
Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health - onoj
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355
======
bigodbiel
posted before and flagged

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17338109](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17338109)

~~~
onoj
my apologies I did not see the previous post - I wanted to review what this
article suggests is correct and incorrect Wi-Fi testing.

This article states that many previous studies tested: (from the article)

It uses a large chamber surrounded by 1 mm aluminum mesh wire mesh to provide
reflections of the EMFs. The chamber in which animals are exposed on a
platform at its center, is also surrounded by antennae in all 6 directions
(up, down, all four horizontal directions) such that each antenna is
broadcasting with one polarization is opposed (at 180°) by another
broadcasting with the 180° opposite polarization, as well as by four other
antennae, broadcasting with 90° different polarization in each of the four
possible directions. This produces a field that is more like a non-polarized
EMF rather than the usual polarized artificial EMF"

is this a fair test of modulated polarized Wi-Fi?

~~~
onoj
the second group of papers mentioned in the article was commented on as
follows:

"Laudisi et al. (2012) used a different exposure system, that of Ardoino et
al. (2005) where the vast majority of the exposure is produced from
reflections off a long cylindrical surface in a TEM cell, where the curvature
of the cylinder will also produce a largely non-polarized EMF and different
reverberation paths and consequent destructive interference, may both be
expected to occur. Consequently the predicted low biological activity of EMFs
produced by the Wu et al. (2009) system may be expected to also occur from
this TEM exposure system Ardoino et al. (2005). It is not possible to study
biological effects of EMFs from Wi-Fi, cell phones or any other important
exposures using such exposure systems because of the polarization changes they
produce from the original polarized EMFs and because of destructive
interference."

------
JunkDNA
Time for an old favorite:

[http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations](http://tylervigen.com/spurious-
correlations)

------
lbj
Having read a number of these studies, incl those done on cellular masts, its
concerning. An early warning was a connection between digital signals (incl
wifi) and baby-sleeping patterns where babies reliably cried more at night if
a digital signal was present, but this touches on so many factors that Im
tempted to cut all wifi while they finish their studies.

------
totallyashill
Can I get an ELI5 summary?

~~~
robertAngst
Guy read a bunch of papers, combined them into one big paper, and claims
electromagnetic radiation (in the Wifi range) is bad.

There is no new data here, only a combination of old data.

~~~
onoj
The last section of the article is a systemic analysis of articles that did
not find any effect and analysis as to why.

------
gabrielgrant
It's interesting how concerns around the long-term effects of EMF exposure
that we heard about fairly frequently in the early days of widespread cell
phone usage seem to have virtually disappeared from the public consciousness,
despite, AFAICT, not really ever being answered. Meanwhile usage, power
output, and proximity (BT headphones, ie. RF transmitters _in_ your head for
hours at a time?) are all increasing.

Much of the research (and the FCC's regulatory regime) has traditionally used
a model based on cell PHONE usage ie testing for effects of relatively short
periods of exposure, with the phone beside the head, where the skull acts as a
shield[1]. But these assumptions aren't applicable to smartphone usage today,
where 90% of people under 35 have been sleeping with their phones for
years[2], and most usage involves the screen in front of the face, where there
are large areas of only soft tissue (eyes & nasal cavity) between the device
and your brain.

Furthermore, most testing largely centers around Specific Absorption Rate
(SAR), which is basically concerned with the question of power (ie heat)
transmitted to the body (basically "are the microwaves cooking your?").
"Cooking" is a fairly well-understood process, and tissue's ability to
dissipate heat can be fairly easily modeled to ensure exposure stays within a
safe range. But several of the concerns this meta-analysis points to have a
dose-response curve is not so simple or clearly understood, meaning the
effects could well occur, even within the usage patterns deemed "safe" on a
SAR basis (their language is actually stronger, claiming these "should be
considered [...] established effects of Wi-Fi")

All that being said, I don't see this as a definitive answer that our current
exposure levels of RF radiation are necessarily harmful, but I have definitely
wondered whether our (grand)children's generation will look back at images of
us staring at our screens the way we look at images of our parents' generation
frolicking in clouds of DDT[3] (I've also wondered this a more often about
spray-on sunscreen ads[4], but that's a whole other rant)

\----

[1]: Most industry recommendations make the laughable assumption that the
phone is not even in contact with the body. Manufacturers basically threw a
shit-fit when Berkeley started trying to inform people that most "normal",
against-the-body usage was likely outside of what FCC exposure guidelines test
for: [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/berkeleys-
cellph...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/berkeleys-cellphone-
radiation-warning-law-will-stand-appeals-court-finds/)

[2]: [https://www.businessinsider.com/90-of-18-29-year-olds-
sleep-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/90-of-18-29-year-olds-sleep-with-
their-smartphones-2012-11)

[3]: [https://youtu.be/mX6fQLrueW0?t=14](https://youtu.be/mX6fQLrueW0?t=14)

[4]: [https://youtu.be/m0WH-xb6Htw?t=6](https://youtu.be/m0WH-xb6Htw?t=6)

------
mml
TL;DR: No it isn’t

~~~
onoj
I would appreciate you pointing me to comprehensive articles that have a null
result ("n" greater than 100 would be good)

~~~
JunkDNA
And here we get into perverse incentives in scientific research distorting
what you see. Public health agencies generally care more if there is a threat
to public health. So if you are a researcher looking for grant $$$ over the
long term, repeatedly not finding a link between WiFi and health makes you
uninteresting to funding agencies. Note that I’m not suggesting nefarious
intent, it’s more bias than anything else.

For purely scientific pursuits the “other camp” on any given issue often has a
voice. Unfortunately in this situation, the other camp is largely made up of
industry folks. They are happy to fund your research that finds no link as
many times as you want. The cost to you as a researcher is being labeled an
industry shill. The problem here is sometimes people are industry shills. So
separating the good from the bad is nontrivial. This problem is pervasive in
scientific research and solutions are non-obvious. Never forget that humans
are biased creatures and scientists are not magical. They carry all the same
baggage the rest of us do. Many are self aware enough to know it. But doing
something about it is quite hard.

