find the study that showed it reduced the viable eggs in female rats. That is the first study I saw about wifi. It was a proximity study of common wifi devices like phones/laptops.

To say there is no effect is just false.

It looks to me that is causes oxidative stress. At least two studies I saw show that. That is why I suggest treating it like a hazard: increase distance from source, reduce time in source, and shield if convenient.

@CoreFusionX I lot of things cause oxidative stress. So I think a good diet of anti-oxidants would probably prevent a lot if not most modern illnesses. It comes down to our food for a lot of things.

Just so we're all on the same page.

We can breakdown down specific frequencies that can be defined as "wifi" like this.

The frequency is a unit of time measured in hertz.

The wavelength is a unit of distance measured in meters.

The intensity is the amplitude of the wave measured in watts per square meter.

Higher wave frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum have a higher energy density and lower wave frequencies have a lower energy density, correct?

Now, let's define the "harmful" part!

It isn't the frequency which is how many cycles per second there are in a wave.

It isn't the wavelength which is the distance between each cycle.

For example a microwave oven with a power output of 800 watts and a frequency of 2450 megahertz would have a strong signal and if we reduce the power to 0.1 milliwatts we would have a very weak signal.

Power output is the most important factor regarding whether or not "wifi" is harmful.

Is everyone happy with this explanation?

@Demolishun Yeah I see that one, but based on the involuntary world wide experiment over the past decade and a half since wifi became normal and every man, woman and dog in developed countries has a phone in their pocket, handbag, next to their head at night - I'd say we're pretty safe. A connection between wifi and testicle cancer / ovarian cancer / dog cancer / head cancer should have been obvious by now I think.

But that's just my point of view 🤷‍♂️

@devdiddydog I'm worried about my testicles

@devdiddydog it is compounded by the fact that wifi power output has gotten lower. As has cell phones. There are stories of brick phone users having a lot of tumors in their head.

The biggest one I have the most concern isn't cancer though. It is reduced ability to have children. But yeah, everyone has been cookin' their balls for a while now.

@devdiddydog there is actually a conspiracy that Apple has put the antenna at the bottom of their tablets. So it puts the wifi output right in the area of reproductive organs. Supposedly they doing this on purpose. But it sounds like a stretch.

@Demolishun Humans need to evolve and have thicker ball skin. Then the problem is solved.

Most wifi signals can't even get past the skin layer.

But balls have thin skin I guess ?

I think also that when using laptops on your lap, wifi would be the least dangerous. But the heat from the laptop itself blasting on your balls would be a bigger concern.

@Grumm I am actually okay with Apple tablet users having less kids...

@Demolishun tablets aren‘t usually resting on the laps. Laptops do :)

Apple is just caring about humanity by avoiding overpopulation :)

@Lensflare if there are tablets, then where are the spacelets? That is the true question right there.

@Demolishun you stack 4 spacelets, you get one tablet. You just never see spacelets in the wild because no one in their right mind would ever prefer spacelets to tablets.

@Lensflare now I want a product called Spacelets. The tag line could be "Spacelet, like a tablet, but has features for REAL programmers."