Why you shouldn’t worry about radiation from your Wi-Fi router or iPhone

“There’s a lot of bad ‘science’ floating around about radio frequency and electromagnetic field exposure from Wi-Fi routers and the wireless network that your iPhone accesses. AppleInsider delves into the subject, and the actual science behind it,” Mike Wuerthele writes for AppleInsider. “First and foremost, RF radiation is not the same as ionizing radiation generated by decay of radioactive isotopes, and from the sun itself. This isn’t Radiation Physics 101 in 1000 words, so in short, RF lacks the energy that ionizing radiation has to break chemical bonds, ionize atoms, and damage DNA.”

“Sufficiently high levels of RF radiation can heat tissue and could theoretically cause tissue damage. But, these levels aren’t reachable by the public, assuming safety standards are maintained, and the only people that need to be worried about them are generally workers in extremely close proximity to a transmitter,” Wuerthele writes. “Without delving into a basic physics lesson about time, distance, shielding, and wavelengths, that microwave in your kitchen is probably 700W. It is focused on the area below the emitter, and shielded by the microwave’s structure itself. That Wi-Fi router that’s in your house? It is probably a single watt, with that entire watt diffused over the entire broadcast area.”

“And regarding your cell phone? That’s really no different,” Wuerthele writes. “The combination of the frequency, the fact that it’s not broadcasting at full power constantly, and the low levels of emissions do not produce any noticeable heating effects at all. So, as a result there are no known adverse health effects.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Don’t worry, be happy!

As Wuerthele writes: “To put things in perspective, you are in far, far more danger from a lifetime exposure to the ionizing radiation produced by the radon gas in your basement or from getting cancer from sun exposure, than you are from living in the same neighborhood as a cell tower, with twenty Wi-Fi routers surrounding your chair, and actively talking to somebody on 5G on your iPhone with it velcroed to your head for that whole life. And, the risk from the radon-laden basement is relatively low.”

Health officials: Cellphone radiation could increase risk for brain cancer and tumors, low sperm count, headaches, impaired memory, hearing, and sleep – December 15, 2017
‘Game-changing’ study links cellphone radiation to cancer – May 27, 2016
Study claims cellphone radiation can cause cancer – July 31, 2015
U.S. watchdog calls for regulators to review of cell phone radiation rules – August 8, 2012
FCC’s Genachowski looks to open new inquiry into cellphone radiation emissions – June 16, 2012
New research doubts link between cellphones and cancer – July 5, 2011


          1. I very much doubt that. If it really was DED, the post would have been a 3000 word rant with lots of big words well beyond the average reading age here.
            The expressed sentiment is true.

    1. Nope. It’s because the standards developed for WiFi call for such low power and such (I’m a wireless analyst) that energies transmitted through space are negligible.

  1. Please ignore the iPhone usage instructions about keeping the iPhone away from your head. And wait 20 year to see al the head cancers being generated today by the millennials and younger – oh wait, brain tumors are already on the increase. We don’t have to wait 20 years for “empirical evidence”. Oh yes, please ignore the red book financed and published (no longer in print) by Bonneville Power about dirty electricity all around us. And ignore all those (group increasing) who are electrically sensitive and have to live in protected conditions and wear protective clothing due to their sensitivity.

    1. Having no idea what evidence there might be about the possible increase in the number of brain tumors, I looked around a bit and it does not seem to be true. As an example, the article below by a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine (last December) indicates there is no evidence of an increase in gliomas or other brain cancers.


    2. Although I disagree with your inferences, there is enough empirical evidence with the existence and state of today’s democrat party to warrant more research.

  2. Have long-term, cumulative, double-blind experiments/tests been made by non-corporate scientists, you know, real scientists?
    1. Long-term
    2. Cumulative
    3. Double-blind

    And the logical fallacy in the article is to excuse the absorption of low level RF radiation from gadgets just because the body is already getting irradiated from other, non-gadgetary sources. The idea is that just a little more will not make a difference. No. That’s not how unbiased science works.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.