In the digital era of the 21st century, we are not exposed to one Wi-Fi transmitter antenna. One typical office place or school classroom might have dozens of radiation streams from dozens of transmitting antennas: 30 laptops, 30 cell phones, a wireless printer, a wireless security system, an overhead internet access point and a cell tower located in line of sight outside the window.

You enter a mall and you’re exposed to multiple sources of wireless devices and antennas around you.

Do I Need to Worry About Radiation From WiFi and Bluetooth Devices?

Here’s what is known about the potential risk from routers and wireless devices

As of 2011, radiofrequency (RF) radiation is classified as a Group 2B Possible Human Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer at the WHO.

There is a large number of studies establishing a concern that exposure to even low level electromagnetic fields causes adverse health effects. Studies showing possible health effects, that are corroborated as more research is done.

In 2018, the US National Toxicology Program embarked on an ambitious a 10-year, $25 million government study in rodents. It provided evidence that wireless radiation can cause cancer—but the abrupt termination of the study left a lot of key questions unanswered.

Professor James Lin from the University of Illinois in Chicago discussed the US National Toxicology Program’s (NTP’s) decision to close its radiation research program and what that means for us all.

‘In 2018, NTP published the final report on its US$30 million laboratory research showing “clear evidence” that lifelong exposure to low-level RF radiation caused cancers in rats.
‘The statistically significant findings showed that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated 900-MHz RF radiation had led to the development of malignant schwannoma, a rare form of tumor in the hearts of male rats. Furthermore, an independent analysis of the NTP data for overall cancer incidence detected in any organ or tissue inside the animal showed that rats exposed to GSM and CDMA cellphone RF radiation had significantly higher overall or total primary tumor incidence than the concurrent controls.’

Just recently, in 2023, the NTP declared on its 2023 fact sheet that it would perform follow-up studies on the effects found in the long term animal studies.

So what happened?

Have the follow-up studies been completed already?

Working with Swiss national engineering and U.S. government experts, the NTP had devised small-scale systems for exposing animals experimentally to controlled levels of wireless radiation.

Yet results from these exposure systems have neither been publicly shared nor published.

You can learn more about the NTP cellphone study in another post.

What Are the Existing Standards on Wireless Digital Technology (Radiofrequency Radiation)?

There Are No Safety Standards.

There are no national or international bodies who have “standards” for safe levels of the radiation emitted by wireless or microwave devices.

It is important to know that different countries have different standards and approaches to the current thermal (heat) RF exposure standards. The biologically toxic (oxidative/membrane) RF exposure levels, shown to produce harm at non-thermal levels.

This is an alarming concern as many countries rush towards 5G (i.e., device to device in the Internet of Things).[2]

So we are clear that nobody is watching out on your behalf:

Any “safety standard” by the telecommunications industry and the Big Tech sector, related industry associations, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, and standards bodies such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) are focused exclusively on thermal effects ONLY.

This means “standards” are pushed to whether you get literally burnt or fried. Any non-thermal biological effects are either ignored or denied.

Different Countries Have Different Exposure Standards

However, in just the last 20 years, more than 20 position papers and resolutions regarding EMF and health have been adopted by esteemed EMF researchers and physicians.

Building Biology Standards

Standards for EMF exposure in Building Biology is based on the precautionary principle and lowest biological harm for sleeping areas. It is informed by reports by the BioInitiative Working Group. In August 2007 and December 2012, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of 29 experts with different competences, published two groundbreaking reports “BioInitiative 2007/resp. 2012 – A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)” edited by Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, calling for preventive measures against EMF exposure based on the available scientific evidence.

The BioInitiative report 2012 includes sections on the evidence for effects on: gene and protein expression, DNA, immune function, neurology and behavior, blood-brain barrier, brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, childhood leukemia, melatonin, Alzheimer’s disease, breast cancer, fertility and reproduction, fetal and neonatal disorders, autism.

Now let’s have a look at some of these new actions:

In Europe, the EU in its Council Recommendation of 1999 adopted the ICNIRP recommendations. However, this does not consider long-term non-thermal effects. It also does not consider non-thermal bio effects.

Many individual EU countries are choosing stricter regulations against wireless radiation levels.

Austria

has one of the strictest standards. Since 2007, the Highest Health Council of the Ministry of Health in Austria has recommended to take preventive action by reducing exposure levels from RF devices of at least a factor of 100 below the guideline levels of the European Commission!

South Korea

In Korea, you will find many websites for public and nonpublic institutions that provide information aiming to improve public awareness and EMF knowledge [19-22]. This information includes large amounts of data on human limitation levels, EMF measurements of electronic products, base station information, general safety guidelines, and false beliefs.

France

The first low-EMF zone was established at Drôme, France in July 2009.[10]

After two long years of debate, on January 29th 2015, France adopted a law which limits the spread of WiFi radiation and establishes basic rules of precautionary principle related to health risks from radio frequency waves.

It also promises a fine of 75 000 Euros if any cell phone advertisement fails to mention recommended use of EMF protection products.

On 8 July 8, 2015, a court in Toulouse, France, ruled in favor of a woman with the diagnosis “syndrome of hypersensitivity to electromagnetic radiation” and determined her disability to be 85% with substantial and lasting restrictions on access to employment.[9]

Italy

The Italian Supreme Court confirmed a previous decision by the Civil Court of Appeals of Brescia (no. 614 of 10 December 2009) that ruled that the National Institute for Workmen’s Compensation (INAIL) must compensate a worker who had developed a tumor in the head due to long-term, heavy use of mobile phones while on the job.[11]

Russia

Russia set strict standards and has not loosened these. In contrast to the ICNIRP guidelines, the Russian safety standards, are based on non-thermal RF effects, which were obtained by several research institutes in the former Soviet Union during decades of studies on chronic exposures to RF. It is interesting to find that Russian researchers looked at RFR exposures and immune dysfunction over 2 decades ago and because of these robust studies which were replicated in 2006-2009 they set their upper limit of RFR at 10 μW/cm2.

Canada

EMF Exposure Guidelines in Canada are under the jurisdiction of Health Canada who has not independently established guidelines for magnetic field or electric field exposure. When pressed, they will state that Canada follows the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection “ICNIRP” guidelines of 830 mG or 83,000 nT (Magnetic Field) or 5000 V/m (Electric Field) for a 24-hr period. Since these guidelines are based on short-term acute exposure we still do not have guidelines that protect the public from long-term low level exposure.

The Canadian Teachers' Federation (which represents over 200,000 teachers across Canada (2013)) recommends “prudent use of Wi-Fi” whenever possible including the recommendation to limit consistent exposure in schools by turning off wireless access points when not in use.

The Elementary Teacher's Federation of Ontario - over 76,000 teachers (2013) adopted resolutions:
"That ETFO study the impact of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, including the possible implications for schools and members, with a report with recommendations.

The British Columbia Teachers' Federation (41,000 public school teachers (2013) adopted resolution to protect teachers' health: "The BCTF supports members who are suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity by ensuring that their medical needs are accommodated in the workplace."

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association - 37,000 teachers (2012) recommends pulling plug on Wi-Fi in schools, schools should practice “prudent avoidance of exposure” given the mounting evidence against WiFi exposure especially on children.

May of 2012: To accommodate children with EHS and to provide choice for parents who want to heed health warnings to reduce exposure for children who are most vulnerable, the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils (BCCPAC) called for a moratorium on Wi-Fi in schools, and for a minimum of one school in each district at each level to be free of Wi-Fi.

What Are Your Personal Standards against Wireless Radiation?

How often do you use WIFI hot spots? Regular surveys often find many places where the level of public exposure substantially succeeds that generally observed at the national scale.
While, say the National Frequency Agency (AFNR) in France in this moment considers a hotspot to be atypical if the levels of radiation exceed 6 V/m (9.5 µW/cm2). It is not uncommon that WiFi radiation on hotspot peaks above 10 V/m. It takes time for network operators, often some months, before an excessive hotspot is recalibrated.

Do you set clear boundaries against wireless radiation in your home?
From nurseries and daycare centers are common places that ban wireless devices; this is where very small children under 3 yrs spend their time. Do you permit wireless devices for “digital educational activities” and “lifestyle and entertainment”? Otherwise, wireless access to internet can be disabled, eliminating one common source of high levels of wireless radiation.
Are you aware of the EMF-spreading installation (antennas, towers etc)?
Any such installation typically has to first approved by local government, because it may breach location rules, if indeed the area has any. Installers typically must submit necessary documentation about EM fields it will create and emit. This information may not be available to the public, however. In fact, the entire process may be obscured. This means it is up to you, the individual, to be able to detect, measure, and mitigate against EMFs in your environment.
Do you use EMF protection? And are you regularly up to date on the various types of EMF product quality? For example, the most common products promise they reduce exposure of the head to wireless radiation from mobile device.
If you have children, do you consider their more vulnerable needs? EMF protection products for kids consider their lower body weight to mass ratio.

Are you concerned about the levels of electromagnetic pollution in your home? Do you work with wireless devices? Check out my full guide to the regulations that institutions are enacting in response to citizens’ concern around the world.

For a full list of EMR exposure guidelines go here

References

1. http://www.safeinschool.org/
5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them. (2018) Martin L. Pall, PhD. Discusses SCENIHR and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection – ICNIRP, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) Guidelines for RFR and robust scientific literature on adverse health effects which are both considered and not considered in their deliberations. https://einarflydal.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pall-to-eu-on-5g-harm-march-2018.pdf
2. Oberfeld G. Precaution in Action – Global Public Health Advice Following BioInitiative 2007. In Sage C, Carpenter DO, editors. BioInitiative Report 2012: A Rationale for a Biologically based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), 2012. Available at: http://www.bioinitiative.org.
3. Havas M. International expert’s Perspective on the Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and ElectromagneticRadiation (EMR) [Internet]. Peterborough, ON, (CD): 2011 June
11 (updated 2014 July). Available at: http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts-perspective-on-the-health-effects-ofelectromagnetic-fields-emf-and-electromagnetic-radiation-emr/.
x. https://ehtrust.org/singapore-policy-recommendations-cell-phones-wireless-radiation-health/; https://www.imda.gov.sg/user-and-set-up-guides/mobile-and-broadband/mobile-phone-base-stations-and-radiofrequency-radiation
[9] Première reconnaissance d’un handicap dû à l’électrosensibilité en France. Le Monde fr avec AFP | 25.08.2015. Available at: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2015/08/25/premiere-reconnaissance-en-justice-d-unhandicap-u-a-l-electrosensibilite_4736299_3244.html.
10. Abelous D. France has its first radiation-free refuge in the Drome [Internet]. EURRE/Drome (FR): Agence France Presse (AFP), 2009 Oct 9. Available at: http://www.next-up.org/pdf/AFP_France_has_its_first_radiation_free_refuge_in_the_Drome_09_10_2009.pdf.
19. Seoul (Korea): EMF; c2005. Electromagnetic field (EMF) [Internet] [cited 2019 Oct 5]. Available from: http://www.emf.or.kr/ [Google Scholar] [Ref list]
Naju (Korea): Korea Electric Power Corporation; c2019. Korea Electric Power Corporation [Internet] [cited 2019 Oct 10]. Available from: http://home.kepco.co.kr/kepco/KO/D/A/KODAPP001.do?menuCd=FN050401/ [Google Scholar] [Ref list]